Chennai Court August 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.
Peria Subba Goundan Vs. Sinna Subbayya Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad142; (1923)45MLJ56
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. This dispute is concerning immoveable property and action was taken under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the property and the rival claimant was the seventh counter petitioner. The Magistrate held an enquiry, and under Clause 6 of Section 145 issued an order declaring the respondent to be entitled to possession until evicted in due course of law. The Magistrate has written no judgment and has recorded no findings. The order is short and is in the following terms : '7th Counter-petitioner is declared to be put in possession of the land described hereunder. Fill up schedule form accordingly.'2. Magistrates are apparently supplied with printed forms prepared under the Code for ministerial purposes to suit the requirements of Section 145, and in this instance, one such form was issued. It is in truth, a tamil rendering of form No. 22 of Schedule V of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate has purported to ...
Pothene Puthan Vittil Kunhu Pothu Nassiar Vs. Adrasseri Raru Nair and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad558; (1923)44MLJ527
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother and can add nothing to his reasons for it.Ramesam, J.2. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff obtained on the 31st March, 1914, a decree in Original Suit No. 500 of 1912, against the present defendants 3 and 4 and in execution of the decree attached the suit properties. The defendants 1 and 2 relying on a sale-deed (Exhibit III dated 5th October 1914) preferred a claim objecting to the attachment (M.P. No. 328 of 1918). The claim was allowed on 21st February 1918 (ExhibitA). The present suit was filed on 10th August 1918 for a declaration that the sale under Exhibit III was made with intent to defraud creditors and cannot affect plaintiff's right to attach the properties. On 24th February 1918 (three days after the disposal of the claim petition) the property was purchased from defendants land 2 by defendants 5 and 6 under Exhibit VI. They contend that they ar...
R.A. Arunachala Aiyar Vs. C. Subbaramiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad63; (1922)43MLJ632
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. I have expressed myself on this subject in fairly strong language before and I propose to do so again.2. When for some reason a man has not attended a case in Court and there is no sufficient explanation of his absence, the case, by reason of his absence, is allowed to go exparte. If he comes to Court afterwards and asks that his case may be restored to file, the question to be considered by the Court is not whether by some human possibility, being wise after the event, he could not have got there in time or whether a man who studied his railway guide a little better, would not have got in another train or taken another route, but whether the man honestly intended to be in Court and did his best, though in his own stupid way, to get there in time and once the Court is satisfied as was the fact in this case that the man did try to get there and that he would have got there in time but for the intervention of an inevitable accident for which he was in n...
Bysani Madhava Chettiar, Charity Fund Represented by Its Secretary K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad71; 72Ind.Cas.987
Wallace, J.1. The chief point in this appeal is whether the terms of the suit mortgage document imply and impose a charge on the mortgaged property. The mortgage is not one which will come under the definition of any of the ordinary kinds of mortgage. It is not a simple mortgage because possession of the mortgaged property is given; hence the usual principle that in a simple mortgage interest as well as principal is secured on the property will not prima facie apply. It is not a usufructury mortgage because the rents and profits are not given in lieu of interest; but there is a separate provision fixing the rate of interest and the method by which it is to be recovered, namely, that the rents and profits are to be set off, as far as available, towards the payment of interest. The contingency of an excess of rents and profits over interest or vice versa is specifically contemplated and for the case of deficit, where the whole of the interest is not met from rents and profits, it is prov...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Allu N. Ramachandra Aiyar and ors. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ569
1. The Official Assignee in the insolvency of N.B. Baluswami Ayyar and Narasimha Ayyar brought this suit against the minor sons of N.B. Baluswami Ayyar to set aside a deed of partition executed by that insolvent in favour of his minor sons. The learned Judge Kumaraswami Sastry, J. held that the deed was fraudulent and void as against the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee asked for declarations that the interests of the minors in the property should be vested in him and that the possession of all the properties included in the deed should be delivered to him. These declarations were refused and hence this appeal. It has, however, been admitted before us that the declaration that the shares of the sons had vested was rightly refused and the only question remaining for our decision is whether possession ought to have been ordered to be delivered to the Official Assignee.2. This involves a consideration of the rights of the Official Assignee to joint family property, when the managi...
P.S. Narayana Aiyar Vs. Biyari Bivi Alias Kathun Bivi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ559
1. At the last hearing of this Appeal we held, disagreeing with the lower court, that plaintiff was not entitled to the charge she claimed, because inter alia it was not conferred on her by her decree. Ex. J3. That decree was passed on an award, Ex. J1 but did not in our opinion reproduce the term thereof, by which such a charge as plaintiff set up was created. Plaintiff after our decision induced the court, which passed Ex, J3, to amend it under Section 152, C.P.C. by removal of what in the affidavit filed there is described as a clerical error and to insert words making the provision her case here required. She then moved for a re-hearing of the appeal on review and we allowed it.2. The Advocate General on behalf of 3rd defendant, the appellant, first asked us to postpone the re-hearing, until he had appealed to the Privy Council against our order granting a review. But we pointed out that such an order could not be regarded as final for the purpose of Section 109 C.P.C. and that his...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›