Chennai Court November 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.
A Sonachalam Pillai and ors. Vs. Kumaravelu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad597; 79Ind.Cas.109; (1924)46MLJ138
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent against the order of Wallace, J. sitting as a single Judge in the Admission Court, refusing to stay execution of the decree in O.S. No. 2 of 1920 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin pending disposal of Appeal No. 232 of 1923 which has been filed against that decree and which has been admitted and is now pending in this Court. The suit was brought by certain Vaniyars of Tiruchendur in the Tinnevelly District for a declaration that they were entitled to enter the well-known temple there and go up to the figure of the Nandi in front of the inner shrine and for an injunction to restrain the Trustees and others from preventing them from doing so. The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge in their favour, and against that decree Appeal No. 232 of 1923 has, as already stated, been filed in this Court by the Trustees and others.2. An application was made to Wallace, J. for stay of execution ...
V.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Adappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad347
Spencer, J.1. The suit was one for dissolution of partnership. A preliminary decree had been passed and all that remained to be done was to take accounts and pass a final decree. At this stage the defendant died on the 30th September, 1920. One of his sons applied on the 6th January, 1921 that he and his brother might be brought on the record. He would have been in time if the Limitation; Act in force at the commencement of the action, bad not been amended by the alteration of the period prescribed under Article 177, Limitation Act, from six months to ninety days. The Court was closed for Christmas holidays, and a few days after it re-opened, the petitioner made this application. In a suit of this nature the distinction between plaintiffs and defendants is not so marked as in suits where only the defendant must pay if the plaintiff obtains a decree.2. It was essential that all parties concerned should be on the record and the Court could have, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civi...
Anantalal Damani Vs. Surjimull Murlidhar Chandick and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad616; (1924)46MLJ239
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a case which is under Rs. 10,000. The question, therefore is whether, under Section 109(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, we can certify it to be a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. To quote my own words in Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi v. Thiruneelakantam Servai : (1923)44MLJ217 . 'What is contemplated is a class of cases in which there may be involved questions of public importance, or which may be important precedents governing numerous other cases, or in which, while the right in dispute is not exactly measurable in money, it is of great public or private importance.' The point in dispute in this case is whether a certain acknowledgment which was given of a debt was given in order to supply evidence of such debt within the meaning of Article I of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act, because, if so, not having been properly stamped, it would not. be admissible in evidence at all...
Ananta Lal Damani Vs. Subjimull Murlidhar Chandick and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.165
1. The Chief Justice.--This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in a case which is under Rs. 10,000. The question, therefore is whether, under Section 109 (c) of the C.P.C. we can certify it to be a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. To quote my own words in Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi v. Tiruneelakandam Servai : AIR1928Mad282 : 'What is contemplated is a class of cases in which there may be involved questions of public importance, or which may be important precedents governing numerous other cases, or in which, while the right in dispute is not exactly measurable in money, it is of great public or private importance.' The point in dispute in this case is whether a certain acknowledgment which was given of a debt was given in order to supply evidence of such debt within the meaning of Article 1 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act, because, if so, not having been properly stamped, it would not be admissible in evidence at all. We held, following other cases...
C. Doraivelu Mudaliar and ors. Vs. G.R. Audikesavalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ343
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in Chambers on judge's summons to discharge the receiver of certain temple property and to order the receiver to put the hereditary trustee of that temple in possession of properties and documents relating to the temple. The facts are these. A suit was brought asking for a scheme to be framed in relation to the temple, which was tried by Kumaraswami Sastri J., and he in due course gave a decree and framed a scheme. An appeal was lodged against that decree and there was a cross appeal. Before the case came on in appeal, an application was made before Phillips, J. for the appointment of a receiver, there being allegations made that the trustee did not properly account, would not hand over or produce books, and was not behaving as a trustee should behave under the scheme as framed by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., and having heard the application on several occasions with the trustee before him, Phillip...
P. Venkatachalam Chetty Vs. P.S. Govindaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad605; 78Ind.Cas.156; (1924)46MLJ288
Walter Salis Schwabe, C.J.1.This is an appeal from a judgment of Kumaraswami Sastry, J. in which he found that a document dated November 10th, 1913, described as a gift-deed was in fact a Will. He found that it was duly executed and declined to go into the question whether certain property which passed under that document had been disposed of between the date of the Will and that of the death of the testatrix. There was ample evidence as to the execution of the document, three witnesses being called who swore that they saw the testatrix affix her mark in their presence. He believed that evidence and I can find no reason for suggesting that that decision is wrong. The question whether the document is a Will or a gift is more difficult. It is contended that it is in effect a deed of gift operating in present and not a Will at all, and that as it is a deed of gift in respect of immoveable property which has not been registered, it is void and has no effect. A Will is defined in Section 3 ...
Ramaswami Naidu and ors. (Minors) by Next Friend Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Ayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ196
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to remove the 1st defendant from his position of receiver in a partition suit brought against him and another.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1 (s) of the Civil Procedure Code. The clause gives a right of appeal only against orders passed under Rules 1 and 4 of Order 40. It is contended first by the appellant's vakil that this is a case which would fall under Order 40, Rule 1 (a) itself on the ground that they wanted not only to get the present receiver removed but another man appointed in his place and he, therefore, contends that this a case where the Court has refused to appoint a receiver. We are unable to accept this contention, for, till the present receiver is removed, there will be no scope for appointing another receiver in his place and, therefore, the authority cited by him Munilal v. Jagannath (1915) 33 IC 735 which deal...
Lanka Rama Naidu Vs. Lanka Ramakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ192
1. This is an appeal under Sections 47 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order made by the District Judge directing the sale of two items of properties, items 1 and 2, according' to the order in which they were advertised for sale in the sale proclamation, that is, directing item 1 to be sold first and then item 2. The judgment-debtor, the appellant before us, had, without notice to the decree-holder, got an order from the District Judge that item 2 should be sold first and not item 1. This was an ex parte order which, on the decree-holder coming to know of it, was sought by him to be altered so that the sale might take place according to the order in the sale proclamation itself. No doubt, the decree-holder stated as his reason in his application that item 2 was his own property and was wrongly included in the decree as chargeable with the decree amount. The District Judge has not gone into that question at all or given any finding about it. He set aside his original ex...
L. Rama Naidu Vs. L. Ramakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad527
1. This is an appeal under Sections 47 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order made by the District Judge, directing the sale of two items of properties, items 1 and 2 according to the order in which they were advertised for sale in the sale proclamation, that is, directing item 1 to be sold first and then item 2. The Judgment-debtor, the appellant before us, had, without notice to the decree-holder, got an order from the District Judge that item 2 should be sold first and not item 1. This was an ex parte order, which, on the decree-holder coming to know of it, .was sought by him to be altered, so that the sale might take place, according to the order in the sale proclamation itself. No doubt, the decree-holder stated as his reason in his application, that item 2 was his own property and was wrongly included in the decree, as chargeable with the decree amount. The District Judge has not gone into that question at all, or given any finding about it. He set aside his orig...
Ramaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Ayyalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad614
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to remove the 1st defendant from his position of receiver in a partition suit brought against him and another.2. A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that no appeal lies under Order 43, Rule 1(s) of the Civil Procedure Code. The Clause gives a right of appeal only against orders passed under Rules 1 and 4 of Order 40. It is contended first by the appellant's vakil that this is a case which would fall under Order 40, Rule 1(a) itself on the ground that they wanted not only to get the present receiver removed but another man appointed in his place and he, therefore, contends that this a ease where the Court has refused to appoint a receiver. We are unable to accept this contention, for till the present receiver is removed, there will be no scope for appointing another receiver in his place and, therefore, the authority cited by him Munilal v. Jagannath (33 Ind.Cas. 735, which deal w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »