Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
Kommareddi Ramachandrayya and ors. Vs. Vodury Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad133
Odgers, J.1. In this case, a certain suit O.S. No. 704 of 1923 was filed in the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Ellore for the recovery of certain' properties. It was alleged that the suit had been undervalued and the District Munsif held a preliminary enquiry into the valuation of the items of property involved and came to the conclusion that the market value was over Rs. 5,000. The plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff who was given 7 days' time for presentation to the proper Court. This order was made on the 31st March, 1924. On the 1st April, 1924, the plaintiff presented a petition asking for 15 days' time for filing the additional stamp for the plaint. No. notice of this application was given to the defendants and on the 2nd April, the Principal District Munsif purported to review his decision of the 31st March and granted the prayer in the petition of the 1st April, giving the petitioner 7 days' time in which to pay the additional Court-fee, I am of opinio...
Tag this Judgment!Kommareddi Ramachandrayya and ors. Vs. Vodury Venkatratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.800
Odgers, J.1. In this case a certain suit, O.S. No. 704 of 1923, was filed in the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Ellore, for the recovery of certain properties. It was alleged that the suit had been under-valued and the District Munsif held a preliminary enquiry into the valuation of the items of property involved a came to the conclusion that the market value was over Rs. 5,000. The plaint was ordered to he returned to the plaintiff who was given 7 days' time for presentation to the proper Court. This order was made on the 31st March 1924. On the 1st April 1924 the plaintiff presented a petition asking for 15 days' time for filing additional stamp for the plaint. No notice of this application was given to the defendants and on the 2nd April the Principal District Munsif purported to review his, decision of the 31st March and granted the prayer in the petition of the 1st April giving the petitioner 7 days' time in which to pay the Additional Court-fee. I am of opinion that as...
Tag this Judgment!S. Venkatrama Aiyar Vs. Rex
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ440
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Mannargudi on an emergent application for execution by the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The application asked for the issue of an emergent process with detention for five days and on the application a fee of Rs. 2-6-0 was paid for process fee and 12 annas in cash for subsistence allowance. We are not concerned in this case with the subsistence allowance ; but the application was returned on the ground that the process-fee paid was deficient by seven annas. The way in which the fee for the process was calculated is this : According to the Schedule of Process Fees in Appendix A to the Civil Rules of Practice, for a warrant of arrest in respect of one person to be arrested the rate of fee is Re. 1 and this includes detention for three days. When the decree-holder wants a further detention for five days, he has to pay at the rate of six annas per day under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (ii) of the Schedu...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Muhammad Sahib Vs. A.P.R. L. Alagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1012; (1925)49MLJ445
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this revision petition may be stated as follows : The respondent before me was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1006 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruppur. He filed a suit to recover Rs. 797-9-6 due on a pro-note executed on 27th December, 1919, by the two defendants. The 2nd defendant never appeared in the suit and we are not now concerned with him. The 1st defendant is the petitioner before me. The first summons to him was issued in April, 1922. It was not personally served and a fresh service was ordered. Summons was taken out a second time in July, 1922. The Amin went to the village of the defendants on 7th July. He learnt that the defendants had gone to Satyamangalam and other places and the time of their return was not known and that there was no adult male member in their families. The summonses were then affixed to the outer doors of their houses. These facts were sworn to by the Amin before the Deputy Nazir and apparently also confirmed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Alayil Kalathil Kambil Achuthan Vs. Kunnambrath Abdu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad675
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises in connection with the execution of the appellant's decree in A.S. No. 273 of 1918, filed against the decision is O.S. No. 733 of 1915 on the file of District Munsif's Court at Cannanore. The legal representative of the 1st plaintiff, petitioner, is the appellant.2. The point for decision is a pure question of law, viz., whether the petitioner's application for execution is not barred by limitation. The application for execution was filed on the 26th of September, 1922. The date of the appellate decree, is the 27th of February, 1919. The application is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation. But the petitioner states that his application is saved from the bar of limitation, either under Section 19, or under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the 2nd defendant, in O.S. No. 733 of 1915, has made an acknowledgment of liability, by referring to the existence of this decree in his plaint, in O.S. No. 348 of 1921 and also ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Venkatarama Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.616
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the District Munsif of Mannargudi on an emergent application for execution by the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The application asked for the issue of an emergent process with detention for five days and on the application, a fee of Rs. 2-6-0 was paid for process fee and 12-annas in cash for subsistence allowance. We are not concerned in this case with the subsistence allowance; but the application was returned on the ground that the process fee paid was deficient by 7-annas. The way in which the fee for the process was calculated is this: According to the schedule of process fees in Appendix A to the Civil Rules of Practice, for a warrant of arrest in respect of one person to be arrested, the rate of fee is Re. 1 and this includes detention for three days. When the decree-holder wants a further detention for five days, he has to pay at the rate of 6-annas per day under Sub-clause (a) of cl. II of the Schedule of proce...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Subramania Aiyar and ors. Vs. Shanmugam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad65; (1925)49MLJ363
Phillips, J.1. In this case the 1st respondent in Appeal Suit No. 238 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of Tanjore died during the pendency of the proceedings. An application was put in within three months for bringing on record his legal representative, but that application appears to have been dismissed on the ground that batta was not paid, and it now appears that the non-payment was entirely due to the negligence of the appellant's vakil's clerk. A subsequent application was put in three and a half months after the 1st respondent died asking for the restoration of the first petition and also for bringing on record a certain lady as the Ist respondent's legal representative. That petition was dismissed on the assumption that in so far as it prayed for the addition of the legal representative it was out of time and also on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for restoring the original petition.2. The main question that is now raised in Second Appeal is whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V. Subramania Iyer and ors. Vs. Shunmugam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.566
Phillips, J.1. In this case the 1st respondent in A.S. No. 238 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of Tanjore died during the pendency of the proceedings. An application was put in within three months for bringing on record his legal representative, but that application appears to have been dismissed on the ground, that batta was not paid, and it now appears that the non-payment was entirely due to the negligence of the appellant's Vakil's clerk. A subsequent application was put in three and a half months after, the 1st respondent died, asking for the restoration of the first petition and also for bringing on record a certain lady as the 1st respondent's legal representative. That petition was dismissed on the assumption that in so far as it prayed for the addition of the legal representative it was out of time and also on the ground that there was no sufficient reason for restoring the' original petition.2. The main question that is now raised in second appeal is whether the Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Jankiram Chetti Vs. Nagamony Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ413
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The only question raised in these appeals is whether the respondent, who is a legatee under the will of one O. Kandaswami Mudaliar, took the property bequeathed under the will as a tenant-incommon with his father and brothers or as a joint tenant.2. The will which has been probated is filed as Ex. F. The testator Kandaswami Mudaliar died leaving a widow, three sons and two daughters. He also left two brothers one of whom was Kadirvelu Mudaliar (father of the respondent) who was appointed executor. There was another brother Krishnaswami Mudaliar who had two sons. So far as the respondent is concerned, the terms of the will concerning him are very short. Paragraph 4 of the will says:Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 under assets in paragraph 1 above, 1 bequeath and leave to my brother G. Kadirvelu Mudaliar and his sons.3. Paragraph 5 goes on to state that in consideration of the help given by Kadirvelu Mudaliar as regards the business carried on by the testator, he beque...
Tag this Judgment!Chockalingam Pillai and anr. Vs. P.K.P.S. Pichappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad155; 92Ind.Cas.599
1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura appointing a Receiver in respect of the schedule properties in the suit which, according to the plaintiff's case, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had contracted to sell to him, and of the B schedule properties in the plaint which, according to the plaintiff, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had agreed to mortgage to him by simple mortgage. The suit is a suit for specific performance inter alia of this contract to sell and to execute a simple mortgage. Mr. T.R. Ramachandrier for the appellant contends that at any rate so far as the B schedule properties are concerned, it is not open to the lower Court to appoint a Receiver, the point being that the lower C 3urt cannot by way of receivership do what it would not be entitled to do even by way of decree. At the highest, the plaintiff is, entitled if he succeeds only to a simple mortgage on these properties, and having obtained this simple mortgage he could not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »