Chennai Court April 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.
A. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. D.P. Ramaswamy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad481; 73Ind.Cas.478; (1922)43MLJ363
Walter Salis Schwabe Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The first plaintiff's father having a decree against the owners of some house property in Madras, brought that property to sale in execution. Without obtaining the leave of the court to bid, he bought it himself using for that purpose the joint family money, and, in order to conceal this fraud on the court, he bought it in the name of the sixth defendant. This is the case of the plaintiffs, and of some of the defendants. That has been found by the learned judge, who saw the witnesses and examined the facts obviously with the greatest care, to be the truth, and I can find no ground for interfering with that finding of fact.2. The first plaintiff with his sons, the second and the third plaintiffs, joining as defendants the other members of the joint family has brought this suit for partition and he claims that part of the joint family property to be brought in and divided in the partition consists of this house property standing in the name of the s...
Kandasami Iyer and anr. Vs. Sivachidambaram Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad209; 70Ind.Cas.598
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by three plaintiffs, under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, after obtaining sanction of the Advocate General. It relates to certain kattalais in the temple of Sri Mulanadaswami of Poovalur within the Trichinopoly District. One Annavu Chetti was admittedly managing the kattalais till his death in December 1909. He left a Will (Exhibit X, dated 17th November 1893) by which he appointed the defendants to manage the kattalais besides leaving other directions. The present suit was instituted on the ground that the defendants ate not legally constituted trustees of the suit kattalais. The Subordinate Judge finding that the defendants are the hereditary trustees and that the charges of misconduct alleged against them have not been made out framed a scheme. The plaintiffs appeal. The first and most important point that arises in the appeal is the subject of the 8th issue. On this issue, the plaintiffs' case is that the Vellan Chetti commu...
Maruthayee and ors. Vs. Appavu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad237; 72Ind.Cas.892
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. In this case the petitioners seek to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Aruppukottai who-convicted them under Section 448 and passed an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was upheld and the order under Section 522 was left undisturbed. This revision petition has been admitted only as regards the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mr. Pamabhadra Ayyar for the petitioners has addressed a very elaborate argument as regards the question whether an order under Section 522 could be passed when dispossession was not caused by the use of criminal force to any person in possession of the property, and he contended that in this case the complainant was riot dispossessed of the property by the use of criminal force and, therefore, the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code. Without expressing any opinion; on the question of law raised, it...
T. Ramaswami Aiyar Vs. T. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.804
Francis Oldfield , J.1. The first issue remanded relates to the properties in the possession of 2nd defendant. Some attempt has been made to argue that certain properties to be referred to as mortgaged items, have since their delivery to plaintiff, to which reference will be made, been re-gained by 2nd defendant, wholly or in part. But that rests only on references to allegations to that effect in the Subordinate Judge's order on Execution Petition No. 154 of 1919 and Execution Appeal No. 194 of 1920 on which no finding was reached, and is not supported by any evidence taken, on the remand.2. In fact, there is no indication that this matter was ever submitted to the lower, Court at the remand hearing or had been mentioned to the learned Judges, by whom the remand was ordered. Similarly, as regards the suggestion that some properties were for a time in the possession of the father of plaintiff and 2nd defendant after the institution of the suit. No other objection to the finding on the ...
The Administrator General Vs. V.V. Ramiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ347
Walter Salis Schwabe Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The question is whether for the purpose of arriving at the amount of commission payable to the Administrator Genera] in the administration of an interstate estate in cases where the administration commenced before April 1914, the value of the assets is to be taken at the date of their collection or at the date of their distribution.2. By the Act of 1913, the fees, whether by percentage or otherwise, to be charged in respect of the duties of the Administrator-General are those that may be prescribed by the Government provided that in respect of estates the administration of which commenced before the Act, the fees prescribed are not to exceed the fees leviable in respect of such an estate under the Act of 1874, which had been in force down to that date, and which was by that Act repealed. The word 'prescribed in that section means 'prescribed by rules issued by the Government.' So far as Madras is concerned, rules have been issued by Government in ...
Konnammal and anr. Vs. Annadana Jadaya Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad204; 70Ind.Cas.586
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an application by the residents (in the appeal) that appellant should be directed to give security for the (sic) already incurred and the costs (sic) are likely to be incurred. On behalf the appellants the chief fact that had been relied upon in resisting the applied is his poverty. Mr. T.M. Krishnswami Aiyar has argued that in view of the fact that his client is not in a position pay the costs that have been incurred, order should be made directing him to furnish security as such an order would practically have the effect of putting an end to the appeal. Various cases have been cited which have attempted to interpret Order XLI, Rule 10, and the corresponding provision in the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. But I do not think any decision that has been cited to me has laid down any hard and fast rule in regard to the exercise of judicial discretion. Reference has been made to the corresponding provision of the Supreme Court Rules and a good deal of arg...
Budaraju Hanumantha Rao Vs. Allamneni Krishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.329
Spencer, J.1. In Original Suit No. 16 of 1905 on the file of the District Court of Guntur a joint mortgage decree for Rs. 12,000 was passed in favour of two co-plaintiffs. The 2nd decree-holder (4th respondent) transferred his interest in the decree to respondents Nos. 1 and 3 who applied to the Court for recognition of the transfer which, in the absence of opposition, was ordered. An application for execution of a joint decree by a transferee of the interest of one decree-holder has to be made under Order XXI, Rule 16 (Section 232 of the Code of 1882), and the. Court ordinarily imposes conditions for the protection of the interests of the judgment-debtors and the other decree-holder.2. In this case, before the transfer was effected, there was a settlement, alleged to have taken place out of Court by means of a sale of the equity of redemption to a brother of the 2nd decree-holder, and a mortgage for Rs. 9,000 in favour of the first decree-holder.3. The respondents were permitted to ex...
The Administrator-general Vs. V.V. Ramiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.182
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The question is whether, for the purpose of arriving at the amount of commission payable to the Administrator-General in the administration of an intestate estate in cases where the administration commenced before April 1914, the value of the assets is to be taken at the date of their collection or at the date of their distribution.2. By the Act of 1913, the fees, whether by percentage or otherwise, to be charged in respect of the duties of the Administrator-General are those that may be prescribed by the Government provided that in respect of estates the administration of which commenced before the Act, the fees prescribed are not to exceed the fees leviable in respect of such, an estate under the Act of 1874, which had been in force down to that date, and which was by that Act repealed. The word 'prescribed', in that section means 'prescribed by rules issued by the Government.' So far as Madras is concerned, rules have been issued by Government in 1916, Rule II...
B. Hanumantha Raw and ors. Vs. A. Krishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad518
Spencer, J.1. O.S No. 16 of T905 on the file of the District Court of Guntur a joint mortgage decree for Rs. 12,000 was passed in favour of two co-plaintiffs. The 2nd decree-holder (4th respondent) transferred his interest in the decree to respondents 1 and 3 who applied to the Court for recognition of the transfer which, in the absence of opposition, was ordered. An application for execution of a joint decree by a transferee of the interest of one decree-holder has to be made under Order 21, Rule 16 (Section 232 of the Code of 1882), and the Court ordinarily imposes conditions for the protection of the interests of the judgment-debtors and the other decree-holders.2. In this case before the transfer was effected there was a settlement alleged to have taken place out of Court by means of a sale of the equity of redemption to a brother of the 2nd decree-holder and a mortgage for Rs. 9,000 in favour of the 1st decree-holder.3. The respondents were permitted to execute the decree as if th...
Malayath Veetil Raman and ors. Vs. C. Krishnan Nambudripad (Dead) and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad505; (1922)43MLJ354
Walter Salis Schwabe Kt., K.C., C.J.1. The District Munsif held in this suit that the true construction of a service grant was clear and that evidence of the consideration for that grant and of whether services were in fact rendered or not was irrelevant. On appeal, the Subordinate judge took a different view of the construction of the grant and held that such evidence was relevant. He accordingly remanded the case with that direction to be determined according to law. On appeal to the High Court from that order of remand a preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies, and it was also contended that the Subordinate Judge had no power lo remand the case. The High Court has referred those matters for determination to a Full Bench. The questions are of general interest as they raise points of procedure which have frequently arisen and have resulted in a conflict of judicial decision.2. The right, of appeal is by Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 expressly limited to case...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »