Chennai Court November 1925 Judgments
Lakshmana Pattar Vs. Suppayya Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad264
Spencer, J.1. The learned District Judge apparently overlooked the fact, assuming there could be a valid assignment of a personal relief against the judgment-debtor and that Execution Petition. No. 507 of 1921 was a legal step in execution it could not save limitation for Execution Petition No. 192 of 1922 seeing that it was not taken within three years of the date of maintenance coming due, viz., 5th April 1918.2. An application to recognize an unregistered assignment of an interest in immovable property is not an application in accordance with law inasmuch as the executing Court is not competent to act upon an invalid transfer.3. The District Munsif was right upon this point. But if the unregistered assignment created no rights in the transferee to execute the decree against property, the interest must have remained in the transferrer and the joint application of the decree-holder and the assignee made on 18th October 1919 in Execution Petition No. 1575 of 1919 to proclaim and sell t...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Krishna Chcttiar Vs. Govindarajulu Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad478; (1926)50MLJ273
1. The question of law that is raised is one of some difficulty. The appellant was appointed guardian of the property of his nephew in 1912. On an application in 1923 made by a relation of the ward, the District Judge directed the guardian-the appellantto file his accounts into Court.They were filed; acccordingly and scrutinised by the District Judge who found that the sum actually due by the guardian to the minor's estate was Rs. 2,180, a sum considerably more than that admitted in the accounts.2. The appellant questions in this appeal the correctness of the finding. Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar for the respondent, the applicant in the Lower Court, takes a preliminary objection that no appeal lies from the order in question. His contention is shortly this. The order of the Lower Court is made under Section 34(d) and this does not fall under Section 47 which specifies the orders that are appealable. It is doubtless true that under the Act an appeal does not lie from an order made under Section...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ280
1. The 1st respondent brought a suit in forma pauperis against the 2nd respondent for maintenance. The suit was compromised by the parties and a decree in terms of compromise was passed. The District Judge held that the court-fee payable by the 1st respondent was that which was made payable by the recent amendment of the Court Fees Act. Against that order the Government have preferred this appeal. The order of the learned District Judge in calculating the court-fee payable on the plaint according to the rate prevailing on the date of the decree is bad. Under Order 33, Rule 10 the amount of court-fee payable is that which is payable on the date of the plaint. Order 33, Rule 10 says that 'the Court shall calculate the amount of court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper.' When a person brings a suit he pays court-fee on the amount of relief claimed in the plaint, or on the valuation in the plaint, and the court-fee is paid befor...
Tag this Judgment!The Madura Hindu Permanent Fund, Limited, Though Its Secretary Vs. Kam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad492; 94Ind.Cas.487; (1926)50MLJ355
1. This appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother Phillips, J. and relates to the construction of a will. The clause of the will to be construed reads as follows:The undermentioned houseand all the rights accruing thereunder, shall after me, devolve absolutely on my natural father Pichuvayyar and his male heirs. My aforesaid natural father and heirs shall maintain my adoptive mother Kamaksh: Ammal during her life and shall perform the obsequies to be done to her and to me; and the aforesaid Pichuvayyar and his heirs shall get the undermentioned house belonging to me, absolutely with right to alienate the same by gift, exchange, sale, etc.2. It was held by Mr. Justice Phillips that the will created an estate unknown to Hindu Law and therefore the disposition was invalid.3. The first contention of Mr. K.V. Krishnaswamy Aiyar for the appellant is, that there are two dispositions in the will and as they are inconsistent dispositions, they must be construed in such a way as not ...
Tag this Judgment!Ryali Brahmayya and anr. Vs. Dronamraju Venkatasuryanarayanamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad557; 94Ind.Cas.554; (1926)50MLJ409
1. The appellants who are archakas of a temple applied to the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur to direct the defendant, the trustee, to pay them their salary due for seven months. The subordinate Judge dismissed their application and they prefer this appeal.2. The contention of the appellants is that there is a provision in the scheme for an application of this kind and therefore the Subordinate Judge was wrong in refusing their prayer. Para. 14 of the scheme is as follows:Liberty to apply to the Court is hereby granted to the trustee or to any person interested in regard to any matter arising out of this scheme or seeking any modification thereof.3. The appellants are only Archakas of the temple. If the trustee does not pay their salary, their remedy is by a suit. If the contention of the appellants is to be upheld it would mean that the Court is to administer the trust estate in which a scheme is framed. Could it be said that a person who gives credit to the trustee for temple expenses...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara thevar Vs. Subbarayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad623; (1926)51MLJ139
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether a mortgage decree is a decree for payment of money within the meaning of the expression in Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code. The appellant is the 6th defendant in O.S. No. 248 of 1917, a suit brought on a mortgage. The 6th defendant bought a portion of hypotheca and the rest of the property was purchased by one Arunachalam Chetty. One Subbarayar obtained a transfer of the mortgage decree and applied to the Court to be recognised as a transferee decree-holder and for execution of the decree. The 6th defendant opposed the application on the ground that Subbarayar was a benamidar for Arunachalam Chetti and that under the 2nd proviso to Order 21, Rule 16 he was not entitled to execute the decree. The District Munsif held that it was not proved that Subbarayar was benamidar for Arunachalam Chetti. The appeal of the 6th defendant was dismissed by the District Judge. He has preferred this appeal and the contention of Mr. Viswan...
Tag this Judgment!(Thoppai) Venkataramier Vs. A. Govindarayalier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad605; 94Ind.Cas.73
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Madura refusing to grant to the appellant probate of a Will. The testator named two executors of whom the appellant is one. The other, the respondent, applied for probate and the ordinary notice went to the appellant who appeared and challenged the genuineness of the Will. The District Judge found the Will genuine, granted probate to the respondent, but refused it to the appellant, on the ground that by his action in denying the genuineness of the Will he had to all intents and purposes, renounced his position as executor.2. Now, although prior to the probate proceedings, the appellant had indulged in wild statements that the Will was a forgery, that he was never appointed executor, that the testator had never signed it, that his own attestation which appears on the Will was obtained by fraud, the statement he put into the probate Court when the proceedings came on was of a milder tenor, and it is that statement...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Tirupura Sundarammal a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad474; 96Ind.Cas.112
1. The 1st respondent brought a suit in forma pauperis against the 2nd respondent for maintenance. The suit was compromised by the parties and a decree in terms of compromise was passed. The District Judge held that the Court-fee payable by the 1st respondent was that which was made payable by the recent amendment of the Court Fees Act. Against that order the Government have preferred this appeal. The order of the learned District Judge in calculating the Court-fee payable on the plaint according to the rate prevailing on the date of the decree is bad. Under Order XXXIII, Rule 10 the amount of Court-fee payable is that which is payable on the date of the plaint. Order XXXIII, Rule 10 says that 'the Court shall calculate the amount of Court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper.' When a person brings a suit, he pays Court-fees on the amount of relief claimed in the plaint, or on the valuation in the plaint, and the Court-fee is ...
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Ammal. Vs. K.G. Venkateswara Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ426
Waller. J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Krishnan, J., rejecting an application for leave to rile a memorandum of objections in forma pauperis. It is argued that no appeal lies against such an order. There are, no doubt, some decisions to that effect, e.g. Appasami v Soma-sun'dara ILR (1902) Mad 437 and Banna Bibi v. Mehdi Hussain ILR (1889) All 375 But the former has since been expressly dissented from in Tuljaram v. Alaqappa (1910) 21 MLJ 1 and the latter proceeded on a ratio decidendi which is no longer maintainable. The pronouncement of Sir John Edge in Sevak Jeranchod Bhogilal v. The Dakore Temple Committee (1925) 49 MLJ 25 is also relied on. Speaking for myself, I should welcome any clear cut definition which would render unnecessary, the discussion which is at present almost inevitable whether a particular order does or does not pass the test laid down in Tuljaram v. Alagappa ILR (1910) M 1 That test is never particularly easy of application and would be extremely diff...
Tag this Judgment!Ramalingam Chettiyar Vs. Gokuldas Madavji and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1021; 97Ind.Cas.871; (1926)51MLJ243
Spencer, J.1. This is a suit for damages upon a contract to sell 80 candies of cotton at Rs. 414 a candy entered into in June, 1918. The plaintiff appeals.2. He tendered and the defendants took delivery of 36 and odd candies. They declined to take delivery of the remaining 43 and odd candies as the market was falling. The plaintiff re-sold the rejected goods and brought this suit for damages and got a decree. The learned Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiff a decree for damages based on the price prevailing at the end of December. The goods which the defendants would not receive were actually sold in March, 1919, the breach of contract having been on December 26, 1918. The Subordinate Judge took an earlier date, upon the principle that every party to a contract is bound to mitigate the damages as far as possible. The plaintiff got the goods sold through a broker who is P.W. 4. He stated that the cotton season ends with 31st December and that there was no market for cotton for two or th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »