Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
M.A.R.R.M.P. Muthu Veerappa Chettiar Vs. U.K. Sivagurunatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.603; (1925)49MLJ697
1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore dismissing the appellant's application to adjudicate the respondent an insolvent. The learned Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the respondent should not be adjudicated in respect of his father's debt, as there was no personal liability on the part of the respondent in respect of such debt. The petitioner in this petition alleged that the respondent was pressed to pay the debt due to him and he requested the petitioner to give him time to collect the out standings and pay him. Taking advantage of the time given to him, he made certain alienations in favour of certain creditors which the petitioner alleges to be fraudulent preferences. There is nothing in the Insolvency Act which prevents the undivided members of a joint Hindu family from being adjudicated insolvents in respect of debts due by the family. Each case would depend upon its circumstances. If the petitioner makes the necessary allegat...
Addepalli Venkata Gurunadha Ramaseshiah, Acting Secretary of Kannika a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad417; (1926)50MLJ54
1. The plaintiff, acting secretary of Sri Kannika Parameswari Visamsetty Venkataratnam Hindu High School Committee, sues for the recovery of Rs. 4,278-5-9 from the defendants who are the sons of one Venkayya Garu. The plaint allegation is that Venkayya managed the affairs of the High School and was in possession of considerable funds and that he rendered an account to the committee of the school, and that on going through the account it was found that the account rendered by him was incorrect and that a sum of Rs. 4,000 and odd was with him and that the defendants who are his heirs are bound to pay the amount to the plaintiff. The defendants raised various contentions and the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. On appeal the District Judge at Masulipatam reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suit to the Lower Court for taking accounts. Against the decree of th...
Akella Kesavaramayya and ors. Vs. Visamsetti Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad452; (1926)50MLJ36
1. The only question in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are the sons or Venkayya Garu and sue the defendants who are the members of the Committee called Sri Kannika Parameswari Visamsetti Venkataratnam Hindu High School Committee for a certain sum alleged to be due to the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal the District Judge at Masulipatam dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. The defendants who are the members of the Sri Kannika Parameswari Visamsetti Venkataratnam Hindu High School Committee took over the management of the Hindu High School at Bezwada with all its assets and liabilities from another committee called Sri Kannika Parameswari Hindu High School Committee in November, 1915. Both the committees were registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. Venkayya advanced considerable sums of money for the upkeep of the school and for certain ...
K. Kaliba Sahib and ors. Vs. Subbaroya Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad365
1. This is a reference by the District Munsif of Negapatam under Order 46, Rules 1 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the question referred is in these terms:Is not this Court competent to proceed with the trial of this suit in pursuance of the order of the District Court in C.M.A. No. 101 of 1923 preferred against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer when this Court on its small cause side had already held that it had no jurisdiction to try this suit 2. The suit was brought in the District Munsif's Court on its small cause side by the trustees of Nagore Durga for rent. The defendant contended that the property in his possession formed part of an estate and that a civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The District Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. The plaint was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer and he held that the defendant was not ...
Rajamanicka Chetty Vs. P.K. Venkatramana Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad950
Spencer, J.1. The manner in which the Subordinate Judge (Mr. K. Krishnamacharya) has dealt with the rights of a minor in the matter of his representation in this suit amounts practically to a denial of justice. The suit was based upon a mortgage and was brought against the 1st defendant and his minor son, the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant evaded service of summons and an ex parte decree was passed against him. The 2nd plaintiff filed an affidavit, on 10-9-23 stating that the minor's mother had no interest adverse to the minor, that the minor was under her protection and that she might be appointed as guardian ad litem of her son. On 16-10-23 the Subordinate Judge appointed the Head Clerk of his Court as the guardian of the minor, while the petition to appoint the mother of the minor was still pending, and without recording any reasons for not appointing the natural guardian of the minor to be guardian ad litem. Afterwards on 2-11-23 the Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition to ap...
(Thirumulu) Suppu Shetti Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1065
1. This is an appeal against the order of remand by the Acting Subordinate Judge of Dindigul. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the 3rd defendant and dismissed the suit so far as he was concerned. On appeal by the plaintiff the Subordinate Judge held that the principle of Tweedle v. Atkinson 30 L.J. Q.B. 265 would apply to the ease and remanded it for trial by the first Court. The questions in the suit were whether the 3rd defendant undertook to pay the plaint debt; secondly whether there was an agreement between the 3rd defendant and plaintiff to pay the debt; and thirdly if the debt mentioned in Ex. D was the debt assigned to the plaintiff would the principle of Tweedle v. Atkinson 30 L.J. Q.B. 265 apply to the facts of the case. The learned Subordinate Judge has not recorded a finding on the point whether the debt mentioned in Ex. D as having been undertaken to be paid by the 3rd defendant was the debt due to the plaintiff; he should also ha...
Thokala Seshamma and ors. Vs. Yellaturi Venkamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad238; 92Ind.Cas.456
1. This is an appeal under Section 476-B against the complaint of the District Judge of Kurnool made under Section 476 of the Cr. P.C. Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 propounded a Will of one Sami Reddi in answer to a suit brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of the properties of Sami Reddi who died on 15th January 1922. The 3rd appellant is the writer and appellants Nos. 4 and 8 are the attestors of the Will. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion, after a full consideration of the evidence, that the Will was a forgery. On appeal the District Judge agreed with the Subordinate Judge in his conclusion that the Will was a forgery. The plaintiff's widow applied to the District Judge to take action under Section 476 of the Cr. P.C. The learned Judge has laid a complaint before the Sub-Divisional First Glass Magistrate of Kurnool against the appellants for offences under Sections 467, 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code2. The first point raised by Mr. Venkatarayaliah is that the Distric...
Alella Kesavaramayya and ors. Vs. Visamsetti Venkatanarasimha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.626
1. The only question in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are the sons of Venkayya Garu and sue the defendants who are the members of the Committee called Sri Kannika Parameswari Visyam Chetty Venkataratnam Hindu High School Committee for a certain sum alleged to be due to the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal the District Judge at Masulipatam dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation.2. The defendants who are the members of the Sri Kannika Parameswari Visyam Chetty Venkataratnam Hindu High School Committee, took over the management of the Hindu High School at Bezvada with all its assets and liabilities from another Committee called Sri Kannika Parameswari Hindu High School Committee in November 1915. Both the Committees were registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. Venkayya advanced considerable sums of money for the upkeep of the school and for ce...
K. Kaliba Sahib and ors. Vs. Subbaraya Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.621
1. This is a reference by the District Munsif of Negapatam under Order XLVI, Rules 1 and 6 of the C.P.C., and the question referred is in these terms:Is not this Court competent to proceed with the trial of this suit in pursuance of the order of the District Court in C.M.A. No. 101 of 1923 preferred against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer when this Court on its small cause side had already held that it had no jurisdiction to try this suit.2. The suit was brought in the District Munsif s Court on its small cause side by the trustees of Nagore Durga for rent. The defendant contended that the property in his possession formed part of an estate and that a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. The District Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to try the case and directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation to the proper Court. The plaint was presented to the Revenue Divisional Officer and he held that the defendant was not a raiyat under ...
Addepalli Venkata Garunadha Vs. Akella Kesava Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.973
1. The plaintiff, acting Secretary of Sri Kannika Parameswari Viswan Setti Venkataratnam Hindu High School Committee sues for the recovery of Rs. 4,278-5-9 from the defendants who are the sons of one Venkayya Garu. The plaint allegation is that Venkayya managed the the affairs of the High School and was in possession of considerable funds and that he rendered an account to the Committee of the school and that on going through the account, it was found that the account rendered by him was incorrect and that a sum of Rs. 4,000 and odd was with him and that the defendants who are his heirs are bound to pay the amount to the plaintiff. The defendants raised various contentions and the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. On appeal the District Judge of Masulipatam reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remanded the suit to the lower Court for taking accounts. Against the decree ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›