Chennai Court August 1925 Judgments
K. Venkata Narasimha Rao Vs. Hemadu Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.802
Phillips, J.1. The only question that arises here is whether Order IX applies only to suits or whether, by reason of Section 141, it also applies to applications made under Order IX itself. In this case an application to restore a suit was dismissed for default and a subsequent petition was filed to set aside that dismissal. The subsequent petition has been allowed and the original petition under Order IX is now under enquiry.2. The contention for the appellant is that the Court has no jurisdiction to treat the second application as one to which Order IX is applicable. In Thakur Prasad v. Fakir Ullah 17 A. 106 : 5 M.L.J. 3 : 22 I.A. 44 . it was laid down by the Privy Council that Section 647 of the Code of 1882, which is equivalent to Section 141 of the present Code, included original matters in the nature of suits such as proceedings in probates, guardianships and so forth and did not include executions. The question at issue in that suit was whether execution petitions were included ...
Tag this Judgment!Unnamali Ammal and anr. Vs. Abboy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.524
1. This suit has been brought to enforce three mortgages evidenced by Exs. A, B and D. Audi and Ramaswami were father and son. A and B were executed by Ramaswami and D was executed after Ramaswami's death by Audi and Ramaswami's widows the first defendant and another. Subsequent' to the execution of these mortgages, the first defendant obtained a decree for maintenance against Audi and in execution of it she and her father the 10th defendant became the purchasers of the properties which had been previously mortgaged.2. In regard to the first two deeds, the question is, did the interest of Audi pass to the plaintiffs, the mortgagees. They were executed by Ramaswami, the son, but the lower Court has found, [and; we agree with the finding, that he was the manager of the family. As regards the question whether the monies were borrowed for family purposes, the learned Judge relying, mainly on oral evidence and probabilities has come to the conclusion that they were not so borrowed. He howev...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Parvathi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad347; 87Ind.Cas.351
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner is defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1923 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mayavaram. Plaintiff is suing in forma pauperis for maintenance due to her as a Hindu widow after the lapse of 20 years, for her husband died in 1902. The petitioner contended in his written statement that she had gone to the home of her own people at the time of her husband's death, and they came to an oral arrangement that she should keep her jewels in lieu of maintenance. Issues were framed on 30th October 1923 and the suit was posted for hearing to 11th December 1923, and adjourned to 29th January 1924. In the interval, on 9th January 1924, the petitioner applied to file certain documents which he swore he had been unable to find earlier. The Subordinate Judge observing that the reason could not be accepted rejected the application. This Court ordered a rehearing, as the Subordinate Judge had not apparently directed his mind to the truth of the statement. Accordingly the application has been ...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.N. Muthuraman Chettiar and anr. Vs. Uppaluru Seetharamayya and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ706
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada on a claim petition preferred by them under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code: This petition contains two specific prayers:(a) To declare the mortgage right of the petitioners over the properties set out in the schedule annexed hereto and to have them sold subject to the mortgage amount; and (b) to stop the sale pending disposal of this petition. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge passed the following order:Counterfiled. The mortgage is registered, and in the ordinary course should have found a place in the encumbrance certificate. Decree-holder, however, opposes this petition as it is filed too late. Sale to take place with notice of this mortgage and that decree-holder disputes it. 3. The petitioners complain that the Court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction and state that it should either have investigated their claim or it should have refused to make such investigation after ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras and as Such the Assignee of the Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ182
Spencer, J.1. The decision of this appeal depends on the construction to be placed upon the will of K. Narayanaswami Naidu, a Hindu of Madras. He made a will on 3rd February, 1897, and a subsequent codicil on 21st May, 1897, and died on 23rd May, 1897 leaving a widow and one son, whose whereabouts are not known, and three granddaughters. One grandson, who is the 2nd defendant, was born in 1899 after the testator's death and, having become an insolvent, he is represented by the Official Assignee. The will having been made in the Presidency Town, the Hindu Wills Act is applicable to it, and Section 2 of that Act makes Sections 116 and 117 of the Indian Succession Act applicable. Among the dispositions the important passages run as follows:Clause 9. I give and bequeath the whole of the residuary estate -to my grandson or grandsons who may be born or will be born to my son Kateri Sundararamanjulu Naidu within ten years after my death; if there shall be no such grandsons to be born as afore...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras and as Such the Assignee of the Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad936; 97Ind.Cas.163
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. The decision of this appeal depends on the construction to be placed upon the Will of K. Narayansr swrami Naidu, a Hindu of Madras. He made a Will on, 3rd February, 1897, and a subsequent codicil on 21st May, 1897, and died, oh 23rd May, 1897, leaving a widow and one son, whose whereabouts are not known, and three granddaughters. One grandson, who is the 2nd defendant, was born in 1899 after the testator's death and, having become an insolvent, he is represented by the Official Assignee. The Will having been made in the Presidency Town, the Hindu Wills Act is applicable to it and Section 2 of that Act makes Sections f 16 and 117 of the Indian Succession Act applicable. Among the dispositions the important passages ran as follows: 'Clause 9. I give and bequeath the whole of the residuafy estate to my grandson or grandsons who may be born or will be born to my son Kaveri Sundararamanjulu Naidu within 10 years after my death; if there shall be such grandsons t...
Tag this Judgment!Suggusetty Subbayya Vs. Irugulapati Gangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad183; 92Ind.Cas.687
Jackson, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is really one of fact whether the payment on which the respondent relies to save limitation was made on account of interest. The best evidence in' such a matter is the evidence of the payer himself and if he had gone into the box and explained how he came to pay the Rs. 2 for principal only, the task of judging this question might have been considerably lightened. Unfortunately, he chose to deny payment altogether which the lower Appellate Court finds to be untrue, it is then driven to presumptions and presumes from the evidence of the decree-holder's clerk that the money was paid towards the decree, and that that includes principal and interest. I think that is a fair presumption, because ordinarily one does not split up the principal and interest in a decree. Another presumption was open to the learned Subordinate Judge, that if petitioner lied, he had something to conceal; and possibly, it was his knowledge that he paid for princ...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Bahadur G. Krishnamachariar Vs. the Municipal Council, Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad448; (1926)50MLJ77
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Petition by the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 5450 of 1922 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Trichinopoly, to revise the decree, dated 16th April, 1923.2. The suit was to recover back professional tax collected from the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a resident of Hyderabad and has a house within the municipal limits of Srirangam where he comes and spends a portion of his vacation. He was called upon to pay professional tax for carrying on money-lending business at Srirangam and paid a sum of Rs. 50 under protest. It was urged before me that as he did not reside within the municipal limits of Srirangam for 60 days in the halfyear for which the tax was collected, he was not liable to be assessed. It was conceded that during the half-year for which the tax was levied the plaintiff did come and reside at his house at Srirangam for some days. Such being the case he was a person liable to be assessed, in case he came under Section 95 of the District Municipalities Act...
Tag this Judgment!Karipineni Rajayya Vs. Kalapatapu Annapurnamma, minor by guardian Mang ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ662
Phillips, J.1. The main question for consideration in this Appeal is whether the sale in execution of the property of the deceased judgment-debtor is a mere irregularity or a nullity It appears that in this case an order for the sale of the judgment-debtor's property was made and that before the sale took place, the judgment-debtor died. His legal representatives were not impleaded. There are two cases of this Court which are exactly applicable, one reported in Ragunathaswamy Aiyangar v. Gopaul Rao : (1921)41MLJ547 and the other in Doraiswami v. Chidambaram Pillai (1923) 45 MLJ 213. The decisions being directly opposed to one another, it is suggested for the appellant that in view of this difference of opinion, this second appeal should be referred to a Bench but, as I will explain, I do not think that is necessary.2. In Raghunathaswami Aiyangar v. Gopaul Rao : (1921)41MLJ547 Old-field and Ramesam, JJ., held that the sale in execution which took place after the death of the judgment-de...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: (Vollayan) Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad370
1. Appellants have been convicted of dacoity by a jury. The charge against them briefly is that they accused P.W. No. 1 of having stolen some timber and extorted from him and his two sons one of whom, strangely enough, is a minor, a promissory-note for Rs. 200. The Sessions Judge summed, upon the whole case in favour of the defence laying though, as it turned out, insufficient emphasis, on the defects in the prosecution case which were both numerous and striking. The jury, however, elected, while acquitting the 4th accused, to convict the five appellants. The acquittal of the 4th accused is perhaps the most inexplicable feature of a highly unsatisfactory case. The evidence against him was precisely as strong or as weak as that against the appellants. If he was innocent, so obviously were they. The Judge having agreed with the Jury that he was innocent and doubting, as he evidently did, the truth of the prosecution case, should certainly have referred the rest of the verdict as flagrant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »