Chennai Court January 1923 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.
Lakshminarayana Aiyar Vs. C.R. Subramania Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad585; (1923)45MLJ129
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal against an order by the District Judge of Tanjore West annulling the adjudication of the appellant-debtor under Section 35, Provincial Insolvency Act. The Lower Court has given two reasons for its order. First, that the debtor was not resident on the date of the presentation of the petition within its Jurisdiction; secondly that he was not proved to be, as Section 10 requires, unable to pay his debts.2. As regards the question raised by each of these grounds of decision, it must be pointed out that the amount of proof, which can be expected of the debtor, the burden undoubtedly being on him, will vary very greatly with reference to the circumstances of the case.3. Here the debtor throughout has alleged that he was, at the date of the petition, a resident in West Tanjore District, and there is the verified statement in his petition to that effect and also a counter-affidavit filed in the present proceedings in the Lower Court. It is further not shown tha...
Sundararaja Chariar Vs. Ali Muhammad Ethibar Khan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.690
1. The suit was brought for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit lands. The plaintiff alleged that he had been the Kudivaramdar of the suit lands prior to 1882 on condition of delivering waram to the landlord and that in 1882 the predecessor-in-title of the defendants executed Exhibit A under which the waram was commuted into a fixed money-rent and that the defendants claiming to revert to the waram rate were interfering with the plaintiff harvesting his crops. The defendants originally denied that plaintiff was the Kudivaramdar and contended that as the inam was a charity inam, Exhibit A was not binding on them. During the course of the trial, the plaintiff's right as Kudivaramdar was conceded. The Subordinate Judge decided against the plaintiff and he appeals.2. The first question that arises for decision is the nature of the inam. Exhibit II is the Inam Register. In column 8 it was described as Kyrati which means, acco...
Kalundaivelu Pillai Vs. Ramasami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: 72Ind.Cas.770
Oldfield, J.1. The plaintiffs, here respondents, obtained a decree against the two defendants, 2nd defendant being the petitioner in this Court, for Rs. 400 in the following circumstances: Plaintiffs, it is not disputed, owed 1st defendant Rs. 400 and, it is proved, paid it to 2nd defendant, 1st defendant's agent, as such. Second defendant, however, did not account to the 1st defendant for the money, misappropriating it. First defendant then obtained a decree for it against the plaintiffs who did not appear or plead discharge. On these facts the lower Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit against the 1st defendant; but gave a decree against the 2nd defendant; and the question in this revision petition is, whether it was right in law in doing so.2. It is clear, that if it was not, plaintiffs will have paid what they owed twice. But that result cannot affect the decision because it is entailed, not by anything in the legal relation between the parties before me, plaintiffs and 2nd defenda...
The Official Assignee of Madras. Vs. Doraiappa Aiyar Alias Krishnaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1923
Reported in: 71Ind.Cas.1056; (1923)44MLJ411
ORDERWalter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an application by the Official Assignee of Madras. What he asks for is an interpretation of an order of this Court under which an appeal was dismissed 'with costs' and the order drawn up is 'costs of the respondent.' It is clear from what took place and from the wording of the order that that order was intended to apply to the Official Assignee only. He gets his costs and the other respondents get none.2. The second point raised in the case is that one half of the ordinary fees on the Original Side has been allowed under Rule 136 of the Insolvency Rules. It is contended that that rule applies only to cases in which fees are payable out of the estate, and we are referred to the analogous rule in Bankruptcy in England and to authorities decided thereunder. The English rule in small insolvencies gives three-fifths of the charges ordinarily allowed in all proceedings under the Act and those rules, and it has been held that that applies direct...
Banakara Basavana Gowd and ors. Vs. Banakara Doddalingappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad584; (1923)44MLJ652
1. In this case the question is whether the present suit is sustainable for one item of what is admittedly joint family property, in view of the fact that the plaintiff has already brought a suit and obtained a decree for other items.2. We cannot follow the learned Judge in deciding in the plaintiff's favour, on the sole ground that the property now claimed as in the possession of the 7th defendant is alleged by him to be his by purchase, and prescription, whereas in the previous suit it seems to have been referred to in the plaint as in the possession of the 7th defendant as a tenant. In either case the joint family character of the property was in question; and it was on account of that character reference to it was made before and the claim to it is made now. We cannot see how the ground on which the 7th defendant may be withholding it from the co-parcenery is material to the plaintiff's duty to have included it in the previous suit.3. To turn to the grounds of decision adopted by t...
Lakhsminarayana Aiyar Vs. C.R. Subramaniya Aiyar, the Official Receive ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.74
1. This is an appeal against an order by the District Judge of Tarjore West annulling the adjudication of the appellant-debotr under Section 35, Provincial Insolvency Act. The lower Court has given two reasons for its orders. First, that the debtor was not resident on the date of the presentation of the petition within its jurisdiction; secondly, that he was not proved to be, as Section 10 requires, unable to pay his debts.2. As regards the question raised by each of these grounds M decision, it must be pointed out that the amount of proof which can be expected of the debtor, the burden undoubtedly being on hint, will vary very greatly with reference to the circumstances of the case.3. Here the debtor throughout has alleged that he was, at the date of the petition, a resident in West Tanjore District, and there is the verified statement in his petition to that effect and also a counter-affidavit filed in the present proceedings in the lower Court. It is further not shown that he was cr...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad652; 73Ind.Cas.106; (1923)45MLJ12
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case claim was made for water cess. The assessee paid under protest, gave notice claiming the amount he paid and commenced this suit seven months after the payment but within eight months of it. It is contended by the Crown that the suit is barred by limitation under Section 59 of the Revenue Recovery Act II of 1864. That section runs thus 'Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent parties deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act from applying to the Civil Courts for redress : provided that Civil Courts shall not take cognizance of any suit instituted by such parties for any such cause of action Unless such suit shall be instituted within six months from the time at which the cause of action arose.' I will assume that that section applies to cases arising out of the collection or imposition of cess under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act VII of 1865. By Article 16 of the Limitation Act a period of one year is gi...
Lakshiminarayana and anr. Vs. the Standard Oil Company of New York by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad581; (1923)44MLJ488
1. This is another illustration of what happens when parties do not appear at the time they ought to appear through their own fault or the fault of their legal advisers. A strong case for the plaintiff was put before the learned Judge. Defendants 2 and 3 did not appear owing to a mistake of their Vakil and owing partly to their not having received a telegram which had been sent by their Vakil in such time that, if it had been received in the normal course, he would have got them here on the second day of the hearing. Under those circumstances, in my Judgment, it is not right that they should be penalised to the extent of the case being decided against them without their being heard. It is contrary to principles of natural justice that cases should be decided on the hearing of one side only if the other side is ready and willing to be heard. In such cases, as a rule, adequate punishment is to be found in the remedy of costs, which not only penalises the party in default but, theoretical...
Muthu Pillai Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Through t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad582; (1923)45MLJ67
1. In this case a house was put up for sale by Government and the auction was held by the Tahsildar of Madura. 1st defendant was the highest bidder and the report of the sale was forwarded to the Collector for confirmation, 1st defendant deposited 15 per cent, of the purchase money on the day of sale and the balance one month later. The sale was on the 15th of July and it was neither confirmed by the Collector nor cancelled until late in 1917. Apparently the 1st defendant on several occasions applied to the Collector for the grant of sale certificate and for the possession of the house. On one occasion he was informed that the matter had been referred to Government and orders were awaited. Finally in 1916, at his own request 1st defendant was allowed to occupy the house on condition that he would quit it whenever required. The present suit has now been brought to recover possession from the 1st defendant who refused to quit. The Government declined to confirm the sale in 1st defendant'...
Subbier Vs. Moideen Pitchai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad562; 72Ind.Cas.558; (1923)44MLJ588
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case the facts are that a decree-holder in a Small Cause Suit applied for attachment of a debt alleged to be due by one Khader Moideen to the judgment-debtor. Notice of that application was served, upon Khader Moideen as garnishee and also upon the widow of the judgment-debtor as representing his estate. She did not appear but the garnishee appeared and put in a counter-statement in which he alleged three things, first, that the debt had never been due to the judgment-debtor, second, that it had been assigned and he had promised to pay the assignee; and thirdly, that the amount of the debt was not Rs. 350 as claimed by the decree-holder but Rs. 300. That application came before the District Munsif the garnishee appearing, and the District Munsif passed an order in these words: 'Attachment is confirmed.' In due course, the debt which had been attached was brought to sale as the property of the judgment-debtor in the Small Cause Suit and was purchased by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »