Chennai Court December 1925 Judgments
Salar Beg Saheb Vs. Karumanchi Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad654
Waller, J.1. The facts are these: Respondent's suit was dismissed for default. He applied to have it restored under Order 9, Schedule 1, Civil Procedure Code, and that application also was dismissed for default. He then applied again under Order 9 to have the application restored and it was restored. The other party comes up in revision on the ground that the provisions of Order 9 do not govern applications made under the order itself.2. Authority on the point is divided. The Calcutta High Court has held one way, Bipin Behari Shaha v. Abdul Barik [1917] 44Cal. 950, the Patna High Court the other, Ramgulam Singh v. Deonarin Singh [1919] 4 P.L.J. 287. Phillips, J., in a case exactly parallel to this case has recently followed the Calcutta view C.R.P. No. 1014 of 1924: Venkatanarasimha Rao v. Suryanarayana A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 325. In C.R.P. No. 679 of 1923 Kaliakkal v. Palani Koundan A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 412, Devadoss, J., and I held that Order 9 does not apply to proceedings in execution of dec...
Tag this Judgment!Salar Bag Saheb Vs. Karumanchi Kottaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.151
Waller, J.1. The facts are these. Respondent's suit was dismissed for default. He applied to have it restored under Order IX, Schedule I. C. P. C, and that application also was dismissed for default. He then applied again under Order IX to have the application restored and it was restored. The other party comes up in revision en the ground that the provisions of Order IX, do not govern applications made under the order itself.2. Authority on the point is divided. The' Calcutta High Court has held one way [Bepin Behari Saha v. Abdul Barik 35 Ind. Cas. 613 : 44 C. 950 : 21 C.W.N. 30 : 24 CRI.L.J. 446] the Patna High Court the other [Ramgulam Singh v. Sheo Deonarain Singh 51 Ind. Cas. 152 : 4 P.L.J. 287] Phillips, J., in a case exactly parallel to this has recently followed the Calcutta view [Venkata Narasimha Rao v. Hemadu Suryanarayana 92 Ind. Cas. 802 : 50 M.L.J. 75]. In Kalliakkal v. Palani Koundan 92 Ind. Cas. 533 : 23 L.W. 227, Devadoss, J., and I held that Order IX, does not apply ...
Tag this Judgment!Angadi Mallappa and ors. Vs. Neelana Gowdra Kare Gowd and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad487; (1926)50MLJ442
Ramesam, J.1. These second appeals arise out of two suits which are connected and similar in nature. The plaintiffs are the same in both the suits and defendants 2 to 13 are the same in both the suits, only the 1st defendant is different. The facts are: One Linganna Gowd died about the end of 1915 The defendants 2 to 13 of these suits alleging themselves to be the creditors of Kare Gowd, the deceased, in respect of certain promissory notes, filed a suit, O.S. No. 176 of 1916 to recover the amount. In that suit there were 6 defendants. First and second defendants were the sisters of Kare Gowd; the third defendant was the sister's son and defendants 4, 5 and 6 were impleaded as parties on the ground that they were in possession of some of the properties of the deceased. Defendants 1 to 5 never appeared. The sixth defendant alone filed a written statement but he too did not appear at the time of the trial. A decree was given on the notes. Some time after the present plaintiff's tiled O.S....
Tag this Judgment!Parvathi Ammal and ors. Vs. M. R. Sivarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad90; 97Ind.Cas.998
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs (appellants) are the daughters of the late Ramakrishna Iyer, who was the Public Prosecutor in Calicut, and they seek to recover Rs. 10,000 which they allege was given by their father to their mother Meenakshiammal. This Rs. 10,000 consists of two deposits of Rs. 5,000 each made with the Bank of Madras on 12th February, 1909, and 1st August 1910, respectively in the joint names of Ramakrishna Iyer and his wife Meenakshiammal. The plaintiff's contention is that the money was given by Ramakrishna Iyer to his wife, and that they are entitled after their mother's death to the money both as heirs and as legatees under her Will. The lower Court has found the Will to be genuine, but this question is really quite immaterial, for if the money belonged to Meenakshiammal, the plaintiffs would undoubtedly he entitled to it as her heirs. The first deposit of Rs. 5,000 was made on 12th February, 1909, in accordance with Ex. B, the letter sent by Ramakrishna Iyer to the B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›