Chennai Court November 1925 Judgments
Payoth Randupurayil Sara Umma and ors. Vs. Kidangukittiya Rundupurayil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.508
1. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted by some of the junior members of a Malabar tarward against the karnavan for maintenance. The 1st defendant, the karnavan, died in the course of the suit and defendants Nos. 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. I was a bar to the plaintiffs' claim. Exhibit I is a karar of 1886 between the then karnavan of the tarwad, Kunhi Thoopar, and the members mentioned in it according to which properties were allotted to various tavazhis 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 33 were adults and the rest minor...
Tag this Judgment!Yandluri Yellamanda Vs. Kunchala Chitambaram (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad505; (1926)50MLJ267
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of his 1|6th share in the plaint property. The defendants contended that the lands in respect of which the relief was claimed were inam lands and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Both the Lower Courts have held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The plaintiff has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal.2. In order to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction or not we have to see what the averments in the plaint are and what is the cause of action of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sets out in his plaint that the plaint-land was granted on Cowl on 19th November, 1897 and it expired with the close of the year, Parithavi, 1912-194,3, and that defendants 2 to 5 have been cultivating the land along with the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and his father with some of the defendants took possession of the plaint-property and the 2nd defendant instituted Original Suit No. 256 of 1915 on the file of th...
Tag this Judgment!Tambireddi Virareddi Vs. Devi Reddy Pattabhirami Reddy and Company, Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ584
1. The plaintiffs who are respondents 1 and 2 herein arrested the 2nd defendant, the 3rd respondent herein, in execution of a money-decree. The appellant executed a security-bond on nth December, 1923 undertaking to produce and hand over the 2nd defendant whenever the Court passed an order to produce him. The bond also provided that in default of the surety producing the 2nd defendant and handing him over to the Court, the amount of decree, interest, and costs shall be recovered by the plaintiffs from the surety personally. On the execution of the bond, the 2nd defendant was released from arrest. The plaintiffs applied to the Lower Court for an order that the surety be directed to produce the 2nd defendant and in default of producing him, the decree-amount be realised from him. The appellant contended that the decree of the plaintiffs against the 2nd defendant had been satisfied and that no execution could issue against him in execution of a decree already satisfied. The District Judge...
Tag this Judgment!V. Ry. Hari Sahib and anr. Vs. Ry. Sivaji Raja Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad61; 97Ind.Cas.783
1. Only two points are argued in these appeals: (1) res judicata and (2) limitation. On the first point, it is argued that, because the present plaintiffs were party defendants in two prior suits in which they failed to obtain the relief which they now seek, the question is concluded and they cannot raise it again. One of these two suits was by a coparcener to recover his share of the family property against Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the alienors of the present plaintiffs. In that suit, the plaint property was excluded from partition and consequently it would not have been possible for the plaintiffs to get a share in the property excluded from partition under that decree. They were only defendants in that suit and as the property in which they were interested was not partitioned, they could not get their share under the decree. The second suit was by another alienee of the other portion of the property which the plaintiffs claim but it cannot be contended that, because one alienee bring...
Tag this Judgment!Belagoduhal Virabhadra Gowd Vs. Kalyan Gangamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1211; 97Ind.Cas.465
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff claimed in this suit filed in forma pauperis the properties of one Kalyani Narasappa on the ground that he was an illatom son-in-law of that deceased person. After the suit had been once dismissed and while an application for restoration was pending, there was a reference to arbitration by the parties. The award of the arbitrators passed on 22nd December, 1921, gave the plaintiff 2 acres of wet land and a sum of Rs. 1,500. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff accepted the award and received Rs. 1,500. Admittedly he signed Ex. VI in which reference is made to the award. It does not, therefore, very much signify that at the final trial of this suit the receipt for the sum of Rs. 1,500 was not forthcoming. Nor does it matter that Rs. 500 went into the hands of one Sakkara Gowd as there is evidence that that sum was paid to him in consideration of his assistance to the plaintiff in settling the dispute. As the decree of the lower Court is in accord...
Tag this Judgment!Tambi Reddi Virareddy Vs. Devi Reddy Pattabhiram Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad674; 94Ind.Cas.522
1. The plaintiffs who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein arrested the 2nd defendant, the 3rd respondent herein, in execution of a money-decree. The appellant executed a security bond on 11th December 1923 undertaking to produce and hand over the 2nd defendant whenever the Court passed an order to produce him. The bond also provided that in default of the surety producing the second defendant and handing him over to the Court, the amount of decree interest, and costs shall be recovered by the plaintiffs from the surety personally. On the execution of the bond, the second defendant was released from arrest. The plaintiffs applied to the lower Court for an order that the surety be directed to produce the second defendant and in default of producing him, the decree amount be realised from him. The appellant contended that the decree of the plaintiffs against the second defendant had been satisfied and that no execution could issue against him in execution of a decree already satisfied. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Solayappa Naicker Vs. Shunmugasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ237
Wallace, J.1. I am prepared to follow the judgments of this Court reported in Natesa Chettiar v. Annamalai Chetiiar (1922) 17 1 W 319 and Rangiah Chettiar v. Annaswami Alwar Aiyangar (1923) 18 1 W 836 which imply that the right of an insolvent adjudicated as such under Act III of 1907 to have execution proceedings against him stayed, unless the Insolvency Court gives leave to prosecute them, is a substantive right. That being so, it has not been abrogated by the subsequent stasute Act V of 1920. The order in E.P. No. 863 of 1923, dated 19th September, 1923, to arrest respondent was not with leave of the Insolvency Court and was therefore without jurisdiction.2. It is contended that it has become final because no appeal was presented against it. But it was an order passed without notice. On 5th October, 1923, he was arrested, brought to Court and released on terms, and on 16th October, 1923, he put in his E.A. No. 692 of 1923. There was, therefore, no order for arrest in force at the ti...
Tag this Judgment!Kizhakkumbat Madhathil Appu Alias Subramania Pattar Vs. C. Achutha Men ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ165
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 21, Rule 66 directs that when any property 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 no reserve price was mentioned in the proclamation of sale. It is also urged that the appellant was not allowed to bid at the auction. The learned Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Radhakrishna Aiyar Vs. B. Srinivasa Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad573; (1926)51MLJ10
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this Letters Patent appeal is whether a person who is claiming an interest in a portion of the subject-matter of the suit is entitled to continue an appeal filed by his vendor. In this case the appellant's vendor filed an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis on 10th July, 1923 with a memorandum of appeal. He died on 24th September, 1923 and on 5th December, 1923 the appellant made an application to be made a party appellant for the purpose of prosecuting the second appeal.2. The application to appeal in forma pauperis was dismissed and the appellant was directed to pay the Court-fee, and a month's time was granted him for the purpose. He has paid the Court-fee. His application for stay of proceedings in C.M.P. No. 2221 of 1923 was dismissed by Mr. Justice Jackson on the ground that the appellant had no right to continue the appeal which was filed by his vendor. The learned Judge distinguished the case of Muthiah Chettiar v. Govinddoss Krish...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dasa Naicken and anr. Vs. Pulikalath Kunha Ahamad Koya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad648; (1926)51MLJ69
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether Ex. DD, gift deed dated the 7th September, 1884 is valid. Mr. Justice Krishnan held that the donor purported to create an estate unknown to Muhammadan Law and therefore the gift failed. The relevant portion of the document is as follows:As it is you, our mother that have brought us up, we have given to you on Ochara Udama, gift of proprietary right as tarwad property, the schedule-mentioned moveable and immoveable properties. Therefore we have executed this deed to you with our free will and consent granting the said properties to be occupied as tarwad property for ever by children existing now and by those who will be born to them by the aforesaid Avarankutti, Aullakoya and Ummar and their children.2. The donors made a gift of their property to their mother and to their three brothers to be enjoyed by them as a tarwad. It is admitted before us that the word used is ' children ' and therefore the contention that ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »