Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Gokarakonda Venkatasubbiah Vs. Daliparthi Lakshminarasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1274; (1925)49MLJ273
Wallace, J.1. These two Civil Revision. Petitions are presented against the orders of the Lower Court declining to set aside the ex parte order passed against the petitioner. The petitioner was the 1st defendant in two suits, O.S. No. 11 of 1923 and O.S. No. 32 of 1923. He has appeared in the suits and put in written statements. On one of the hearing days, namely 27th September, 1923, he was absent and the Court ' declared him ex parte.' The evidence for the plain-tiff was adduced on that date and the hearing was adjourned to 13th October, 1923. On that day the 1st defendant appeared and put in a petition under Order 9, Rule 7, praying that the ex parte order against him may be set aside. The Lower Court dismissed that petition, and the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed against that order. The decree in the case has not yet been passed as further trial has been stayed by this Court, so that no question of setting aside an ex parte decree has yet arisen.2. The plea put forward ...
Tag this Judgment!Alla Viraswami Vs. Polavarapu Nayudamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1270; (1925)49MLJ430
1. This is an appeal by the 3rd defendant against an order of remand made by the District Judge of Guntur in A.S. No. 330 of 1922 of his file which arose out of an original suit instituted in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Bapatla.2. The relationship between the parties to the suit is shown in the following table: ___________________________________ | | |Subbayya 3rd defendant 1st defendant Nayudamma (1stwife) (2nd wife) | _______________________________________ | | | Daughter (died) Daughter (died) 2nd | Defendant: Plaintiff.3. The plaintiff is the daughter's son of one Nayudamma by his first wife, the 2nd defendant being his mother's sister. The 1st defendant is Nayudamma's second wife and the 3rd defendant, her brother. The suit is for a declaration that a will alleged to have been left by Nayudamma in favour of defendants 1 and 3 is not genuine, that he (plaintiff) as the daughter's son is entitled to the properties of Nayudamma after the death of the widow (1st defendant) and of...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Mahadeva Aiyar and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ67
Odgers, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are the sons of one Section V. Manavala Reddiar who died about 1915 and they sue the defendants who are, as to defendants 2 to 4, the undivided sons of defendant 1 and as to defendants 6 and 7, the undivided sons of defendant 5. Defendant 1 and defendant 5 carried on business in partnership in cotton and money-lending under the style of 'P.K.N.'Firm. Defendant 1 borrowed from Manavala Reddy Rs. 16,000 from his family funds, in his (defendant I's) capacity as managing partner, on 26th August, 1914. The suit is brought on the promissory note executed thereupon (Ex. A). Defendant 1 is also alleged to have made and endorsed a payment of Rs. 1,000 for interest on 16th August, 1917, thus saving limitation. The defence is that the partnership between defendant 1 and defendant 5 had ceased to the knowledge of plaintiffs long before 16th August, 1917, and had been dissolved by a decree in a suit for dissolution (O.S. No. 7 of 1918) brought by defendant, ...
Tag this Judgment!Parakkat Devaswom Trustee, K.P. Veeraraghava Aiyar and ors. Vs. Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad321; (1926)50MLJ153
Wallace, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the execution petition is barred by time. The decree sought to be executed is the final decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1912 on a hypothecation bond executed by certain persons. The bond was executed by them as trustees or owners of a certain devaswom. At the time that suit was pending, another suit, O.S. No. 12 of 1912, to declare that the trust was a public trust and to remove the above persons was going on. On 9th July, 1914, a decree to remove them was passed. The final decree in O. S. No. 36 of 1912, the hypothecation decree against the property, was passed on 30th September, 1914. Three execution petitions were put in to execute this final decree. The first was put in on 20th July, 1915, and was dismissed, because batta was not paid. The second was put in on 26th June, 1918, and was rejected for the same reason. The third was put in on 20th June, 1921, and is the execution petition now under appeal.2. The appellants are the present tr...
Tag this Judgment!Gokarakonda Venkatasubbiah Vs. Deliparthi Lakshminarasimham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.545
Wallace, J.1. These two civil revision petitions are presented against the orders of the lower Court declining to set aside the ex parte order passed against the petitioner. The petitioner was the 1st defendant in two suits, O.S. No. 11 of 1923 and O.S. No. 32 of 1423. He had appeared in the suits and put in written statements. On one of the hearing days, namely, 27th September 1923, he was absent and the Court 'declared him ex parte.' The evidence for the plaintiff was adduced on that date and the hearing was adjourned to 13th October 1923. On that day the 1st defendant appeared and put in a petition under Order IX, Rule 7, praying that the ex parte order against him may be set aside. The lower Court dismissed that petition, and the present civil revision petitions are filed against that order. The decree in the case has not yet been passed as further trial has been stayed by this Court; so that no question of setting aside an ex parte decree has yet arisen.2. The plea put forward by ...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Mahadeva Iyer and ors. Vs. Ramakrishna Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad114; 92Ind.Cas.653
Odgers, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs are the sons of one 8. V. Manavala Reddiar who died about 1915 and they sue the defendants who are, as to defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the undivided sons of defendant No. 1 and as to defendants Nos. 6 and 7, the undivided sons of defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 carried on business in partnership in cotton and money-lending under the style of 'P.K.N.' Firm Defendant No. 1 borrowed from Manavala Reddy Rs. 10,000 from his family funds, is his (defendant No. 1's) capacity as managing partner, on 26th August 1914. The suit is brought on the promissory note executed thereupon (Ex. A).) Defendant No. 1 is also alleged to have made and endorsed a payment of Rs. 1,000 for interest on 16th August 1917 thus saving limitation. The defence is that the partnership between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 had ceased to the knowledge of. plaintiffs long before 16th August 1917 and had been dissolved by a decree in a suit for dissolution (O.S....
Tag this Judgment!Parakkat Devaswom Trustees of K.P. Veeraraghava Iyer and ors. Vs. Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.709
Wallace, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the execution petition is barred by time. The decree sought to be executed is the final decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1912 on a hypothecation bond executed by certain persons. The bond was executed by them, as trustees or owners of a certain Devasiuom. At the time that suit was pending another suit, O.S. No. 12 of 1912, to declare that the trust was a public trust and to remove the above persons was going on. On 20th July 1914 a decree to remove them was passed. The final decree in O.S. No. 36 of 1912, the hypothecation decree against the property was passed on 30th September 1914. Three execution petitions were put in to execute this final decree. The first was put in on 20th July 1915 and was dismissed, because batta was not paid. The second was put in on 26th June 1918 and was rejected for the same reason. The third was put in on 20th June 1921 and is the execution petition now under appeal.2. The appellants are the present trustees wh...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mannargan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ95
Devadoss, J.1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Madras. The case for the prosecution is that a theft of considerable property occurred on the 22nd May, 1923, and that some of the stolen property was traced to be in the possession of the appellants within six days of the commission of the offence. The trial did not commence till the middle of last year owing to the absence of the appellants from Madras. There is a considerable body of evidence on the side of the prosecution. In the view I take of the irregularities in the trial, it is unnecessary to consider this appeal on the merits. There were three cases before the Third Presidency Magistrate in which the 1st appellant was concerned. Dr. Swaminadhan, Bar-at-Law, appeared for the accused in all the three cases. The cross-examination of the witnesses in the two other cases was completed on 26th June, 1924 and all the cases...
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga Thambiran and ors. Vs. Namasivaya Pandara Sannadhi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad162; (1925)49MLJ324
1. The plaintiffs in this case have brought their suits under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of the defendant from the office of Pandara Sannadhi and for the framing of a scheme in relation to the Mutt. The Advocate-General has also joined the suit as a supplemental plaintiff. After the institution of the suit and before it was tried the defendant died, and the Subordinate Judge has held that owing to the defendant's death the suit has abated and cannot be revived on the ground that it is a personal action against the defendant and that the second relief in the suit, namely, that of the framing of the scheme, is an ancillary relief dependent on the removal of the defendant from his office of trustee. Against this decision the plaintiffs have appealed ; and it is contended in the appeal that as two reliefs are claimed, namely, the removal of the defendant and the framing of the scheme, which are distinct and separate reliefs, the suit may well be prosecuted wi...
Tag this Judgment!Kondagunta Mrutyanjaiah and ors. Vs. Malle Venkatapathigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.834; (1925)49MLJ333
Phillips, J.1. The main point raised in these appeals is the rate to be charged when dry and garden lands are irrigated with tank water with the landlord's permission. The appellants claimed 212 tooms per quarter cawnie. Presumably they mean 21/2 tooms of paddy but this is quite clear from the patta itself. The Deputy Collector found that Rs. 6 per acre was a reasonable rate and fixed that amount. His finding is accepted by the District Judge, and it is now contended that this finding cannot be supported. Neither the first nor the Lower Appellate Court has given definite reasons for considering this reasonable, but the Deputy Collector who is a Revenue Officer must have been aware of the fact that the highest wet rate levied by Government in the Nellore District is Rs. 6 per acre, and it was open to him to act on that knowledge and come to the conclusion that he did. The tenants made an offer at this rate which he accepted. The Judge has merely agreed with him, but I do not see any rea...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »