Chennai Court October 1923 Judgments
G. Kanthamma Vs. M. Reddipantulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad476
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against the Appellate Order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cooanada, in an appeal to him, from an order of the District Munsif of Cooanada in an execution proceeding. The appellant before us was the judgment-debtor, under a decree passed by the District Mansifs Court, which was under execution, and her property was advertised for sale in Court auction. The sale was actually held by the Nazir, the Court Officer, in the usual way and the 1st respondent bid for the property and offered a price of Rs. 4,600, which was accepted by the Court Officer and the bid was knocked down in his favour. Under Order 21, Rule 84, Civil Procedure Code, the purchaser is bound to pay 25 per cent, of the purchase money on the completion of the auction. The 1st respondent made default in making the payment and in consequence, under the same rule, the property was again put up for sale. This time the property was knocked down for a lower sum, namely, Rs. 3,750, thus leading...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. A.V. Rangiyan Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad449; (1924)46MLJ258
Ramesam, J.1. On 6-10-88, a suit (O.S. No. 1 of 1889) was filed by a Hindu widow for maintenance. As to one of the defendants (14th) impleaded in that suit, she alleged that he held a mortgage over a portion of the property sought to be charged with the maintenance and that the said mortgage was obtained fraudulently and without consideration, was not for family benefit and could not affect her right to charge the maintenance on the mortgaged property. The 14th defendant pleaded that he held two hypothecation bonds from the 1st defendant and that he had sued on the latter in O.S. No. 16 of 1887, and obtained a decree (on 28-9-87).2. The District Judge found that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the 14th defendant. He gave a decree for maintenance which was made a charge against the interests of defendants 1 and 2 in the plaint properties subject to the lien claimed by the 14th defendant among others. (22-8-90).3. Meanwhile in execution of O.S. No. 16 of 1887 the mortgaged p...
Tag this Judgment!Venkat Reddy Vs. Kunjappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ391
1. The 4th defendant is the appellant. The suit as originally framed was one for foreclosing a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant and the father of the 2nd and 3rd defendants on the 3rd of April, 1914 m favour of the 5th defendant. The 4th defendant was the auction-purchaser of one half of the properties mortgaged in execution of a money-decree obtained against the father of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. He was not made a party to the suit on the mortgage. A decree was passed in the mortgage suit (O.S. No. 156 of 1917 filed by the 5th defendant) on the 5th of October, 1917 for Rs. 723-7-9 with costs and future interest. The plaintiff became the purchaser of the properties in execution of the mortgage decree for Rs. 757 on the 3rd of July 1918. When he attempted to take possession of the properties, the 4th defendant resisted the claim in so far as the half-share of defendants 2 and 3 was concerned and the plaintiff was referred to a suit. He then filed the present suit out of which t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ambayara Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.218
1. The objection taken is that the whole procedure is illegal in toto. The prosecution was initiated by the Forest Range Officer, Atur, and the accused were charged with grazing 50 goats in the Godamalai Reserve on 7th July 1922. The Forest Range Officer was not examined on oath under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, and under the present amended Criminal Procedure Code there is no question that this is not required. It is said that this is an illegality and not an irregularity. It is also said that the Magistrate, had no cognisance of this case under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no doubt that this is wrong, the terms of the section show that a Magistrate has cognisance before he examines the complainant under Section 200. That the omission to examine complainant is a mere irregularity is borne out by the decision in Queen-Empress v. Monu 11 M. 443 : 2 Weir 238 : 4 Ind. Dec. 309, where it was held that the omission to examine the Thasildar under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Reddy Vs. Kunjappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.1022
1. The 4th defendant is the appellant. The suit as originally framed was one for foreclosing a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant and the father of the 2nd and 3rd defendants on the 3rd of April 1914 in favour of the 5th defendant. The 4th defendant was the auction-purchaser of one-half of the properties mortgaged in execution of a money-decree obtained against the father of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. He was not made a party to the suit on the mortgage. A decree was passed in the mortgage-suit (O.S. No. 156 of 1917 filed by the 5th defendant) on the 5th of October. 1917 for Rs. 723-7-9 with costs and future interest. The plaintiff became the purchaser of the properties in execution of the mortgage-decree for Rs. 757 on the 3rd of July 1919. When he attempted to take possession of the properties, the 4th defendant resisted the claim in so far as the half share of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was concerned and the plaintiff was referred to a suit. He then filed the present suit out of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Sattayya Padayachi and ors. Vs. Soundarathachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ78
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent, Oldfield and Venkatasubba, Rao JJ. having differed in A. A. O. No. 226 of 1922.2. The point is a very short one. The Judge of a Court in the Mofussil having risen for the day went to his club. At his club he was approached by a Vakil who asked him to receive a plaint, it being the last day for the expiration of the period of limitation. The learned Judge accepted the plaint and cancelled the stamp on it by writing upon it the words ' presented to me by ' giving the name of the Vakil ' at 7-30 p. m., and signed and dated it. It is argued that nevertheless that suit is barred, because it has not been instituted within the period limit. Section 3 of the Limitation Act runs thus: ' Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 25 (inclusive) every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the first schedule shall be dismissed.' It is argue...
Tag this Judgment!Tirumalai Gandama Kondala Nagayya Ramakrishna Kadirvelusami Nayakar (M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad530; (1924)46MLJ261
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This reference ought not to have been made to this Bench. The two Judges who heard the matter were agreed, and I see no reason for adding anything to their statements on the points on which they were agreed.2. The first point is quite a simple one, whether, under Section 52 of the Civil Procedure Code, the income of landed property which has passed from one Zamindar to the next, the property being an impartible Raj, is liable to execution for the debts of the deceased Zamindar, that is to say, in this case, the father of the appellant. Oolagappa Chetti v. Arbuthnot (1875) LR 1 IA 268 is a direct authority for the proposition that the income of such property is liable. The English law is perfectly plain, and to the same effect, as laid down in a long series of cases relating to the income from realty which has descended to the heir-at-law. Stratford v. Ritson 10 Beav. 25 is a good instance, in which it was held that the income of such real property is ...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd. Vs. B. Krishnaswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad133; 79Ind.Cas.137
Odgers, J.1. This is a revision petition to revise the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in a suit wherein the plaintiff sued the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company for damages for the loss of a bale of towels which was consigned to him by one Ayyalu Naidu of Madras for carriage to Bezwada. The bale was lost or rather was not delivered to the consignee. The value of the article conveyed is claimed as Rs. 261-5-7 plus Rs. 1-8 0. The plaintiff also claimed the estimated profit on the sale of this bale in Bezwada Rs. 37-8-0. The latter item, I think, he is not entitled to recover as there is no evidence that ho put the railway on notice that this amount would be claimed.2. The consignor unfortunately consigned these goods under the Risk Note Form B under which he undertakes to hold the Railway Company free from all responsibility for loss except for loss due to the wilful neglect of the Railway Administration or to the theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. Paramasiva Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad325
1. This suit was brought for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 731 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsiff of Chidambaram was null and void and that the sale held in execution of the decree in the Small Cause Suit No. 658 of 1917, was also null and void. The grounds on which this declaration was asked for, were that those concerned in the sale, the judgment-debtor, Alamelu and the purchaser, her brother, 3rd defendant, had combined in a fraud, the main element of which was the allowing O.S. No. 374 of 1917 to be brought and decreed Collusively, that decree being in force at the time of the Court sale and deterring possible bidders, but being set aside again collusively later, the cloud on the title to the properties sold being thus removed from it in the interest of the third defendant.2. The first objection and the objection mainly considered by the lower Courts is that this fraud should have been brought before the Court by a petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Schedule I ...
Tag this Judgment!Kadirvelusami Nayagar Vs. the Eastern Development Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad411
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C.C.J.1. This reference ought not to have been made to this Bench. The two Judges who heard the matter were agreed, and I see no reasons for adding anything to their statements on the points on which they were agreed.2. The first point is quite a simple one, whether, under Section 52 of the Civil Procedure Code, the income of landed property which has passed from one zamindar to the next, the property being an impartible Raj, is liable to execution for the debts of the deceased zamindar, that is to say, in this case, the father of the appellant. Oolagappa Chetty v. Hon. D. Arbuthnot (1874) 1 I.A. 268 is a direct authority for the proposition that the income of such property is liable, The English Law is perfectly plain, and to the same effect, as laid down in a long series of cases relating to the income from realty which has descended to the heir-at-law. Stratford v. Ritson (1846) 10 Beav. 25 is a good instance, in which it was held that the income of such...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »