Chennai Court August 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.
Meyyappan Servai Vs. Meyyappan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ471
Devadoss, J.1. The lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari brought O.S. No. 68 of 1901 against a number of defendants for possession of about 13 and odd Kurukkams of land lying within the limits of Sekkalakottai, Sivaganga Zamin. The Zamindar was subsequently added as the 4th plaintiff and one Karuthan Ambalam was also added as 5th plaintiff. The suit which was originally instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura East was decreed in plaintiff's favour by the Temporary Sub-Court of Madura on 22--2--1908. The High Court confirmed the decision of the Temporary Sub-Court in A.S. No. 77 of 1909 on 4--2--1914. One Meyyappan Servai is the transferee of the decree and is the appellant herein. Defendants 129 and 130 are the sons of the 61st defendant. They were brought on record after their father's death in E. P. No. 734 of 1918. The appellant applied for execution of the decree against the defendants 129 and 130 in E. P. No. 855 of 1919 in respect of two plots, one rectangular plo...
Meyappan Seevai Vs. Meyappan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.985
Devadoss, J.1. The lessees of the Sivaganga zemindari brought O.S. No. 68 of 1901 against a number of defendants for possession of about 13 and odd Kurukkams of land lying within the limits of Sekkalakkottai, Sivaganga zemin. The zemindar was subsequently added as the 4th plaintiff and one Karuthan Ambalam was also added as 5th plaintiff. The suit which was originally instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura East was decreed in plaintiff's favour by the Temporary Sub-Court of Madura on 22nd February 1908. The High Court confirmed the decision of the Temporary Sub-Court in A.S. No. 77 of 1909 on 4th February 1914. One Meyyappan Servai is the transferee of the decree and is the appellant herein. Defendants Nos. 129 and 130 are the sons of the 61st defendant. They were brought on record after their fathers death in E. P. No. 734 of 1918. The appellant applied for execution of the decree against the defendants Nos. 129 and 130 in E. P. No. 555 of 1919 in respect of two pl...
Meyyappan Sevai Vs. Meyyappan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad571
Devadoss, J.1. The lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari brought O.S. No. 68 of 1901, against a number of defendants, for possession of about 13 and odd Kurrukkams of land, lying within the limits of Sekkalakkottai, Sivaganga Zamin. The Zamindar was subsequently added as the fourth plaintiff and one Karuthan Ambalam was also added as fifth plaintiff. The suit which was originally instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura East, was decreed, in plaintiff's favour, by the Temporary Sub-Court of Madura, on 22nd February, 1908. The High Court confirmed the decision of the Temporary Sub-Court in A. Section No. 77 of 1901, on 4th February, 1914. One Meyyappan Servai is the transferee of the decree and is the appellant herein. Defendants 129 and 130 are the sons of the 61st defendant. They were brought on record after their father's death, in E.P. No. 734 of 1918. The appellant applied for execution of the decree, against the defendants 129 and 130, in E.P. No. 555 of 1919, in re...
Pannai Ananthanarayana Ayyar Vs. Sankaranarayana Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad673
1. The appellant is one of the two petitioning creditors who applied to the District Court of Tinnevelly in I.P. No. 12 of 1919 to have the third respondent in this Court adjudicated an insolvent. One of the allegations in the petition was that the hypothecation in favour of the second respondent was in fraud of creditors. The Official Receiver, Tinnevelly, who is fourth respondent, sold the hypotheca free of encumbrance and paid the second respondent in full. The petitioning creditors applied to the District Court, Tinnevelly, to have the hypothecation declared void under Sections 53 and 54 of Act V of 1920. The District Judge held that the application was an appeal against the act of the Official Receiver under Section 68 of the Act and dismissed it with costs as being barred by limitation, it not having been presented within twenty-one days of the order of the Receiver. This appeal is against the judgment of the District Judge.2. The Appeal came on for hearing on 1st August 1923, wh...
Kembu Ammal Vs. J. Ranganatham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.30
Kishnan, J.1. I think the order of the Magistrate regarding the children cannot be supported. What entitles the children to get maintenance is not merely a formal refusal of the children's father to maintain but also his neglect to do so. That gives the Magistrate jurisdiction under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give maintenance to the children. A mere offer to maintain the children at the time of trial is not a justification to reject the petition of the children. In this case the father took no steps to see that his son was looked after when the head of the boarding house, where he was, reported that he could not be looked after any longer in that institution. It was the mother who received the son and looked after him. The girl has always been with the mother ever since the father and mother ceased to live together. The father has taken no steps up to this date to get the children into his custody and looked after them himself.2. In these circumstances, I consider th...
O' Kambu Ammal Vs. J. Ranganathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad624
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. I think the order of the Magistrate regarding the children cannot be supported. What entitles the children to ge6 maintenance is not merely a formal refusal of the children's father to maintain, but also his neglect to do so. That gives the Magistrate jurisdiction under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to give maintenance to the children. A mere offer to maintain the children, at the time of trial, is not a justification to reject the petition of the children. In this case, the father took no steps to see that his son was looked after, when the head of the boarding house, where he was, reported! that he could not be looked after any longer in that institution. It was the mother who received the son and looked after him. The girl has always been with the mother, ever; since the father and mother ceased to live together. The father has taken no steps up to this date to get the children into his custody and look after them himself.2. In these circumstances, ...
Premchand Indoji Vs. Soleti Gopalappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad398; 75Ind.Cas.376; (1923)45MLJ689
1. Under Section 3 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the District Court is the only Court having jurisdiction to deal with creditor's petitions, in the absence of any notification of the Local Government investing Subordinate Courts with jurisdiction over this class of cases. The District Judge's order transferring the petition to the Sub Court for disposal was therefore ultra vires. We set it aside together with the Sub-judge's order and direct the District Judge to take the case on his file and dispose of it according to law.2. As the objection to jurisdiction was not pressed till the want of jurisdiction was noticed by this Bench and as this petition was put in 2 3/4 years after the date of the order, while excusing the delay on account of the petitioner having through incorrect advise mistaken his remedy, we direct that each party bear his own costs in this petition....
M. Nagier and anr. Vs. Krishna Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.830
1. The defendant in Original Suit No. 174 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura, was arrested upon an execution petition, Execution Petition No. 60 of 1921. After arrest he paid Rs. 1,750, and as regards the balance, there was an application (Execution Appeal No. 178 of 1922) under Order XXI, Rule 40 that he should be released from custody on Security being given for his re-appearance. The surety-bond executed by the appellants in this case provided that the defendant should be brought before the Court on the 4th of July 1922, and that the sureties would be responsible for bringing him before the Court on that date, and that in case of failure to produce him on the said date they agreed that they themselves, their heirs and other properties should be liable for Rs. 7,200, the balance due under the decree. It does not appeal whether any proceedings took place in Court on the 4th of July 1922, but on the 20th of July 1922 the decree-holder presented a petition as...
M. Nagir and anr. Vs. Krishnan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad241
1. The defendant in O.S. No. 174 of 1921 on the die of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura was arrested upon an execution petition E.P. No. 60 of 1922. After arrest he paid Rs. 1,750, and as regards the balance, there was an application (E.A. No. 178 of 1922) under Order 21, Rule 40 that he should be released from custody on security being given for his reappearance. The surety bond executed by the appellants in this case provided that the defendant should be brought before the Court on the 4th of July 1922 and that the sureties would be responsible for bringing him before the Court on that date and that in case of failure to produce him on the said date they agreed that they themselves, their heirs and other properties should be liable for Rs. 7,200, balance due under the decree. It does not appear whether any proceedings took place in Court on the 4th of July 1922, but on the 20th of July 1922 the decree-holder presented a petition asking for warrants against the defendant and th...
Subramaniam Chetty and ors. Vs. Lakshmanan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.670
1. This appeal, which is connected with Appeal Suit No. 340 of 1918 from the same decree, relates to claim put forward by plaintiffs against the A.M. Firm, consisting of the family of appellants. Plaintiffs' father, the first defendant's father and others were members of N.R.M.P. Firm, which deposited a sum of money with A.M. Firm, in which first defendant's father was a partner. The accounts of N.R.M.P. Firm have not been settled. This is a suit to recover plaintiff's father's share of a debt due to his firm by another firm, in which one partner of creditor firm is also a partner. Even if plaintiffs were partners of the N.R.M.P. Firm, this would be an action for a partial account--such a suit will no doubt lie in certain cases, but, as pointed out by the Privy Council in Gopala Chetty v. Vijayaraghavachariar : (1922)24BOMLR1197 when a suit for an account is barred, a suit for a partial account cannot be allowed merely on the ground that defendant could claim that a general account sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »