Chennai Court December 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
G.A. Sundara Aiyar Vs. Arumugham Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ361
Krishnan, J.1. I think the amendment was properly allowed in this case. There is nothing to show that the claim based on the original debt is barred by limitation. That is a matter to be decided in the suit. If it is barred the suit will no doubt be dismissed. There is no reason why a claim for money due, based on the original loan or dealings should not be combined with a claim for the same money as due under a pro-note in case there is any difficulty in enforcing the note, the party is entitled to fall back on the original consideration. See Dug-gempudi Nagamma v. Peda Venkatareddi (1920) 12 L.W. 147. The two causes of action in such a case are not so distinct as the claim which their Lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with in Ma Shwe Mya v. Mating Mo Hnaung I.L.R. (1921) C 832. Their Lordships' language has to be taken with the facts of the case they were dealing with. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs....
C.L. Kalyanasundaram Aiyar Vs. S. Narasimha Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad567; (1923)44MLJ427
1. The Subordinate Judge rightly was of opinion that the appellant's attachment of the decree obtained by the Receiver in O.S. No. 113 of 1919 was invalid for want of the leave of the court that appointed the Receiver. We accept the principle that an act done without the Court's Section to proceed against a Receiver could subsequently be validated as has been held by this Court in Ammu Kntty v. Manavikraman I.L.R. (1920) M. 793 and Jagana Sanyasiah v. Atchanna Naidu : AIR1921Mad624 and by the Calcutta High Court in Banku Behari Dey v. Harendra Nath Mukerjee (1910) 15 C.W.N. 54 and Sarat Chandra Bauerjee v. Apurba Krishna Roy (1911) 15 C.W.N.925 .2. But in this case no step had been taken to validate the irregular attachment by the time that the Receiver assigned his interest as decree-holder to the innocent purchaser who is 1st respondent in this appeal, and therefore the appellant's right as an attaching creditor cannot be allowed to prevail over the rights of a bona fide transferee f...
W.A. Varadachariar Vs. Raja Ramakrishnamba Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad497; 76Ind.Cas.781; (1923)44MLJ367
ORDERSpencer J.1. This is an appeal preferred by a guardian of minor's property appointed under the Guardian and Wards Act. The objection taken by him to the District Judge's order is that the District Court had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the appellant in respect of certain trust property of which the Karwetnagar Zamindars have been regarded as hereditary trustees. This estate was for some time under the management of the Court of Wards, and, upon the withdrawal of the Court of Wards' management, under Section 59 of the Court of Wards Act, the guardian appointed under that Act was made subject to the same rights, duties and liabilities as if he had been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act. The Guardians and Wards Act contains no provision empowering the Guardians appointed under that Act to deal with trust properties. Section 63 of the Court of Wards Act contains a special provision by which the Court of Wards is empowered to make arangements for the discharge of th...
A.R.R.M.N. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Kadiraya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad351; 72Ind.Cas.337; (1923)44MLJ320
ORDER1. This is an application for the grant of a sanction, which was originally granted by the Subordinate Judge, but was revoked by the District Judge.2. The first question raised is whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to pass his order of revocation. That question must be answered with reference to the terms of Section 195(7)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is argued that this provision is not applicable or, if it is applicable, that the only Court competent to revoke the Sub-Judge's sanction was the High Court.3. That argument is based on the consideration that the Subordinate Judge's sanction was itself given in the exercise of his Appellate Jurisdiction, because the matter had arisen in proceedings before the District Munsif, who had in the first instance refused sanction. We cannot see how with reference to the terms of Section 195(7)(a) the nature of the sanction proceedings is material, the only question under that provision being of the Court, to which appeals g...
G.A. Sundara Iyer Vs. Arumugam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad520; 72Ind.Cas.325
Krishnan, J.1. I think the amendment was properly allowed in this case. There is nothing to show that the claim based on the original debt is barred by limitation. That is a matter to be decided in the suit. If it is barred, the suit will no doubt be dismissed. There is no reason why a claim for money due based on the original loan or dealings should not be combined with a claim for the same money as due under a pro-note; in case there is any difficulty in enforcing the note, the party is entitled to fall back on the original consideration. See Duggempudi Nagamma v. Tirumala Reddi 12 L.W. 147. The two causes of action in such a case are not so distinct as the claim which their lordships of the Privy Council were dealing with in Ma Shwe Mya v. Mating Mo Hnaung : (1921) M.W.N. 396 : 4 U.B.R. (1921) 30 : 30 M.L.T. 28 : 24 Bom. L.R. 682 : A.I.R. (1922) (P.C.) 249 . Their Lordships' language has to be dealing with. The civil revision petition fails anrl is dismissed with costs....
K. Krishna Row Vs. P.S. Seshasubramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad688; 76Ind.Cas.869
William Ayling, J.1. This is a revision petition againast 0n order of the. Additional District. Magistrate of Tanjore directing, stay, of. proceedings in a criminal case before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tanjore, who had previously, on application made to him, declined to stay the trial of the case.2. The Additional District Magistrate says that his jurisdiction to pass the. stay order-was not questioned in argument before him. But Mr. Richmond now; definitely raises the question, and I think: it must not only be determined, but decided in his favour. Neither the learned Public Prosecutor nor the learned Vakil for the. respondent accused, in the case can point out to any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which would give tie District Magistrate the power to stay proceedings in a Criminal Court subordinate to him and it would appear that this Court's power to pass such an order can only be exercised under the general powers of superintendence.3. [Vide Raj Kumari Debi v. ...
C.L. Kalyanasunadaram Aiyar Vs. S. Narasimha Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.456
1. The Subordinate Judge was tightly of opinion that the appellant's attachment of the decree obtained by the Receiver in Original Suit No. 113 of 1919 was invalid for want of the leave of the Court that appointed the Receiver. We accept the principle that an act done without the Court's sanction to proceed against a Receiver could subsequently be validated, as has been held by this Court in Karooth Parakote Ammukutty v. Manavikraman 59 Ind. Cas. 568 and Jangana Sanyasiah v. Mycherla Peda Atchanna 70 Ind. Cas. 759 :15 L.W. 289 : 42 M.L.J. 339, and by the Calcutta High Court in Banku Behary Dey v. Harendra Nath Mukherjee 8 Ind. Cas. 1 : 15 C.W.N. 54 and Sarat Chandra Banerjes v. Apurba Krishna Roy 14 C.L.J. 55 respectively.2. But in this case no step had been taken to validate the irregular attachment by the time that the Receiver assigned his interest as decree-holder to the innocent purchaser, who is 1st respondent in this appeal, and, therefore, the appellant's right as an attaching ...
In Re: Kuppusamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ231
ORDER1. In this case we are asked to exercise our powers of revision and to set aside what is referred to as an order by the 3rd Class Magistrate of Cheyyur Taluq, holding that he has no jurisdiction to go on with a case and rejecting the petition from the accused, petitioners here, for discontinuance of the proceedings on a complaint pending against them. We are not clear what section of the Criminal Procedure Code authorized the passing of a formal order at the stage in question or that it was necessary or advisable that such an order should be passed. If the Magistrate proceeded without jurisdiction, that would be a ground for appeal, which could be dealt with by the appellate Court in case the proceedings ended in conviction. As however the matter is before us, we deal with it on the merits.2. The case against the accused was instituted on a charge sheet alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Section 55 of the Abkari Act 1 of 1866. It is sufficient for our purpo...
Yadavalli Tripuramba (Dead) and anr. Vs. Yadavalli Venkataratnam (Dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ349
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The facts of this case are, one Venkata Somayajulu died leaving a widow and a son, Subbanna Sastri. The son died 26 years ago unmarried at the age of 25. In 1913, the widow adopted the second' defendant with the consent of the sapindas as the son of her late husband. The question to be decided is whether this adoption is good or bad.2. That a Hindu widow can adopt a son in order to carry on the line and provide for the due performance of the obsequies of her husband, either with the authority of the husband or with the consent of the husband's sapindas, is well established in this Presidency. It is also well established that this power of adoption can be exercised on the death of a son or adopted son, as often as occasion arises: but it is also established that there is some limit to the exercise of this power and that it can become exhausted. It is argued in this case that the limit is reached as soon as a son, natural or adopted, either marries or a...
Zadavalli Tripuramba (Dead) and anr. Vs. Zadavalli Venkataratnam (Dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1922
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.278
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The facts of this case are, one Venkatasomayajalu died leaving a widow and a son, Subbanna Sastri. The son died 26 years ago unmarried at the age of 25. In 1913, the widow adopted the second defendant with the consent of the sapindas as the son of her late husband. The question to be decided is whether this adoption is good or bad.2. That a Hindu widow can adopt a son in order to carry on the line and provide for the due performance of the obsequies of her husband either with the authority of the husband or with consent of the husband's sapindas, is well-established in this Presidency. It is also well-established that this power of adoption can be exercised on the death of a son or adopted son, as often as occasion arises, but it is also established that there is some limit to the exercise of this power and that it can become exhausted. It is argued in this case that the limit is reached as soon as a son, natural or adopted, either marries or attains an age, whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »