Chennai Court March 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.
Repaka Mamillayya and ors. Vs. Addepalli Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ312
1. This appeal and the revision petition are against an order of the lower appellate Court setting aside a Court-sale. We shall confirm that order with reference to our powers under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code; and it is therefore necessary to state fully the facts which justify our taking that exceptional course.2. During the progress of the Court sale in question the sons of the judgment-debtor, here respondent, filed a suit for partition of the property and obtained an interim injunction staying the sale. That injunction is not before us; but it is not alleged that it was not in the ordinary form. After the injunction had been granted, an attempt seems to have been made to serve it on the decree-holder; but he had left the Court, although (as appears) his Vakil was still, there and took part in the proceedings next to be referred to.3. Those proceedings consisted in an application by the judgment-debtor for the adjournment of the sale on the ground that 'the bidders had come a...
Ranganatha Thathachariar Vs. Krishnaswami Thathachariar and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad139
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, on a petition presented to it under Clause (10) of the scheme sanctioned by the decree in A.S. No. 212 of 1909 (on the file of the High Court) for the management of one of the Conjeeveram temples. That petition was presented on the assumption that a vacancy had occurred among the trustees under the scheme and that as it has not been filled by either of the two agencies primarily responsible for filling it, the lower Court must in accordance with the scheme do so. The lower Court held after enquiry that--the point disputed before it--a vacancy had occurred, and directed that it should be filled in the manner provided by the rules framed by the High Court. No more need be said to show that there is no question of failure on the part of the lower Court to exercise jurisdiction or of interference with its action by way of revision. The question is then only of interference as we are asked to...
M. Runganatha Thathachariar Vs. Krishnaswami Thathachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.189
Francis Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Chingleput, on a petition presented to it under clause 10 of the scheme sanctioned by the decree in Appeal Suit No. 212 of 1909 for the management of one of the Conjeevaram temples. That petition was presented on the assumption that a vacancy had occurred among the trustees Under the scheme and that, as it had not been filled by either of the two agencies primarily responsible for filing it, the lower Court must, in accordance with the scheme, do so. The lower Court held after enquiry that the point disputed before it, a vancancy had occurred and directed that it should be filled in the manner provided by the rules framed by the High Court. No more need be said to show that there is no question of failure on the part of the lower Court to exercise jurisdiction or of interference with its action by way of revision. The question is then only of interference, as we are asked to interfere in the...
Ramaswami Iyer and ors. Vs. A.S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.406
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the son of one Sambasiva Ayyar, the adopted son of one Sivaramma Ayyar, and he sues to recover possession of certain properties, sold by his grandfather, Sivaramma Ayyar on the 29th of June 1901 to the 1st defendant who is the father of defedants Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that the sale was not effected for any necessity and is not binding on him. The plaintiff's father and grandfather are now both dead and, therefore, the plaintiff claims to recover the whole of the suit properties.2. The Subordinate Judge has found that there was no necessity for the sale and that it is, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff's share and he has given a decree to the plaintiff for a division of the property into two parts and for recovery of possession by the plaintiff of one-half with mesne profits from the date of the sale. The defendants now appeal and state that the decree is wrong and that the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed on the ground t...
Kandaswami Goundan Vs. Narayanaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ551
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit upon bond executed in favour of one Alangi Ammal, and it has been found that the consideration was future adulterous cohabitation. The consideration is obviously unlawful and therefore under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act the agreement is void and cannot be enforced. The District Judge has however, found that because defendant has benefited by the illegal and immoral contract, inasmuch as the adulterous co-habitation has taken place, he cannot succeed in his plea and has decreed the suit. He relies on Deivanayaga Padayachi v. Muthu Reddi : (1920)39MLJ525 , but that and other similar cases can be distinguished on the ground that the Court was not asked to enforce the immoral contract, but to set it aside after the object had been carried out. So far from defendant not being allowed to raise the contention that the contract is immoral it has repeatedly been laid down that when a Court finds a contract to be immoral or illegal it should decline to enfo...
Srinivasa Naicker Vs. Official Receiver of South Canara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad224; 75Ind.Cas.172
1. We think that this case can be disposed of on a much shorter ground than those adopted by the lower Appellate Court. The insolvent was adjudicated as such on 15th November, 1919. Before that, certain property had bean brought to sale under a decree. The proceeds of the sale were in Court and they are the money, which has been the subject of the present proceedings and which the lower Appellate Court awarded to the Official Receiver. In doing so it has overlooked the dates and the facts that Section 3d of Act III of 1907 was applicable. The property in Court had clearly bean realised in the course of the execution by sale or otherwise before the date of the order of adjudication, and it was then excepted from the general provision that such property could not be claimed by any person against the Receiver.2. On behalf of the Official Receiver it has been suggested that notwithstanding Section 31, the lower Appellate Court was entitled to go behind the language of the decree, in execut...
Kandaswamy Gounden Vs. Narayanaswami Gounden
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.306
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit upon a bond executed in favour of one Alangi Animal and it has been found that the consideration was future adulterous cohabitation. The consideration is obviously unlawful and, there ore, under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act the agreement is void and cannot be enforced. The District Judge has, however, found that because defendant has benefited by the illegal and immoral contract inasmuch as the adulterous cohabitation has taken place, he cannot succeed in his p(sic)ea and has decreed the suit. He relied on Deivanayaga Padayachi v. Muthu Reddi : (1920)39MLJ525 , but that and other similar cases can be distinguished on the ground that the Court was not asked to enforce the immoral contract, but to set it aside after they had been carried out. So far from the defendants not being allowed to raise the contention that the contract is immoral it has repeatedly been laid down that when a Court finds a contract to be immoral or illegal it should decline t...
P. Ramaswamiah Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad172
1. These appeals are argued on the ground that the lower Court should either have set aside the mortgage Exhibit I or should at least have allowed the proof of the present appellant, the alienee, in respect of the amount secured by that document, as a simple debt.2. The first suggestion is that the Official Receiver's petition was out of time with reference to Article 181, Schedule I of the Limitation Act. A similar contention was rejected in Duriyya Solagyan v. Venkatarama Naiker (1921) 12 L.W. 535, a decision with which we entirely agree. Next, it is said that the burden of proof should have been placed on the Official Receiver. But, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the interval between the insolvency petition and Exhibit I was less than two years, it was for the alienee to prove his case.3. The lower Court has dealt fully with the merits. We need add only that the alienee did not give evidence. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. To include on...
Krishna Iyer Vs. the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad381; 75Ind.Cas.445
1. The first objection taken to the Lower Court's order is that it was passed after an irregular trial, in that the witnesses did not depose before it. The facts are that the proceedings began with a report from the Official Receiver in which he applied for the setting aside of an alienation, Exhibit A, by the insolvent. The parties then, it is on the record, and it is not disputed, agreed that in the enquiry into this application, the statements of the witnesses should be recorded by the Official Receiver. The objection here is that statements of the witnesses so recorded were not evidence and that the lower Court was not entitled to pass a judicial decision on them. We desire to express the strongest disapproval of the lower Court's procedure. It is clearly undesirable that, where a matter has to be decided on trial the Court should not hold the trial itself and retain the advantage of seeing the witnesses give evidence following the course of the proceedings; and it is further undes...
Pitta Ramaswamiah Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.443
1. These appeals are argued on the ground that the lower Court should either have set aside the mortgage Ex. I or should at least have allowed the proof o the present appellant, the alienee, in respect of the amount secured by that document, as a simple debt.2. The first suggestion is that the Official Receiver's petition was out of time with reference to Article 181, Schedule I of the Limitation Act. A similar contention was rejected in Duraiyya Solagyan v. Venkatrama Naiker 60 Ind. Cas. 123 : 12 L.W. 535, a decision with which we entirely agree. Next, it is said that the burden of proof should have been placed on the Official Receiver. But, in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the interval between the insolvency petition and Ex. I, was less than two years, it was for the alienee to prove his case.3. The lower Court has dealt fully with the merits. We need add only that the alienee did not give evidence. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs to include...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »