Chennai Court December 1925 Judgments
Arunachala Naicker Vs. C.K. Venkatachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ368
Krishnan, J.1. This petition refers to an election petition which had been filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput against the election of the President of the Union Board of Uttaranallur. The Subordinate Judge apparently acting under Rule 4, Clause (3) of the Rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act transmitted the case to the Court of the District Munsif of Maduranthakam. The District Munsif seems to have realised that the procedure was not justifiable as his Court could not be treated as a Court of Subordinate to the Subordinate judge under Rule 4, Clause (3) and the matter was represented to the Subordinate Judge. But the Subordinate judge decided that he had power to transmit the case to the District Munsif and to get him to try it. This revision petition is against the order of the District Munsif proceeding to try the case under the orders of the Subordinate Judge.2. It seems to me that the order of the Subordinate Judge sending the case to the District M...
Tag this Judgment!Muthusami Iyer Vs. Dharma Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad495; 94Ind.Cas.302
Phillips, J.1. The adoptive father of plaintiff-appellant in this case sold certain property to the defendant in 1912. One item of property was 'apparently in the possession of one Veerappa Naidu and, as a matter of fact, the defendant did not get possession of that item until after filing a suit against him and the plaintiff, possession being obtained shortly after the present suit was filed. One item of consideration for the sale deed was a sum of Rs. 400 payable to plaintiff's creditor, Muthayya Chetti and this amount was admittedly not paid by the defendant. Muthayya Chetty eventually filed a suit against the plaintiff and obtained a decree for Rs. 340 in 1917. The plaintiff now seeks to recover from the defendant damages which he has suffered owing to the defendant's non-payment of this portion of the sale price. The District Munsiff gave, a decree for the amount, but the Subordinate Judge in appeal held that inasmuch as the father of the plaintiff had contracted to give possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachela Naicker Vs. C.K. Venkatachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1925
Reported in: 93Ind.Cas.841
1. This petition refers to an election petition which had been filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput against the election of the President of the Union Board of Uttaramallur. The Subordinate Judge apparently acting under Rule 4, Clause 3 of the Rules framed under the Madras Local Boards Act transmitted the case to the Court of the District Munsif of Madurantakam. The District Munsif seems to have realised that the procedure was not justifiable as his Court coy Id not be treated as a Court subordinate, to the Subordinate Judge under Rule 4 Clause 3 and the matter was represented to the Subordinate Judge. But the Subordinate Judge decided that he had power to transmit the case to the District Munsif and get him to try it. This revision petition is against the order of the District Munsif proceeding to try the case under the orders of the Subordinate Judge.2. It seems to me that the order of the Subordinate Judge sending the case to the District Munsif is not correct. ...
Tag this Judgment!T. Venkatasubba Mudali Vs. Manickammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad582; (1926)50MLJ364
Wallace, J.1. The point for decision is whether it is open to a judgment debtor to plead in bar of execution of a decree against him a predecree arrangement that the decree was not to be executed. The Lower Court has held that it was not so open to him, relying on three decisions of this Court, which in my view, so far as they may be used to support his view, run counter to the general trend of decisions in this Court, The most important decision on this point is the Full Bench case in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyur (1916) 32 MLJ 13 The question referred to the Full Bench there was whether a predecree arrangement to postpone the execution of a decree for a certain time can be pleaded as a bar to immediate execution. Two learned Judges of the Full Bench held that it could, and another learned Judge differed. The former based their decisions on the principle stare decisis, the previous cases relied on by them and on which they elected to stand being Rama Aiyan v. Srinivasa Patt...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Ramaswami Aiyangar Vs. the Official Receiver of Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad672
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Lower Court setting aside a mortgage in favour of the appellant under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act on a petition by a petitioning creditor dated 12th July, 1920. This very alienation by mortgage was held to be an act of insolvency and adjudication followed thereon. The mortgage was dated 10th April, 1920 and was for Rs. 6,000, and the consideration was four prior debts of a total sum of Rs. 2,500, which the mortgagee undertook to discharge, and a cash payment of Rs. 3,500. It is found by the learned Judge, and it is not disputed here, that two of the debts amounting to Rs. 1,000 were genuine and were paid by the mortgagee. The Judge holds that the Rs. 3,500 cash was never paid. He records no clear finding as to the nature of the document, viewing it at one time as a sham and at another time as a fraudulent preference. He has set it aside in toto.2. The first point for consideration is whether the Rs. 3,500 cash was...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Subba Chukli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad582; (1927)52MLJ707
1. The respondent in this case was charged with the murder of his sister-in-law. The evidence against him is this. He had quarrelled with his wife, and was beating her. Her sister intervened, saying 'You dog, why do you beat her in my sight.' At this respondent picked up a sickle, seized the sister by the hand and gave her two cuts on the neck which killed her on the spot. The Sessions Judge accepted the evidence but, being of opinion that respondent had been gravely provoked, and did not intend to cause death, convicted him under the second part of Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment.2. Respondent has been called upon to show cause why he should not be convicted of murder, and why the sentence passed on him should not be enhanced to one of death. We are satisfied that we have no power in revision to do what is tantamount to converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The respondent has been acquitted by the Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Chakrapani Padhi and ors. Vs. Krushno Naiko
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad620; 95Ind.Cas.128
Waller, J.1. Assuming that second appeal lies, which is more than doubtful vide Asimuddi Sheik v. Sundari Bibi [1911] 38 Cal. 339 and Kachu v. Trimbak Khemchand [1920] 44 Bom. 472, no ground has been made out for interference. It is impossible to treat the lodgment schedule as an application of the nature contemplated by Order 21, Rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There must be something more than a deposit....
Tag this Judgment!Koochu Aiyar Alias Venkatasubbaier Vs. Vengu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad407; (1926)50MLJ432
Ramesam, J.1. The respondents now agree to the second appeal being allowed and they admit that the sucession certificate has been rushed but plead that they are not liable for costs as the decrees in the Courts below were obtained on the footing of the Succession Certificate which was then subsisting.2. Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar argues that, even on the footing of the succession certificate, he could plead and prove payment before the grant of the certificate to the person lawfully entitled and the decision of the Courts below is wrong. I agree with him. The decisions relied on by the Courts below do not support the view taken by them. In Damothar Pachapurkar v. Zinga Kom Kandlkia (1870) Bom.HCR 31 the plea was not that the payment was made to a person (other than the holder of the certificate but) really entitled to collect the debt. Whether it is correctly decided or not, it did not deal with the question arising in this case. In Muthiah Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chatiar (1918) MWN 242 t...
Tag this Judgment!The Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund, Ltd. Vs. Chinniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad785; 95Ind.Cas.610; (1926)50MLJ595
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Some very interesting questions have been raised in the course of the discussion of this case, but the main question for determination is merely whether the plaintiff Fund is entitled to recover from the defendant interest at the enhanced rate claimed as from the death of her father, the Original debtor to the Fund. This Fund, which is called the Mylapore Hindu Permanent Fund, Limited, is a registered Company governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association. The chief object of the company on a perusal of the rules and regulations would appear to be to grant loans only to persons who are shareholders of the company or who agree to become and do become shareholders of the company for the purpose of obtaining the loans applied for. ft seems to me that it would be necessary to bear this chief provision in the rules in mind in coming to a decision on the question raised.2. The first loan made to the defendant's predecessor was, what is called, a special loan,...
Tag this Judgment!Vikrala Ramachandracharyulu Vs. Vikrala Srimath Rangacharyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ418
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement between co-owners to divide their property in a particular way.2. The facts may be more specifically stated. One Appala-charlu was the last owner of the suit property. He died about 70 years ago leaving his widow Lakshmamma and brother's widow Seshamma. Lakshmamma died in 1866. At the time of her death the plaintiff, a grandfather Lakshmana-charlu, the 1st defendant's father Seshacharlu and the 2nd defendant's grand-uncle Sreenivasacharlu were the reversion-ers entitled to the property. But after taking possession they found that they had to arrange for the maintenance of Seshamma. So, they entered into an agreement with Seshamma under which they allowed her to remain in possession until her death and they or their heirs should take the property after her death. Seshamma died in 1895. (Fide Ex. BB-2, the date in para. 6 of the plaint in the printed papers is incorrect). At the time of her dea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »