Chennai Court July 1924 Judgments
Purushothama Naidu Vs. S.N. Ramaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad245
1. Respondent (Official Receiver) does not appear. We cannot support the order of the learned District Judge. When the Official Receiver came into the case, there was only the equity of redemption, which could be vested in him. If he claimed more, it was his business to prove that he was entitled to more. As there is nothing to show that that he claimed more, we must allow appellant the value of his secured debt which is the only secured debt in the schedule. Appellant's claim must be met by the Official Receiver, out of the acquisition money, into which appellant's security has been converted.2. We reverse the order of the District Judge and direct accordingly. There will be no order as to costs,...
Tag this Judgment!Muppavarapu Venkata Radhakrishna Rao and anr. Vs. Venthurumilli Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ552
1. Mr. Rajah Aiyar for respondents raises a preliminary point that no appeal lies.2. The first Court heard and decided the case before it fully on all issues. The lower Appellate Court permitted the plaint to be amended before it and remanded the case for trial on the amended plaint to the first Court. This order of remand clearly cannot be brought within Order 41, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code, even in its widest interpretation as laid down by the Full Bench in Raman Nayar v. Krishnan Nambudripad : AIR1922Mad505 Nevertheless the only course open to an Appellate Court which permits before it an amendment of the plaint is to remand the case for trial to the first Court vide Uzir Ali Sardar v. Savai Behara ILR (1916) C 938. and Narottam Raja Ram v. Mohan Lal Khan Das ILR (1912) B 289. Here then we are confronted with a legal order of remand which does not come within the purview of Order 41, Rule 23, and cannot therefore subscribe to the contention of the appellant that such an order is ...
Tag this Judgment!Thilla Rukmani Ammal Vs. K.T.A.B. Rajagopala Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad839; 84Ind.Cas.281; (1924)47MLJ495
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act arises out of a petition by a creditor to adjudge the 1st respondent an insolvent. The learned District Judge found that the petitioner was a consenting party to the deed of arrangement executed on 3rd December, 1921, (Ex. I) for the benefit of all the creditors and on this ground she was disentitled from filing this petition and dismissed it. The petitioner appeals.2. On the evidence we have no hesitation in finding that the petitioner was a consenting party to the deed. She is a marks-woman but there is evidence to show that she was present and put her mark along with that of another lady. The petitioner is the aunt of the 1st respondent who still lives in her house and it seems to be probable that the petition has been filed in collusion with him.3. The question of law argued for the appellant is that there is a difference between the law in England and in India on the question of the disability of a credito...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Radhakrishna Rao and anr. Vs. Venkata Rao and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad229; (1925)ILR68Mad713
1. Mr. Rajah Ayyar for respondents raises a preliminary point that no appeal lies.2. The first Court heard and decided the case before it fully on all issues. The lower Appellate Court permitted the plaint to be amended before it and remanded the case for trial on the amended plaint to the first Court. This order of remand clearly cannot be brought within Order XLI, Rule 23, Civil Procedure Code, even at its widest interpretation as laid down by the Full Bench in Raman Nayar v. Krishnan Nambudripad I.L.R., (1922) Mad., 900 Nevertheless the only course open to an Appellate Court which permits before it an amendment of the plaint is to remand the case for trial to the first Court (vide Uzir Ali Sardar v. Savai Behara I.L.R., (1916) Calc., 938 and Narottam Rajaram v. Mohanlal Kahandas I.L.R., (1913) Bom., 289. Here then we are confronted with a legal order of remand which does not come within the purview of Order XLI, Rule 23, and cannot therefore subscribe to the contention of the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Muppavaraju Venkata Radhakrishna Rao and anr. Vs. Venthurumilli Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.965
1. Mr. Kajah Iyer for respondents raises a preliminary point that no appeal lies.2. The First Court heard and decided the case before it fully on all issues. The lower Appellate Court permitted the plaint to be amended before it and remanded the case for trial on the amended plaint to the First Court. This order of remand clearly cannot' be brought within Order XLI, Rule 23, C.P.C. even in its widest interpretation as laid down by the Full Bench in Malayath Veetil Raman Nayar v. Krishnan Nambudripad 69 Ind. Cas. 828 : 45 M.P 900 : 31 M.L.T. 208 : 16 L.W. 425 : 43 M.L.J. 354 : (1922) M.W.N. 589 : A.I.R. (1922) (M) 505. Nevertheless the only course open to an Appellate Court which permits before it an amendment of the plaint is to remand the case for trial to the First Court vide Uzir Ali Sardar v. Savai Behara 32 Ind. Cas. 791 : 43 C.P 938 : 20 C.W.N. 547 and Narottam Rajaram v. Mohanlal Kahandas 17 Ind. Cas. 891 : 37 B.K 289. Here then we are confronted with a legal order of remand whi...
Tag this Judgment!Rajagopala Padayachi Vs. Varadaraja Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad84; (1924)47MLJ605
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in A.S. No. 79 of 1921 (O.S. No. 249 of 1920, District Munsif's Court, Mannargudi).2. The appellant was one of three brothers and at the time of partition it was agreed that instead of taking his share of the land, he should receive an annuity in moieties from his two brothers, and if either defaulted, he should resume that portion of his share which had gone to the defaulter. In Schedule D, of the partition deed, Ex. C, the two halves which make up his share are shewn as severally added to the shares of each of the other brothers. The respondent made default and appellant sued for arrears of annuity, and for the resumption of his half share from the defaulter. The original Court decreed his suit, but the Subordinate Judge on appeal while decreeing the arrears, relieved respondent against the resumption of the half share holding that it was by way of penalty. Hence this appeal. It is contended on behalf of re...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanuja Naidu and ors. Vs. Muthu K.R.V. Alagappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad882; 85Ind.Cas.801; (1924)47MLJ656
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that a Court-fee of Rs. 2,200 odd is payable on the plaint, and the plaintiff files this Civil Revision Petition attacking the correctness of the order. The suit has been instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of Kudal Alagar and Madhanagopalaswami Devasthanams at Madura. The plaint contains a prayer for various reliefs, such as the removal of the defendant from trusteeship, the appointment of a new trustee, the settling of a scheme, etc. In addition, the plaintiffs ask for the issue of ' a temporary mandatory injunction ' to compel the defendant to deposit in Court immediately a sum of Rs. 1,24,000 which the plaintiffs claim is due from the defendant to the Devasthanams. The Subordinate Judge has held that a Court-fee is payable on this sum to which the relief mentioned relates.2. The only question to be decided is : Is this a suit that falls under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code Under Article 1...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. Lakshmikutti Ammal Vs. V. Mariathummal Alias Thithumma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad127; (1924)47MLJ798
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the appellate order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat (in E.P. No. 1742 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Chowghat). There was a mortgage with possession and lease back on the same day. The appellant sued on the lease and obtained a decree and is attempting to bring the property to sale. The respondent resists, contending that such sale is contrary to the provisions of Order 34, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. The lower Courts have upheld this contention, hence the appeal.2. I agree that the two documents in question Exs. A and B must be treated as one. In Ex. B, it is agreed that arrears shall be paid by the sale of the equity of redemption, which appellant points to as marking a difference between the two transactions, but I do not consider that is sufficient to justify their being treated as separate documents. Once the two documents are treated as one it must, I think, be taken as settled law (as observed below ...
Tag this Judgment!Koyyalamudi Chinnayya and anr. Vs. Koyyalamudi Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad864
Jackson, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore in A.S. No. 181 of 1921 preferred against the decree in C.S. No. 262 of 1920 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Ellore. 2. The lower appellate Court decreed the suit and Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeal.3. The plaintiffs sue for recovery of possession of certain properties and for mesne profits alleging that the properties fell to the share of the 1st plaintiff's husband in a partition held in 1911, and the question whether there was such a partition (Issue No. 1) has been decided in the affirmative by the lower appellate Court. It is a question of fact which ordinarily cannot be raised in second appeal but the appellants contend that the lower appellate Court wrongfully admitted as evidence the documents Exs. P, P (1) and P (2) and was influenced by these documents without giving the appellants an opportunity of showing that they were forged. The District Munsif...
Tag this Judgment!Virupaksha Rao Naidu Vs. M. Ranganayaki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1132; 87Ind.Cas.346
ORDER1. Section 117 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the provisions of the Code apply to the Original Side, except when expressly excluded Order 41, Rule 10 was not excluded in Order 49, Rule 3. Section 129 of the Code gives the High Court the power to make rules, regulating the procedure of the Original side and nothing in the Code will affect such rules. The effect is that if the rules of the High Court, Original Side, and the Code are inconsistent, the rules prevail. Now, Order 41, Rule 10 can be read along with Rule 354 of the rules of the High Court, Original Side. The manner of applying is by notice of motion and to that extent it may modify the provision in the Code that it shall be by petition. As to what the Court should do, the Original Side Rule is silent. We do not think that the decision in Behram Jung v. Haji Sultan Ali (1913) 37 Bom. 572 and Ratanchand v. Damji A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 399 help us. In Bombay there is a special rule providing for a deposit Rs. 500, along...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »