Chennai Court October 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.
Kumaraswami Nadar Vs. Venkataswamy Koundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad830
1. This appeal arises from an application, made by the 7th creditor, in the Insolvency proceedings, of one Thirumula Gounden. The seventh creditor claimed to prove for Rs. 7,000. The Official Receiver allowed the claim in part but disallowed it in respect of the amount claimed under the promissory note Ex. B. The creditor then applied to the District Judge, under Section 68 of the Insolvency Act, against the order of the Official Receiver and prayed that the whole of his claim may be allowed. The learned District Judge, after considering the circumstances of the case and the evidence, has granted him his prayer and the present appeal is by the 15th respondent, another of the creditors.2. Two points have been taken before us, as vitiating the order of the District Judge altogether. The first is that the order was passed with out making the Official Receiver & formal party to the application before the District Judge. The creditors apparently were all made parti and notice had been given...
In Re: Kandaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.962; (1924)46MLJ45
ORDERSpencer, J.1. I am unable to accept the suggestion that the offence committed by the accused in resisting the Revenue Inspector, who distrained property of the accused for arrears of revenue, fell short of an offence under Section 353, I.P.C. for the sole reason that the warrant of distraint was addressed to the' village headman and not to the Revenue Inspector. The latter was supervising the work of the headman, as it was his duty to do, and he had been specially enjoined by his superior, the Tahsildar, to attend to the work of distraint. The cases of Queen Empress v. Dalip ILR (1896) A 246 and Rex v. Roxburgh 12 Cox. Cr. Cases 8 are distinguishable. In the former there was a failure to comply with the strict requirements of Section 56 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which failure made the act of the constables unauthorised, and in the latter the constable acted lawfully though not in the exercise of his duty as a police officer.2. The conviction, therefore, is legal under Sect...
Pir Pacha Saheb and anr. Vs. Mohammad RuhimuddIn Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad491; (1924)46MLJ245
1. The plaintiffs appeal against the decree dismissing their suit for framing a scheme for a Mosque in Palacole and for the removal of the defendants from their trusteeship. At first a decree was given in favour of the plaintiffs owing to the failure of the defendants to prosecute their defence, but subsequently this order was set aside as being an ex parte decree and now the Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. An objection has been taken by the appellants that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to revise his original order and that on that ground the appeal should be allowed. We have, however, heard the appeal on its merits and as we are in favour of the appellant's contention on the merits, it is unnecessary to decide the other point.3. The earliest evidence in regard to the Mosque is the proceedings before the Inam Commissioner. We have the inam statement put in by defendants' ancestor, Ex. VI, and the inam register, Ex. A. The learned Subordinate Judge ap...
R.D.K. Venkatalingama Nayanim Vs. M.A.R.N. Arunachellam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad511
1. This is an appeal that arises, in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 19 of 1911, on the file of the Subordinate Court of Chittoor. The appeal is by the son and legal representative of the late judgment-debtor, the Raja of Kalahasti. The respondent is the decree-holder in the suit. The Raja having died, it was contended by his son and legal representative that the group of villages, called Chernbedu group, could not be attached in execution of the decree, as the assets of his father in his hands, as they were part of the impartible estate of Kalahasti, of which he was at the time the proprietor. It is not denied that this group of villages, called Chembodu group, forms part of the Kalahaati Zamindari and is governed by (sic) Madras Impartible Estates Act II of (sic). By Section 4 of that Act, it is (sic) that:(sic) of an impartible estate should (sic) of alienating or binding by his debts (sic) or any part thereof, beyond his own (sic) the alienation shall be made, or (sic) incurred...
In Re: A.N.B. Baluswami Iyer and A.N.B. Narasimha Iyer; Sellamuthu Ser ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad411; (1924)46MLJ86
Walter George Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. The petitioners are the infant sons of two brothers who traded in partnership and became insolvent. They were in possession of joint family property to shares in which the sons had on birth became entitled.2. The question raised in this insolvency petition is whether the son's shares in the joint family property of a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara Law can be made liable during their lathers' lifetime to the fathers' debts other than Avyavaharika, that is, those tainted with illegality or immorality, for the fathers having become insolvent, the Official Assignee claims to have recourse to the joint family property including, if necessary, the sons' undivided shares therein. He alleges that the fathers could themselves alienate the property and pay such debts and that he can exercise that right in the interests of the faher's creditors.3. There can be no doubt that this has been supposed! to be in accordance with the Hindu Law for a very long t...
Angavalathammal Vs. Janki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad466; 79Ind.Cas.894
1. This is an appeal that arises in execution of the decree, in O.S. No. 36 of 1909, obtained by one Janaki Ammal against her mother-in-law, one Lakshmi Ammal. As Lakshmi Ammal is now dead, execution is applied for against one Angavalath-ammal, the legal representative and daughter of Lakshmi Ammal. The decree was for possession of certain immoveable properties and for a certain sum of money) over Rs. 10,000. The decree had been executed, during the life-time of Lakshmi Ammal as regards immoveable properties and possession had been taken away from Lakshmi Ammal a year before her death. Lakshmi Ammal died in April 1916. This application is put in, by the Receiver appointed in O.S. No. 40 of 1916, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tanjore, in whom the right to execute the deoree has been vested for the time being, Janaki Ammal, being a party to O.S. No. 40 of 1916. The application prayed for compelling Angavalathammal to pay the decree amount, from the assets of Lakshmi Amm...
In Re: A.N.B. Balusawmy Ayyar and A.N.B. Narasimha Iyer and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1923
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.108
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1. The petitioners are the infant sons of two brothers who traded in partnership and became insolvents. They were in possession of joint family property, to shares in which the sons had on birth become entitled.2. The question raised in this insolvency petition is whether the sons' shares in the joint family property of a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara Law can be made liable, during their fathers' life-time to the lather's debts other than Avyavaharika, that is, those tainted with illegality or immorality; for the fathers having become insolvent, the Official Assignee claims to have recourse to the joint family property including, if necessary, the sons' undivided shares therein. He alleges that the fathers could themselves alienate the property and pay such debts and that he can exercise that right in the interests of the fathers' creditors.3. There can be no doubt that this has been supposed to be in accordance with the Hindu Law for a very long time past ...
R.C. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. P. Chengalroya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ813
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Sub ordinate Judge of Chittore, dated 23rd September, 1921 re fusing to set aside an order dismissing an appeal dated 4th March, 1921.2. The facts are that the petitioner being the appellant in the appeal before that Court instructed a Vakil to appear and conduct his appeal. We will assume on the evidence before the Court that this Vakil did not appear on 4th March, 1921, to conduct the appeal in pursuance of his instructions by reason of the Vakil having taken up the attitude of non-co-operation with the Courts and we will also assume that the appellant did not come to know of the order of the Court dismissing his appeal until sometime after it was dismissed and that he took immediate steps on making the discovery to bring the matter before the Court. Assuming these facts to be correct, the appellant has suffered grave injustice, for his appeal, for no fault of his own, has never been heard although it may be that he has a remedy against his V...
Vedala Venkata Subbamma Vs. Vedala Venkamma (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ52
1. The plaintiff in this case is the widow of one Vedala Janakiramayya who is said to be the adopted son of the first defendant's husband. The first defendant has denied both the factum of the adoption and also its validity. The Subordinate Judge has found that the ceremony of adoption did actually take place and that the plaintiff's husband has been treated as an adopted son by the first defendant, but he has held that, the first defendant not having had authority from her husband or from the sapindas to make the adoption, the adoption is invalid; and he has further found that the first defendant is not estopped from raising the plea of the invalidity of adoption. In appeal, the factum of the adoption is not disputed and the only point which is seriously argued is that the authority given by the husband has not been actually proved; but it is contended that the first defendant, by her conduct and acts from the time of the adoption until the present day, is estopped from denying that t...
Thayumana Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad51
1. The two points taken in this case are that Ramaswami Chetti was appointed receiver only of the crops and not of the corpus of the property and that as the property had been already attached, the sale in pursuance of such attachment, without leave of the Court appointing the receiver, was not vitiated.2. Both these points are covered by the ruling in Mrs. Livinia Ashton v. Madhabmoni Dasi (1909) 14 C.W.N. 560 which has been followed in Fraser and Ross v. Krishnaswamy Aiyar A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 144 and which we are also prepared to follow. We are of opinion that the receiver was appointed in the present case for the property itself, though the object of the appointment was to collect the rents and profits of the land. It is significant that the point now raised was not raised in the lower Court.3. On the second point, as observed by Mookerjee, J., on p. 493 of Mrs. Livinia Ashton v. Madhabmoni Dasi (1909) 14 C.W.N. 560 , 'the general rule is well settled that property in the hands of a Re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »