Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
In Re: Peta Nagayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.991; (1925)49MLJ438
Spencer, J.1. The appellant was summoned on 26th January, 1924, to appear as a witness on 8th February. He did not appear and a warrant was issued and he was fined Rs. 40 for disobedience of summons. His explanation was that, as he was going to Court, after arriving at the place where the Court was held, he was met by the plaintiff and defendants who told him that the case had been adjourned. We have no means of testing whether this statement was true. The parties were not examined to corroborate him, but the Judge did not accept the explanation. He only gave him five days' time to pay the fine.2. It is argued that the Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no issue of a proclamation or attachment of property before the fine was imposed. This argument is based on the decisions in Ashutosh Mullick v. Secretary of Stale for India (1920) 57 IC 302 and Sib Kumari Debi v. Secretary of State for India (1920) 31 CL G 363. I regret that I must express dissent from t...
Tag this Judgment!Marudayya thevar Vs. Shanmugasundara thevar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad139; (1925)49MLJ593
ORDER1. This is a petition asking this Court to appoint a Receiver pending disposal of Cr. R. C. No. 239 of 1925, which is a petition asking this Court to revise an order of the Lower Court passed under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.2. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar for respondents raises a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition. We think the preliminary objection is well founded. If this Court has jurisdiction, it must be found within the Criminal Procedure Code [see the remarks of the learned Chief Justice in Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Narayana Mudaliar ILR (1922) M 913. Section 561-A confers no new powers on this Court, since 'the Court cannot, by invoking its inherent powers, extend the powers given to it by Statute' [Full Bench ruling in Veerappa Naidu v. Avudayammal (1924) 48 MLJ 106. Petitioner relies on Section 423(1)(d) read with Section 439, but an interlocutory order of the kind now sought by petitioner to be passed before the crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Thutta Venkataswami Vs. Vissamsetti Kotilingam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad184; (1925)49MLJ730
Wallace, J. 1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether an agreement by a decree-holder in a composition by his judgment-debtor with his creditors generally to accept a percentage of his decree debt in full satisfaction of the whole debt is an adjustment which can be recorded under Order 21, Rule 2 as an adjustment of the decree. The Lower Appellate Court has held that it could not be recorded, and the appellant (the judgment-debtor) appeals.2. The respondent, who is the transferee from the original decree-holder, at one stage of his argument, challenged the existence of any composition, but both the Lower Courts have held on the evidence that there was a composition between the judgment-debtor and his creditors, under which they agreed some of them to accept 75 per cent. of their debt and some 80 per cent. in full satisfaction, and the present decree-holder was in the latter class. He had filed an execution petition for the whole decree amount on 14th September, 1921, but d...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Alagar Aiyangar Vs. Srinivasa Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1248; (1926)50MLJ406
Justice Odgers, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Ramnad in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1924. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 954 of 1922 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court of Srivalliputtur seek for a declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant in respect of certain items of property are not valid and binding as against the two-thirds share of the plaintiffs and for partition and possession of two-thirds share in these and other plaint properties. The plaint properties are the joint properties of the plaintiffs and their father, the 1st defendant, who was the family manager. They originally valued the plaint as if it were one for possession of their two-thirds share in all the plaint schedule properties and paid ad valorem Court-fee apparently in accordance with Section 7(5) of the Court Fees Act. The learned District Munsif held that the suit although in form for a declaration was really one for setting aside or cancellation ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Peta Narasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1247
Spencer, J.1. The appellant was summoned on 26th January 1924 to appear as a witness on 8th February. He did not appear and a warrant was issued and he was fined Rs. 40 for disobedience of summons. His explanation was that, as he was going to Court, after arriving at the place where the Court was held, he was met by the plaintiff and defendants who told him that the case had been adjourned. We have no means of testing whether this statement was true. The parties were not examined to corroborate him, but the Judge did not accept the explanation. He only gave him five days time to pay the fine.2. It is argued that the Subordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no issue of a proclamation or attachment of property before the fine was imposed. This argument is based on the decisions in Ashutosh Mullick v. Secretary of State [1920] 57 I.C. 302 and Ram Gopal v. Secretary of State [1920] 31 C.L.J. 363. I regret that I must express dissent from the opinion of two learned...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Alagar Iyengar Vs. Srinivasa Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.709
Odgers, J.1. This is ran application to revise the order of the District Judge of Ramnad in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1924. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 954 of 1922 on the tile of the Principal District Munsif's Court of Srivalliputtur seek for a declaration that certain alienations made by the 1st defendant in, respect of certain items of property are not valid and binding as against the two-thirds share of the plaintiffs and for partition and possession of two-thirds share in these and other plaint properties. The plaint properties are the joint properties of the plaintiffs and their father, the 1st defendant who was the family manager. They originally valued the plaint as-if it were one for possession of their two-thirds share in all the plaint schedule properties and paid ad valorem Court-fee apparently in accordance with Section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act. The learned District Munsif held that the suit although in form for a declaration was really one for setting aside or cancellation of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Devaguptapu Narasimham and ors. Vs. Devaguptapu Chendramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.321; (1925)49MLJ547
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs are the nearest heirs of one Venkataraju in whose favour (with others) three inam title-deeds were issued in 1906 and 1907. Both the lower Courts have found that as Venkataraju was dead on the day on which these title-deeds were issued, he obtained no right to the suit property, and, therefore, the plaintiffs as his heirs have got no right.2. The title-deed runs as follows: 'Titledeed granted to (1) Devaguptapu Subbara-yudu, (2) Devaguptapu Chendramma, (3) Devaguptapu Venkatajaru and four others as per register;' and it recites,The inam is now confirmed to you, your representatives and assigns, to hold or dispose of as you or they think proper.3. The question at issue is whether this is a grant to Venkataraju and his representatives and assigns, or whether these words are words of mere limitation as contended for by the respondent. The treatment of such words as being words of limitation is a legal technicality and the question is, whether the Government i...
Tag this Judgment!P.M.A.M. Ramaswami Chettiar (Minor) and ors. Vs. Lodd Govindoss Krishn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad35; (1925)49MLJ414
Krishnan, J.1. This suit has been disposed of by the learned Trial Judge on the pleadings without taking any evidence except filing a document. He held that Section 92 of the Evidence Act barred the defendant from adducing oral evidence of his plea, as he proposed to do.2. The plaintiff had assigned to one P.M.A.R. Muthiah Chettiar, whose legal representatives the respondents are, an 1/8th share of a mortgage decree which his father had obtained against the Rajah of Karvetnagar and others, plaintiff having succeeded to his father's rights on his death. A copy of the deed of assignment has been filed in evidence as Document No. 3159. The consideration for the assignment is recited in this deed as follows:For a consideration of Rs. 2,89,000 to be paid by Muthiah Chettiar to Lodd Govindoss (the plaintiff) whereof Rs. 89,000 is paid in advance this day and the three promissory notes, dated 24th March, 1915, and 26th April, 1917, executed by Messrs. Tawker & Sons in favour of Muthiah Chetti...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Shuja-ul-mulk Bahadur Vs. Umir-ul-umra Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ498
Devadoss, J. 1. The main question argued in this appeal is whether the execution of the decree in plaintiffs' favour is barred by reason of Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge has held that the execution application is not barred by limitation and the 1st respondent in the Lower Court has preferred this appeal. The decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1901 was passed by the District Court of Kurnool on 30th March, 1904. It was confirmed by the High Court on 17th January, 1907. The defendants in that suit were the trustees of a religious and charitable institution. The defendants were removed from the office of trustees, and the 1st defendant was directed to pay the plaintiff's costs and in case the plaintiff was unable to obtain the costs from the 1st defendant, he was to recover them from the income of the trust property. Attempts were made by the plaintiff to recover the costs from the 1st defendant, and he recovered only a portion and a considerable amount now remains ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad96; (1925)49MLJ608
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. The appellant purchased some property for Rs. 2,300 under a sale deed executed by the defendant and paid him Rs. 1,000 in cash and executed in favour of the defendant and his minor sons a mortgage deed for the balance of consideration for the sale. She brought a suit in the City Civil Court against the defendant alleging that the defendant had played a fraud on her by suppressing important facts and praying for a declaration that the sale deed and the mortgage deed were invalid and for the return of the Rs. 1,000 paid by her and for Rs. 300 as damages. The City Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff preferred this appeal to the High Court. She paid the Court-fee on Rs. 1,300 being the amount claimed by her from the defendant. The Taxing Officer of this Court held that' the Court-fee paid was insufficient and that the Court-fee on Rs. 2,300 should be paid on the ground that the substantial relief asked for by the plaintiff was the cancellation o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »