Chennai Court September 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.
Tadepalli Subba Rao Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Balusu Buchi Sarvarayudu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ534
Wallis, C.J.1. These are appeals by the defendants from the preliminary decree and final decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants mortgagees who refused to restore the mortgaged property in spite of the mortgage; debt having been deposited by the plaintiff under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff is the assignee of three-fourths of the mortgagor's interest in item one and the. mortgagees are also found to have become the owners of the equity of redemption in parts of the mortgaged property which were sold for arrears of revenue which had accrued on other property not the subject of the mortgage belonging to the heirs of the deceased mortgagor. The plaintiff impugned the revenue sales and also contended that the purchases were made benami for the mortgagors, but the Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff had failed to establish his case on those points and I agree with my learned brother that in the argument in the Memorandum of Objections we h...
Veerappan Servai and anr. Vs. Mennappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad245; 70Ind.Cas.335
1. The question raised in this appeal before the Subordinate Judge was whether the decree in Original Suit No. 235 of 1914 as well as those in the appeal and second appeal was binding upon the minor plaintiff in this case. If it were so binding, it is not denied that the question based, on his legitimacy or illegitimacy will be res judicata between him and the defendants,2. The Subordinate Judge, however, has accepted the plaintiff's case that in the conduct of Original Suit No. 235 of 1914 his guardian who was his mother was guilty of original negligence and therefore, he held that the decree in that case and its appeal were not binding upon the minor plaintiff.3. The first point taken by Mr. Ananthakrishna Ayyar before us for the appellants (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) is that there is really no evidence to support this finding of negligence. We are unable to agree with that contention. Even though there might be no oral evidence in support of it, the circumstances in which the previous...
Lakshmana Pillai Alias Shanmugham Pillai and anr. Vs. Appalwar Alwar A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad246; 71Ind.Cas.288; (1923)44MLJ77
Oldfield, J.1. Plaintiffs, here respondents on 21-4-21 presented a petition withdrawing their suit. No order was passed on it at once. But on the 29th July 1921 the 2nd plaintiff applied to withdraw from that withdrawal. The lower court in the order I am asked to revise has dismissed the first of these applications as withdrawn and presumably intends to proceed with the trial.2. The argument rejected by the lower court was generally that authority does not recognise a withdrawal from the with drawal of a suit. On general principles there does not seem to be any reason why withdrawal of a withdrawal should not be recognised, if always there is no question of undue perjudice to any other party to the proceedingsArgument here has been based rather on what was implied in the argument before the lower court that the original withdrawal must be regarded as terminating automatically the proceedings in the suit and involving the suit's immediate dismissal; and that therefore at the time when t...
Kowtha Suryanarayana Garu Vs. Yarudala Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad177; 70Ind.Cas.38
Krishnan, J.1. These are three petitions to revise the order of the Additional Deputy Collector, Bezwada, refusing to restore three suits which bad been brought before him for arrears of rent alleged to be due from the defendants to the plaintiff. Ex parte decrees had been passed in these suits originally, but they were set aside at the instance of the defendants and the suits were posted again for hearing. On the date of that hearing the plaintiff's Vakil, and the plaintiff were absent, and so was the agent of the plaintiff, and the suits were dismissed for default. Applications Mere made to restore the cults on the ground, that the default, by non-appearance was, accidental and not due to any wilful negligence on the art of the plaintiff. The Additional Deputy collector, after having given notice to the other side and having heard the Vakils of other parties, dismissed the applications without considering whether any proper round had been made out or not for the absence of the plaint...
Nandigam Gangayya Vs. Madupalli Venkataramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ80
Krishnan, J.1. This case arises from an application put in by the appellant before us to exclude from Court-sale a property which he had purchased while it was under attachment under an agreement made between him, the decree-holders, and the judgment-debtor that, on the purchase money Rs. 200 being paid to the former, he should no longer execute the decree against the property purchased and that the attachment should be withdrawn. The decree holders have now transferred their decree to one Venkataramayya, the first respondent, and he is now trying to execute the decree by selling this very property. He has also applied for execution against the other properties as well: but we are not concerned with that portion of his execution application. The main question that has to be decided in this case on the facts found, is whether, because the property was under attachment at the time that the appellant purchased it, Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Code is a bar against his plea that the p...
R. Varadachariar Vs. C.R. Kalyanasundaram Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad188; (1923)44MLJ437
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. I have heard very full arguments and I proceed to deliver judgment at once.2. This revision Petition arises out of and is connected with an application made to the District Court of Coimbatore by the respondent, a High Court Vakil, to take action under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners' Act, XVIII of 1879, against the petitioner who was alleged to be a tout.3. The petitioner complained that the petition filed by the respondent was defective, that it did not contain necessary particulars and that, even if all the allegations made in it against him were true, he would not be a 'tout 'as the word is defined in the Act, and he applied to the District Court that the petition might be rejected on the ground that the allegations in the petition could not constitute the basis of an enquiry. The District Munsif dismissed the application and it has been argued before me that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry and that he at any rate...
E.N.A. Samu Patter Vs. F.H. Wilson, the Official Assignee of V.M. Appa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.532
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is a motion by the Official Assignee in the Insolvency of V. M. Appachi Chetty & Sons, that a transaction of 9th December 1918 under which security was given to the present appellant, Samu Patter, called the Garnishee, for Rs. 43,668-5-11 should be set aside as a fraudulent preference or in the alternative, on the ground that it was not a bona fide transaction in that it offends against the Laws of Bankruptcy.2. The matter came before Phillips, J' and it was tried in the following manner. The Official Asignee's report was read and the affidavits filed on behalf of the Garnishee were re ad presumably and then the deponents thereto were put into the witness-box and cross-examined on behalf of the Official Assignee; then the bankrupt was called by the Official Assignee and nominally examined but really cross-examined on his behalf; then two further witnesses were called on behalf of the Official Assignee and a speech was made on behalf of the Garnishee and Coun...
In Re: Maruda Muthu Vannian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ402
Oldfield, J.1. This reference, made by the Additional District Magistrate, Tanjore, at the instance of the accused in C.C. No. 365 of 1920 on the file of the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Tanjore, raises two questions (1) whether the latter's procedure in examining the accused in this, a warrant case, only before charge was framed and not also after the prosecution witnesses had been recalled for further cross examination under Section 256(1) Criminal Procedure Code, was correct, (2) if it was not, whether there was an illegality vitiating the trial or an irregularity, on account of which we can in the exercise of our discretion refuse to interfere in revision.2. The accused are not represented before us. But we have had the advantage of a very full and careful argument from the learned Public Prosecutor. The first provision relating to the examination of the accused in a warrant case is Section 253 Cr.P.C. which provides that he shall be discharged. 'If, upon taking all the evidence refe...
Nandigam Gangayya Vs. Madupalli Venkatramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad230; (1923)45MLJ80
Krishnan, J.1. This case arises from an application put in by the appellant before us to exclude from Court-sale a property which he had purchased while it was under attachment under an agreement made between him, the decree-holders, and the judgment-debtor that, on the purchase money Rs. 200 being it was prevented from being paid out through an injunction obtained in another suit, O.S. No. 23 of 1918. The Assistant Commissioner did not appreciate the fact that payment into Court was a good legal discharge of the decree. If he thought that the judgment debtor was responsible for the decree holder failing to realise the fruits of his decree and to get interest on the money paid into Court, his proceedings in allowing the decree-holder to claim interest for the period when the money lay in Court may have been in accordance with the equities of the case. In any case the decree holder was entitled to recover the costs of the previous execution petition and the costs incurred in the High Co...
In Re: Madura Muthu Vannian and Six ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad820
Oldfield, J.1. This reference, made by the Additional District Magistrate, Tanjore, at, the instance of the accused in Calendar Case No. 365 of 1920 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tanjore, raises two questions (1) whether the latter's procedure in examining the accused in this, a warrant case, only before charge was framed and not also after the prosecution witnesses had been recalled for further cross-examination under Section 256(1), Criminal Procedure Code, was correct; (2) if it was not, whether there was an illegality vitiating the trial or an irregularity, on account of which we can in the exercise of our discretion refuse to interfere in revision.2. The accused are not represented before us. But we have had the advantage of a very full and careful argument from the learned Public Prosecutor. The first provision relating to the examination of the accused in a warrant case is Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that he shall be discharged, 'if, upon...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »