Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
Mahalinga Naicker Vs. Vellaya Naicker Alias Guruswami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad190; (1926)51MLJ559
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued to set aside a sale held under the provisions of Chapter VI of the Estates Land Act, and for a permanent injunction restricting defendants from interfering with his enjoyment, on the following grounds: (1) that the sale was held without due notice to him, (2) that there was no publication, and (3) that the price was grossly inadequate. The first Court held on all these points in favour of the plaintiff, and passed a decree as prayed for. Defendants appealed, and the Appellate Court held that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and allowed the appeal. That such a suit would lie has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Rajah of Ramnad v. Venkatarama Aiyar (1915) 29 M.L.J. 172. The vakil for the respondents contended that this ruling would not apply because, there was an application to set aside the sale under Section 131 of the Act, and that O.21, Rule 92(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the ...
Tag this Judgment!D.A. Kandasami Chettiar Vs. G.F.F. Foulkes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad396
Ramesam, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Judge of Salem refusing to set aside the election of the President of the District Board of Salem held on 29th July 1924. The first ground alleged in the petition and repeated before me here is that five of the voters, namely, Arunachalla Goundan ; 2. Bommanna Chetty ; 3. Rahu ; 4. Chinappa Goundan ; and 5. 'Vasudeva Reddi have ceased to hold their office as members of the District Board by reason of their non-attendance at the meetings of the District Board for three consecutive months. Four of these were elected and one was nominated. Though all the five were restored to their office by a resolution of the Board under Section 56(4) of the Act, it it said (1) that they cannot exercise the functions of the members of a Board at the meeting at which they were restored ; (2) that they ought to take a fresh oath of allegiance and until a fresh oath of allegiance was taken, they cannot exercise the functions of mem...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuvenkatarama Reddiar and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver, South Arc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.398
Devadoss, J.1. The appellants wore adjudicated insolvents on their own petition in 1922. They applied to the District Court on 24th July 1924 for a declaration that the two items of property, a terraced house and a cattle-shed, did not vest in the Official Receiver. The District Judge dismissed their petition, and they have preferred this appeal.2. The contention of the appellants is that they are agriculturists and the two items which are buildings which they occupied are exempt from the operation of the Insolvency Law by reason of Section 28, Clause 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The appellants are large landed proprietors owning about 300 acres of land worth nearly a lakh and their debts amounted to Rs.. 1,35,000 and odd. The two items are valued' by the appellants themselves at Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 1,000 respectively. Under Section 28, Clause 5 all properties which are exempt by reason of Section 60 of the C.P.C. or by any other law from liability to attachment and sale in execut...
Tag this Judgment!Mahalinga Naicker Vs. Vellaya Naicker Alias Gurusami Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.412
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued to set aside a sale held under the provisions of Ch. VI of the Estates Land Act and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment, on the following grounds:--(1) that the sale was held without due notice to him; (2) that there was no publication and (3) that the price was grossly inadequate. The first Court held on all these points in favour of the plaintiff, and passed a decree as prayed for. Defendants appealed, and the Appellate Court held that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and allowed the appeal. That such a suit would lie has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Rajah of Ramnad v. Venkataramai Iyer 43 M.L.J. 264 : A.I.R. 1923(M.) 6. The Vakil for the respondents contended that this ruling would not apply because there was an application to set aside the sale under Section 131 of the Act, and that Order XXI, Rule 92 (1) of the C.P.C., barred the...
Tag this Judgment!Bulkee Bee and ors. Vs. Kaka Hajee Muhammad Ummar Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad415; (1926)50MLJ39
Devadoss, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the transferee decree-holders of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 40 of 1912 passed on the 5th March, 1914. The mortgaged properties were sold but the sale proceeds were not sufficient to cover the decree amount. They applied to the Lower Court for execution against the property of the mortgagors not covered by the mortgage. The mortgagors objected to the execution on the ground that there was no personal decree against them and that the application was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge overruled the objection and allowed execution to proceed against the property of the judgment-debtors not covered by the mortgage. The judgment-debtors have preferred this appeal.2. It is contended by Mr. Viswanatha Aiyar for the appellants that no decree was passed under Order 34, Rule 6, and therefore there is no personal decree against the mortgagors and the order of the District Judge is wrong. The decree passed on 5th March, 1914, was only...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Veeranan Ambalam Vs. Ayyachi Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad168; 92Ind.Cas.968; (1925)49MLJ791
Spencer, J.1. Two questions have been argued in this Civil Revision Petition. The first is whether the chit transaction, in which the petitioner was the promoter and the respondent was a subscriber, partook of the character of a lottery or consisted of wagering agreements between the subscribers and the promoter. The second is whether the respondent is entitled to recover the money which he subscribed either upon the terms of the contract between him and the petitioner, or by reason of the obligation cast by S. 65, Indian Contract Act, upon persons who have received any advantage, of restoring it upon an agreement or contract becoming void or being discovered to be void.2. The mere fact that the order in which members of a Mutual Benefit Society take their benefits is determined by the drawing of lots does not constitute the transaction a lottery [vide Walling ford v. Mutual Society (1880) 5 AC 685.3. In the particular form of chit transaction that is before us, 500 persons undertook e...
Tag this Judgment!Manepalli Satyanarayanamurthi Vs. Thommandra Erikalappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ150
Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This case is really governed by the decision of the House of Lords in British and Beningtons, Ltd. v. N.W. Cachar Tea Co., Ltd., and Ors. (1923) AC 48. As I understand that case, it lays down that a seller is not to he defeated merely by its being shown that alter repudiation by the buyer he had. not the goods to implement the contract actually in his physical possession. He can show that he could supply the goods contracted for either from the open market or from any other source and he would be entitled to maintain a suit for damages for wrongful repudiation.2. In this case the contract was that the buyer should take the goods between the 20th and 30th of April, 1919., He did not do so and he set up a false defence that he sent two men to take delivery within the contract period. Those two men were called and gave evidence and the learned Judges refused to believe them. No Judge sitting as a jury would have believed them because the seller wrote on 28th ...
Tag this Judgment!C.R. Subramania Aiyar Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad432; (1926)50MLJ665
1. We are asked to revise the order of the District Judge of West Tanjore (Mr. Viswanatha Sastri) setting aside a sale held in execution of a decree which had been confirmed by the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. The sale was held on 30th September, 1920. Seven days previously, on 23rd September, the 1st judgment-debtor who is the father of the other judgment-debtors presented an insolvency petition. An interim Receiver was appointed and he wrote and asked the Subordinate Judge to stop the sale. It was nevertheless held and confirmed by the Subordinate Judge on 27th November. An adjudication order in insolvency was made on 15th December. A year later the adjudication was annulled by the District Judge and the annulment was set aside by this Court on 23rd January, 1923.2. At the outset it will be well to clear the ground of two errors. The learned District Judge states in his order that the adjudication took place on 28th September, 1920. The order which is before us is under the hand ...
Tag this Judgment!T.R.M.S. Ramanathan Chetti Vs. Nalla Veerappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad272
1. The District Judge passed the following order:Proceedings closed. Sale held on the 3lst July 1922 is confirmed.2. We have pointed out in more cases than one that no Court which executes a decree can pass such an order as 'Proceedings closed' or 'Petition lodged' or 'The matter is held over' for statistical purposes. It is the duty of the executing Court to execute a decree and it could dismiss the application, only if the creditor does not take proper steps and does not help the Court in executing the decree.3. We, therefore, set aside the order of the District Judge and direct him to restore the application to file and dispose of it according to law.4. Costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. Dugappa Bhandary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad921
Phillips, J.1. This is a case of an alleged escheat of the properties of an Aliyasantana family of South Kanara. The undisputed facts are as follows: About 1850 the Haladi family consisted of two members, Puttu Shettithi and her son, Daraya Shetti. One Venkamma Shettithi was then adopted from another family and she had a daughter, Kollu Shettithi, who married Daraya Shetti's son Nandiappa Shetti and died in 1872, They had a daughter Durgi Shettithi, who died while still a minor in 1876. In 1864, Daraya Shetti executed what is called a Tahanaman, Ex. DD, in which he stated that there were no other heirs in his family except himself and Kollu Shettithi. He then entrusted the management of the family and the family property to his son Nandiappa Shetti and he also made a provision that if Kollu Shettithi had no issue, Nandiappa Shetti should enjoy the property mentioned therein, Daraya Shetti died in 1866, and from that time Nandiappa Shetti appears to have been in possession and managemen...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »