Chennai Court August 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.
Athamsa Rowther Vs. Ganesan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad890; 85Ind.Cas.808; (1924)47MLJ641
Wallace, J.1. The respondents had obtained in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvalur, against the appellant a. preliminary mortgage decree ex parte on 2nd September, 1912, and a final decree 'ex parte on 15th September, 1917. On 20th November, 1920, the appellant applied in I. A. No. 39 of 1921 to the District Munsif to set aside the ex parte final decree. This was allowed on 17th December, 1921. The entry on the notes paper referring to this runs :--' Ex parte decree set aside as per order on I. A. No. 39 of 1921. For written statement and draft issues adjourned to 6th January, 1922.' The order itself is headed, ' This is a petition to set aside the ex parte final decree passed against the petitioner,' and concludes ' It is ordered that the petition be and the same hereby is allowed.' When the re-hearing of the application for final decree came on, it was contended before the District Munsif, a different Judge from the one who passed the order on I. A. No. 39 of 1921, that the no...
Ganapathia Pillai Vs. Malaiperumal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad202
Wallace, J.1. These are appeals against the order of the lower Court setting aside a Court sale in execution. The lower Court in its order points out several things, in connection with the sale, which it calls suspicious, and concludes that the property has been sold for an unconscionably low price, and on those two grounds, it has set aside the sale. Now obviously this order does not in any way comply with the requirements of Order 21, Rule 90. Schedule 1, Civil Procedure Code, under which the first thing to be proved is that there was a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, and next that the irregularity or fraud so proved caused substantial injury to the parties, who seek to set aside the sale. We are unable to find any irregularity or fraud, and certainly the lower Court does not record that it found any.2. The learned Subordinate Judge mentions two points : first, that at the time of the sale, as there were no bidders, the decree holder got the upset...
Baswan Vs. A.R. Rangaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad714
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore, in C.A. No. 67 of 1922 setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris, in E.P. No. 722 of 1921. The respondent got a decree on 6th July, 1912. He applied for execution on 5th July, 1915. Again on 3rd January, 1919, he applied for execution and was asked to explain how the application was not time-barred. He explained that he relied upon two payments, made on 10th May, 1916 and 15th August, 1918. Then the application was dismissed, because 'the delay in re-presentation was too great.' He had been given time till 30th March, 1921 and made his re-presentation on 30th March, 1921. So the order is difficult to explain. But that is how it stands. On 27th June, 1921, ha made another application the validity of which was upheld by the lower Appellate Court and is now attacked. The ground of attack is that the application, of 3rd January, 1919, was not filed and amended in time, as ordered by the lower Cou...
Basuvan Vs. A.R. Rengasami by His Agent T.V. Manickam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.88
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore in A.S. No. 67 of 1922, setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris, in E.P. No. 722 of 1921. The respondent got a decree on 6th July 1912. He applied for execution on 5th July 1915. Again on 3rd January 1919, he applied for execution and was asked to explain how the application was not time-barred. He explained that he relied upon two payments made on 10th March 1916 and 15th August 1918. Then the application was dismissed because the delay in representation was too great. He had been given time till 30th March 1921, and made his representation on 30th March 1921, so the order is difficult to explain. But that is how it stands. On 27th June 1921 he made another application the validity of which was upheld by the lower Appellate Court and is now attacked. The ground of attack is that the application of 3rd January 1919 was not filed and amended in time as ordered by the lower Court and, therefor...
Ganapathi Pillai Vs. Maliperumal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.342
1. These are appeals against the order of the lower Court setting aside a Court sale in execution. The lower Court in its order points out several things in connection with the sale which it calls suspicious, and concludes that the property has been sold for an unconscionably low price, and on those two grounds it has set aside the sale. Now, obviously this order does not in any way comply with the requirements of Order XXI, Rule 90, Schedule 1, O.P.C. under which the first thing to be proved is that there was a material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale, and next that the irregularity or fraud so proved caused substantial injury to the parties who seek to set aside the sale. We are unable to find any irregularity or fraud and certainly the lower Court does not record that it found any.2. The learned Subordinate Judge mentions two points: first, that at the time of the sale, as there were no bidders, the decree-holder got the upset price reduced from Rs. 11,000...
Goddam Chowdanna Vs. K.T. Venkatapathinayamvaru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad621
Phillips, J.1. In this case the appellant-defendant was the holder of a certain inam grant given by the Zamindar of Kangudi whose reprssentative is now the plaintiff-respondent in 1806. Both the lower Courts have found that this estate was settled in 1797, and consequently this grant to the defendant's predecessor was a post-settlement grant. The only evidence of the nature of the grant is contained in Ex. A which says that it was for a service to attend daily on the zamindar as he performs devotions, etc. This is undoubtely a personal service to the zamindar, and the question arises as to whether it is resumable or not. It does not appear to be a grant burdened with service, but rather a grant in lieu of wages; for there is no evidence that there was any reason for the grant except that the grantee should perform in the future the service enumerated. That being so, it has always been held in this Court that the zamindar is entitled to put an end to such service at his pleasure and res...
Dada Sahib (Minor) by Next Friend and Maternal Uncle, Hirebal Baba Sah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad204; 85Ind.Cas.258; (1924)47MLJ928
Devadoss, J.1. In this Second Appeal, two points are urged by the appellant. The first is that his guardian (O.S. No. 258 of 1916) was guilty of gross negligence, and therefore, the decree in that suit is not binding on him; the second is that the arrangement under which the appellant was given a house was a family arrangement and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of such arrangement.2. The plaintiff-appellant brought the suit for a declaration of his right to the plaint shop and to recover possession from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant brought O.S. No. 258 of 1916, for the possession of the plaint property, against the plaintiff, as 2nd defendant, and his father as 1st defendant, alleging that the father had sold the property to him and that he was entitled to possession of the same. The 2nd defendant was represented by a Court guardian, as no proper guardian was available. The Court guardian, on the day the case was taken up, was absent and the suit was decreed ex parte....
Gooty Agraharam Subramanian and anr. Vs. Agraharam Ramachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.503; (1924)47MLJ908
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the suit is not maintainable as it does not embrace all the properties belonging to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The plaintiff admits in his evidence that there are several lands belonging to him and the defendants which are in the possession of tenants, that he himself had leased the lands before the date of suit and that the income from the lands was payable to himself as well as to defendants Nos. 1 and 2.3. The District Munsif held that the suit was maintainable and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal of the defendants on the ground that the suit was maintainable. We are clearly of opinion that this is not a case in which there was any inconvenience or difficulty in the way of including the other lands belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants among the properties to be divided in the suit. If some property belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants was in the hands of a third party cla...
G.A. Subramanian and anr. Vs. A. Ramachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad333
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the suit is not maintainable as it does not embrace all the properties belonging to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The plaintiff admits in his evidence that there are several lands belonging to him and the defendants which are in the possession of tenants, that he himself had leased the lands before the date of suit and that the income from the lands was payable to himself as well as to defendants Nos. 1 and 2.3. The District Munsiff held that the suit was maintainable and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal of the defenants on the ground that the suit was maintainable. We are dearly of opinion that this is not a cage in which there was any inconvenience or difficulty in the way of including the other lands belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants among the properties to be divided in the suit. If some property belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants was in the hands of a third party clai...
A.L.A.R.R.M. Arunachallam Chetti and ors. Vs. B. Raja Rajeswara Sethup ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1260
Spencer, O.C.J.1. This suit was brought by the Rajah of Ramnad, in his capacity as hereditary trustee, of certain Devastanams, to obtain from the lessees, who are the firm of A.L.A.R., an account of the income of the village of Ekkakudi for fasli 1322 and for payment of the amount due, according to the accounts, or such amount as may be due even if the lessees are not liable to render accounts.2. Two questions have been argued before us : (1) whether the suit is maintainable, or does the plaintiff's remedy lie in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 71 of 1902; and (2) whether the suit is barred by limitation.3. The compromise of the parties was embodied wholesale, in the decree of the Court in O.S. No. 71 of 1902, which is Ex. A(2). One of its terms is that the parties should obtain a declaratory decree Another term declares that in the matter of looking into the accounts, the amounts found due should be paid. In that suit, there has been no taking of accounts and no final decree, fixi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »