Chennai Court November 1925 Judgments
Nori Venkatakrishnayya Vs. Kundurthi Byragi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad535; 94Ind.Cas.634; (1926)50MLJ353
1. The contention of Mr. Ramadoss in this appeal is that the debt incurred by the father was in the capacity of a trustee and therefore he must have been considered to have criminally misappropriated the trust funds and that the son's share cannot be made liable for such a debt.2. There is nothing to show that the 1st defendant misappropriated any amount so as to bring him within the clutches of the Criminal Law and all that was found against him was that certain sums of money for which he was accountable were not accounted for by him and in a scheme suit he was ordered to pay the amount which came into his hands. We do not think that will amount to misappropriation or breach of trust within the meaning of Section 403 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code. If he had been found guilty of breach of trust he would have been removed from his office of trusteeship. But he has been allowed to continue. Therefore we cannot hold that he was guilty of breach of trust. Even if it is found that he misa...
Tag this Judgment!Ammakannammal and anr. Vs. V.K. Damodara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1928Mad66
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the deed of trust executed by her on the 11th March 1920 in favour of the defendants was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and is inoperative, for setting aside the trust deed on the ground that she was not competent to create the trust, for possession of the suit house and mesne profits. The plaintiff died pending suit leaving a will and the executor under the will has been brought on record.2. One Venkatarama Mudali, the husband of the plaintiff, who was the last male holder of the property mentioned in the plaint, died on the 1st October 1891 leaving the plaintiff his widow and two daughters Rathnakshi and Ponnammal. He left a will dated the 12th July 1889 as to the genuineness of which there is no dispute as both parties rely on that will in support of their case. ' The will after setting out the title of the testator to the property proceeds as follows:Therefore, after my lifetime, my elder daugh...
Tag this Judgment!Thummalapalli Venkatakrishnayya Vs. Thummalapalli Sayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad958
Waller, J.1. It is argued that no revision petition lies: vide Mohammad Ayub v. Mohammad Mahmud [1910] 32 All. 623. I am not prepared to follow the distinction laid down in that decision.2. I am afraid that this application must be allowed. Applicant has let in no evidence of her pauperism and has not even presented herself for cross-examination. The order is set aside, and the application will be re-heard, each party to let in such evidence as it has pro and con. Costs of this petition will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Kuzhakkumbat Madhathil Appu Alias Subramania Pathar Vs. C. Achutha Men ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.8
1. The first point raised in this appeal is that the proclamation of sale was not settled by the Court but that the Commissioner appointed by the Court after the preliminary decree prepared the proclamation of sale and sold the property. It is for the Court to settle the proclamation of sale and it could not delegate that power to the Commissioner appointed by it. Order XXI, Rule 66 directs that when any properly is ordered to be sold by public auction in execution of a decree, the Court shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of such Court and then such proclamation shall be drawn up after notice to the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor and shall state the time and place of sale and specify as fairly and accurately as possible the property to be sold and a, number of things. It is also contended that the appellant was not allowed to bid at the auction. The learned Judge relying upon the report of the Receiver has dismissed the appellant's applica...
Tag this Judgment!Settikara Venkatarama Chettiar and ors. Vs. O.P. Damodaram Chettiar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1150; (1926)51MLJ457
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs have brought this suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, for framing a scheme for the management of Ramalingam and Choudeswari Amman temple in Andichetty Street, Cogai, Salem. The 1st defendant is a managing trustee of the temple and defendants 2 to 10 are trustees of the temple who aided and instigated the 1st defendant in his various misdeeds and breaches of trust. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged various acts of mismanagement against the 1st defendant who denied all of them and opposed the framing of the scheme. When the case came on for trial the plaintiffs and the defendants did not press for the trial of all the issues raised in the case.' They agreed to the Court framing a suitable scheme for the proper management of the institution. The plaintiffs did not press for the removal of the defendants from office and the defendants did not press for the trial of the case on the merits and waived their objection to the validity of the sanction obt...
Tag this Judgment!Bermu Chetty Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.361
1. The appellant has been convicted of offences under Sections 303 and 301 of the Indian Penal Code. There can be no doubt that there was a fight in the course of which he caused the death of two persons and was himself seriously injured. He pleads the right of private defence.2. One of the deceased men Sankappa Shetty was the brother of the appellant's wife. There was a dispute about the headship of a family under whom he and she were joint tenants. Sankappa was supporting one candidate, while his sister supported the other. On the day of the occurrence, he wanted paddy for paying his rent, broke out the store room, removed the paddy and put his own lock on the door. When he came back for more paddy, he found another lock on the door, and was told that it was his sister's. On this occasion he was accompanied by Narayana Hegde, the son of the candidate for the headship. When he was preparing to remove the lock, his sister came and held it. There was a struggle between them, in the cour...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Karu V. Alagappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Krishnier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad62; 97Ind.Cas.866
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the advance paid by him in respect of a yarn contract. The contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is sought to be made liable on the ground that he guaranteed the performance of the contract by the 1st defendant and also on the ground that he was guilty of some fraud which would fix him with responsibility. The 3rd defendant is the agent of the 2nd defendant and for the purpose of this appeal it is unnecessary to make any distinction between the 2nd and 3rd defendants as it is not disputed that the 3rd defendant acted for and on behalf of the 2nd defendant.2. The facts are simple, although the judgment of the lower Court has given them the appearance of great complexity.3. Ramalinga Mudaliar and Sons agreed to sell the 2nd defendant 50 bales of Madura yarn of 24 counts. The 2nd defendant agreed to assign this contract i...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Chettiar Vs. Chokkalinga Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad691
1. The appellant is the assignee of the 5th plaintiff decree-holder an O.S. No. 15 of 1905 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Negapatam. The respondent is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 64 of 1916 on the file of the same Court. In that suit he obtained a decree against the appellant's assignor under which he (the respondent) was entitled to get from him Rs. 3,000 in four months' time with interest at eight annas per cent, per mensem from this date and in default Rs. 4,000 with interest at 1 per cent. per mensem from this date and the decree debts in O.S. No. 15 of 1905 were also made liable for this claim giving the respondent a charge over them. The appellant executed the decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1905 and the money was deposited in Court. When the respondent applied for the payment of his decree amount from this sum in E.A. No. 1215 of 1919, he was ordered to be impleaded as a supplemental respondent in E.P. No. 207 of 1919 (namely, the appellant's application for execution ...
Tag this Judgment!Payath Ramdupurayil Sara Umma and ors. Vs. Kidangu Kettiya Ramdupurayi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad810
1. The suit out of which this Letters Patent appeal arises was instituted by one of the junior members of a Malabar tarwad against their karnavan for maintenance. The 1st defendant, the karnavan died in the course of the suit and Defendants 2 to 5, the respondents before us, have been added as his legal representatives. The suit was to recover a money allowance from the 1st defendant personally and as karnavan of the tarwad. In defence it was pleaded that Ex. 1 was a bar to the plaintiffs' claim. Ex. I is a karar dated 1886 between the then karnavan of the tarwad, Kunhi Thoppar, and the members mentioned in it according to which properties were allotted to various tavazhies for maintenance. The present plaintiffs are the descendants of one Ummathal, No. 4 in Ex. I. It is admitted that they were not born at the time of the karar and the records do not show that their mother was a party to it. The tarwad at that time consisted of 69 members of whom 38 were adults and the rest minors. No ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Satrucharla Gangaraju Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. Sir Sri Sri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad797; 96Ind.Cas.194
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge directing the appointment of a Receiver in respect of the Pedda Merangi estate. The plaintiff has obtained a mortgage-decree for a very large amount against the appellant. It is said that the personal remedy is outstanding but No. personal decree has yet been passed against the appellant. The allegation of the plaintiff is that the mortgaged property would not fetch even half the amount of the decree. Granting for arguments' sake that it is so, we do not see any reason why the Court should appoint a Receiver for property which is not the subject-matter of the suit. The appellant succeeded as reversioner to the estate of a certain minor and the Pedda Merangi estate descended to him from the minor after the mortgage suit was filed. In these circumstances, we do not see any justification for the appointment of a Receiver for Pedda Merangi estate and for depriving the appellant of the possession of that estate.2. When there is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »