Chennai Court April 1924 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.
Syed Oomer Sahib Vs. Gopaul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad813
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case (Civil Revision Petition No. 21 of 1923) the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 125 of 1921 in the Small Cause Court applied under Section 9 of the Madras Act III of 1922 for an order directing the plaintiff to sell the land in the suit. The sole question is whether at the time the Act came into force the defendant can be described as 'a tenant against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted.' It is not contended that those words can bear the extreme meaning that any tenant against whom a suit in ejectment had ever been instituted--a suit which might have been brought to a completion by execution and ejectment--is within these words of Section 9; but it is contended that it applies to a case where the suit in ejectment has resulted in judgment but has not been executed or completed by the process of ejectment. It seems to me that that contention is right and that the tenant intended by the section is a person who is threatened with ej...
Syed Oomer Sahib Vs. Gopaul and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad12; 82Ind.Cas.454; (1924)47MLJ350
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case (Civil Revision Petition No. 21 of 1923) the defendant in Ejectment Suit No. 125 of 1921 in the Small Cause Court applied under Section 9 of the Madras Act III of 1922 for an order directing the plaintiff to sell the land in the suit. The sole question is whether at the time the Act came into force the defendant can be described as 'a tenant against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted.' It is not contended that those words can beer the extreme meaning that any tenant against whom a suit in ejectment had ever been instituted--a suit which might have been brought to a completion by execution, and ejectment--is within these words of Section 9; but it is contended that it applies to a case where the suit in ejectment has resulted in judgment but has not been executed or completed by the process of ejectment. It seems to me that that contention is right and that the tenant intended by the section is a person who is threatened with e...
K.V. Ramachari Vs. K.V. Krishnamachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad846; (1924)47MLJ460
Wallace, J.1. First defendant in O.S. No. 8 of 1923 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Madura, has put in two revision petitions Nos. 86 and 87 of 1924 asking for revision of two interlocutory orders of the Subordinate Judge with reference to inspection of his documents by plaintiff. Interference by this Court with the proceedings of a lower Court during the pendency of a suit is to be deprecated unless strong reasons are made good, but in the present case I think that the revisional powers of this Court must be exercised, partly on the ground that the lower Court has not properly understood the provisions of Order 11, Rule 14, of the Civil Procedure Code, and partly on the ground that the result of its orders may be wholly unnecessary and irremediable damage to 1st defendant's business interests.2. There are two main contentions in the suit--(a) that plaintiff is really a partner in 1st defendant's firm and trade, (b)that plaintiff is therefore entitled to...
Doorvas S.S. Subbarama Aiyar Vs. Somalinga Subba Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ523
Krishnan, J. 1. In this case the appellant brought a suit against the first respondent in the Sub-Court of Madura and pending that suit, applied for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5, of the Civil Procedure Code. The 1st respondent agreed to furnish security and executed the bond, the effect of which is the question now before us. His suit was subsequently dismissed by the first Court. The appellant however succeeded in getting a decree in the Appellate Court He now applies to have his decree executed against the properties mentioned in the security bond. It should be stated that after this application had been filed, the 1st respondent was adjudicated an insolvent, and all his properties have become vested in the Official Receiver, who has been brought on record as the 2nd respondent. The Official Receiver raised a number of contentions against the decree of the appellant being executed against the properties in question. It is sufficient for the disposal of this appea...
In Re: Garapati Butchi Seethayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.405; (1924)47MLJ919
Krishnan, J.1. This is a reference under the Court Fees Act that has been referred to me for disposal by the learned Chief Justice, the Taxing Officer having referred the matter for the decision of the Court. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree so far as the nth defendant, the appellant before me is concerned, for the recovery of possession of a half share of the lands sold to him under Ex. V by his father on payment of Rs. 12,000. The appellant's appeal asks this Court to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the lands at all and that the suit should be dismissed as against the appellant. The question raised is what is the Court-fee that the appellant has to pay on his appeal. No doubt as Sir Kumaraswami Sastri, J., has remarked in In re, Porkodi Achi : AIR1922Mad211 ' The current of authority is clearly in favour of the view that the value of an appeal is not in all cases the value of the suit as originally filed but the value of the relief granted by the decree which a...
D.S.S. Subbarama Iyyar Vs. Somalinga Subba Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad114
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the appellant brought a suit against the first respondent in the Sub-Court of Madura and pending that suit, applied for attachment before judgment under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. The 1st respondent agreed to furnish security and executed the bond, the effect of which is the question now before us. His suit was subsequently dismissed by the first Court.2. The appellant, however, succeeded in getting a decree in the appellate Court. He now applies to have his decree executed against the properties mentioned in the security bond. It should be stated that after this application had been filed, the 1st respondent was adjudicated an insolvent, and all his properties have become vested in the Official Receiver, who has been brought on record as the 2nd respondent. The Official Receiver raised a number of contentions against the decree of the appellant being executed against the properties in question. It is sufficient for the disposal of this ap...
Thithi Kutti Vs. Nellaya Varnath Manager Under a Karar, Raghavan Unni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad225
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff, a member of a Malabar tarwad, sues to recover possession of the suit properties allotted to the deceased, Krishna Wariar under Exhibits B and C. The defendant is in possession of these properties under the mortgages executed by the deceased Krishna Wariar. The lower Courts have decreed possession to the plaintiff holding that the mortgages are not binding on the tarwad. The learned vakil for the appellant has advanced various arguments in this Second Appeal. His first argument is that the arrangement under which those properties were allotted to Krishna Wariar amounted to a partition of the tarwad properties that accordingly Krishna Wariar got these properties absolutely for himself and through him his client, The mortgagees have now got valid rights to these properties. On a construction of Exhibits B and C, it cannot be held that Krishna Wariar had effected a partition of the properties from the tarwad.2. It is ne...
In Re: G.B. Seethayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad323
Krishnan, J.1. This is a reference under the Court Fees Act that has been referred to me for disposal by the learned Chief Justice, the Taxing Officer having referred the matter for the decision of the Court. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree so far as the 11th defendant, the appellant before mo is concerned for the recovery of possession of a half share of the lands sold to him under Exhibit V by his father on payment of Rs. 12,000. The appellant's appeal asks this Court to hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the lands at all and that the suit should be dismissed as against the appellant. The question raised is what is the Court fee that the appellant has to pay on his appeal. No doubt as Sir Kumaraswami Sastri, J., has remarked in Porkodi Achi In re, A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 211The current of authority is clearly in favour of the view that the value of an appeal is not in all cases the value of the suit as originally filed but the value of the relief granted by the decree w...
Sinnaswami Chettiar Vs. Aligi Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ530
1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore refusing protection to the appellant who has filed a petition in insolvency in that Court. The petition had been admitted but no order of adjudication had been made at the time the application for protection was made or even now. The learned Judge has refused protection on the ground that the insolvent had made two fraudulent transfers just before he made the application. We do not however propose to go into that question in appeal. Section 31 of the Provincial Insolvency Act deals with applications for protection only after the order of adjudication is made and that stage had not been reached in this case yet. The only other provision which deals expressly with what may be called protection before adjudication is Section 23. That section says, ' At the time of making an order admitting the petition or at any subsequent time before adjudication, the Court may, if the debtor is under arrest or imprisonment in execut...
The Collector of Kristna Vs. Gajjala Sreeramamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad433
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 26 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore sued defendant in forma-pauperis. The decree directed defendant to pay Rs. 250 to Government being pauper stamp duty. Defendant's properties were sold in execution and Government applied for payment of Rs. 229-11-0 out of the sale proceeds and obtained a cheque for that amount. Plaintiff applied for re-deposit inasmuch as he had brought the property to sale, and the District Munsif has allowed his application. Hence this revision petition. The Court fees form a Crown debt and the Crown is entitled to precedence in payment of this debt over all creditors : Gayamond Bala Dassee v. Butto Kristo Bairagee (1906) 33 Cal. 1040. The fact that plaintiff brought the property to sale is immaterial. The petition is allowed and the order of the District Judge is reversed. Costs will be paid to the petitioner throughout....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »