Chennai Court May 1925 Judgments
Subramanian Chetty Vs. Ramaswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad179; (1925)49MLJ753
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code by the District Munsif of Devakotta. The petitioner before me was one of the decree-holders against a common judgment-debtor whose assets had been realized within the meaning of Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code and Were held by the Court. Section 73 says:Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have, before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization, shall be rate ably distributed among all such persons. 2. Now, the petitioner before me put in an application for execution of his decree which was a decree for payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor, to arrest him, and this application had been admittedly made before the receipt of the as...
Tag this Judgment!E. Rajagopalachariar Vs. Sami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad517; (1926)50MLJ221
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for possession of one-fourth share of the family property and for a declaration that certain alienations are invalid. In this appeal the property in dispute is comprised in Schedule B to the plaint. The District Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit so far as the B Schedule property is concerned. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. The first point raised by Mr. Bhashyam for the appellant is, that what was sold to the 58th defendant under his mortgage decree was only the life-interest of the plaintiff's mother. In support of that contention he relies upon Ex. E-3 which is a statement put in by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 34 of 1901, who was the mortgagee decree-holder, and who brought the property to sale under his mortgage decree obtained against the plaintiff's mother Alamelammal. One of her suns brought a suit for a declaration that the property was the property of his father and the alienation by the mother was not binding up...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Rangachariar and ors. Vs. V. Parthasarathy Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad131
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the Thengalai Vaishnava Brahmans, residents in Triplicane, for a declaration that they are entitled to the office of Adhyapakam, Vedaparayanam, Arulipadu, Puranam and the Kattuyam in the temple of Sri Parthasarathiswami at Triplicane, that the trustees have no right to appoint anybody else to the said offices, that as such mirasidars they are entitled to the honours and emoluments set out in schedule A to the plaints, for an injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the said offices and the receipt of the emoluments, for damages and costs.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that from time immemorial, the Thengalai Sri Vaishnava residents of Triplicane have been interested in and have had the rights of control over the temple, that they have been entitled to the mirasi offices set out in the plaint and the receipt of perquisites, that, as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Reddi and ors. Vs. E. Rajagopalachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad29
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal is connected with the one just disposed of (Second Appeal No. 1548 of 1922) as it arises out of the same suit. The appellants are Defendants 26, 27, 29 to 44 and 46 to 48. They are alienees and the lower appellate Court has decided that their alienations are not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The alienations were made so far back as 1888 and 1889 under Exs. 3, L2, L9 to L11 and Clause The alienations were made by the plaintiff and his two brothers and by their mother Alamelammal and by a minor brother for whom Alamelammal acted as guardian. The purposes for which amounts were borrowed under these documents were not mentioned in the deeds. Only cash consideration is recited and the mother and the sons are the executants of the documents. The District Judge held that the mere execution of the documents by the sons would not amount to consent on their part to the alienations, and therefore they were not bound by the alienations. The defendants in their writ...
Tag this Judgment!S. Veeraraghava Achariar and ors. Vs. V. Parthasarathy Iyengar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1070
1. The suit relates to Sri Parthasarathy Swami Temple situate in Triplicane, Madras. It is an ancient Vaishnavifee temple of Thengalai persuasion and held sacred and resorted to by large numbers of worshippers from all parts of South India. Sri Parthasarathy, the presiding deity in the temple, is Sri Krishna, as Parthasarathy the Charioteer of Arjuna, the Gitachariya, the Propounder of the Bhagavat Gita.2. It is a matter for great regret that this temple should have, during several years past, been involved almost continuously in the litigation, and thus its affairs should have got into chronic mismanagement.3. The two plaintiffs instituted the suit with the sanction of the Advocate-General under the provisions of Section 92, G.P.C. The three defendants have been for some years past the Trustees, Dharmakarthas of the temple; the 1st and 2nd defendants from about 1913 and the 3rd defendant from June 1919. The plaintiffs seek in this action to have the defendants removed from their offic...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Chetty Vs. Ramaswami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.11
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to revise an order-passed under Section 73 of the C.P.C. by the District Munsif of Devakottai. The petitioner before me was one of the decree-holders against a common judgment-debtor, whose assets had been realised within the meaning of Section 73 of the C.P.C and were held by the Court. Section 73' says 'Where assets are held by a Court and more persons than one have before the receipt of such assets, made application to the Court for the execution of decrees for the payment of money passed against the same judgment-debtor and have not obtained satisfaction thereof, the assets, after deducting the costs of realization shall be rateably distributed among all such persons.' Now, the petitioner before me put in an application for execution of his decree which was a decree for payment of money passed against the same judgment debtor, to arrest him, and this application had been admittedly made before the receipt of the assets with which we are concern...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›