Chennai Court January 1926 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.
Chowdappa Gounder, a Creditor of the Insolvent Kathaperumal Pillai, fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad801; (1926)50MLJ602
Wallace, J.1. The first question in this appeal is whether an appeal lies. The Official Receiver of Coimbatore in proceedings in insolvency applied to the Lower Court under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to declare void against him an assignment or sub-lease in favour of the 2nd respondent before it. The Lower Court dismissed the petition. The appellant before us is not the Official Receiver but one of the creditors; and a preliminary objection is taken that such an appeal by a single creditor is not competent. It-does not appear that the appellant before appealing moved the Official Receiver to appeal. For the purposes of this argument I assume that the Official Receiver was not moved to appeal.2. The appellant relies very strongly on the general wording of Section 75, sub-clauses I and 2, which undoubtedly lays down that any creditor aggrieved by the decision of the District Court may appeal to the High Court in a matter of this kind. The short question then is, is the a...
Karuppanna Tevar Vs. Angammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad678; (1926)51MLJ67
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this case is, what is the Court-fee payable? Is Section 7(4)(c) of the Court Fees Act or Article 17(b) of Scheduel II applicable? The plaintiff who claims to be the reversionary heir of. a certain deceased Hindu has filed the suit questioning an alienation made by the 1st defendant, the latter's widow, and making various charges regarding alleged waste by her of the property. The plaintiff asks substantially for two reliefs (1) for a declaration that an alienation specifically mentioned in the plaint is not binding upon him, and (2) for the appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the estate from the widow and manage it during her lifetime. The short question to be decided is, is the relief for the appointment of a Receiver a 'consequential relief' within the meaning of Section 7(4)(c)? The words used in that section arc 'to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed.' Does the second relief fol...
Manicka Chetti Vs. Kuppusami Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad644; 97Ind.Cas.613
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that time is not of the essence of the contract. This is apparently also the view taken by the District Munsif. The suit was instituted for redemption of a property mortgaged. By consent of parties a decree was passed which fixed a date for the payment of the mortgage amount. In these circumstances there is nothing which will justify the inference that the parties intended that the time should be of the essence of the contract. I agree, therefore, that the decision of the lower Court on this point is correct.2. Secondly, it has been contended that the decree passed was a preliminary decree and was therefore not executable. If the decree was really a preliminary decree, it would no doubt be necessary to have a final decree before the application for execution of the decree could be entertained. But in this case I am satisfied that the decree pased is not a preliminary decree. As has been pointed out in Arunadati Kumari v. Ram...
Srinivasa Pillai Vs. Balasubramani Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad592; 94Ind.Cas.534
Madhavan Nair, J.1. It is not disputed that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with two bulls; the defendant being a minor he is liable to pay for them only if the plaintiff is able to show that these were 'necessaries ' to the defendant. This position is accepted by both of the parties. The plaintiff has given evidence on the question. It appears tome that the learned District Munsif has not given proper consideration to the evidence on record because in his view 'bulls' can never be considered 'necessaries.' There is no law laying down such an absolute proposition. The question in each particular case will have to be decided with regard to the evidence let in by the parties on the question. I cannot for these reasons accept the finding of the learned District Munsif as a satisfactory finding. I would, therefore, ask him to review the evidence in the light of Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act and submit a fresh finding on the question whether the sale of bulls to the defendant i...
(Kavalappara) Mooppil Nair and anr. Vs. Ammalu Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad667; 95Ind.Cas.26
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This petition raises the question as regards the Court-fee that should be paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit was one for redemption of a kanom dated 3rd November 1899: see paragraph 2 of the plaint. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the cause of action arose since 4-11-1911 that is, after the expiry of 12 years from the date of kanom. It has been held by this Court ever since Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana [1882] 5 Mad. 284 that in suits to redeem a kanom mortgage the Court-fee payable by the plaintiff should be in accordance with provisions of Section 9, Clause(7) of the Court Fees Act. There is no question that that fee has been correctly paid by the plaintiff in this case. The fact that he refers to his title in the plaint does not make it obligatory on him to pay any additional Court-fee. The question litigated is his right to redeem.2. The real question for decision has not been considered by the lower Courts. As a matter of fact in obedience to the or...
Karuppana thevar Vs. Angammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.129
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this case is, what is the Court-fee payable? Is Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act or Article 17(6) of Schedule II applicable? The plaintiff who claims to be the reversionary heir of a certain deceased Hindu, has filed the suit questioning an alienation made by the 1st defendant, the latter's widow, and making various charges regarding alleged waste by her of the property. The plaintiff asks substantially for two reliefs (1) for a declaration, that as alienation specifically mentioned in the plaint is not binding upon him and (2) for the appointment of a Receiver to take; possession of the estate from the widow and manage it during her lifetime, The short question to be decided is, is the relief for the appointment of a Receiver a 'consequential relief' within the meaning of Section 7(iv)(c). The 'words used in that section are 'to obtain a declaratory decree or' order, where consequential relief is prayed.' Does the second relie...
Chowdappa Gounder, a Creditor of the Insolvent Kathaperumal Pillai for ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.944
Wallace, J.1. The first, question in this appeal is whether an appeal lies. The Official Receiver of Coimbatore in proceedings in Insolvency applied to the lower Court under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to declare void against him an assignment or sub-lease in favour of the second respondent before it. The lower Court dismissed the petition. The appellant before us is not the Official Receiver but one of the creditors; and a preliminary objection is taken that such an appeal by a single creditor is not competent. It does not appear that the appellant before appealing moved the Official Receiver to appeal. For the purposes of this argument I assume that the Official Receiver was not moved to appeal.2. The appellant relies very strongly on the general wording of Section 75, Sub-clauses 1 and 2, which undoubtedly lays down that any creditor aggrieved by the decision of the District Court may appeal to the High Court in a matter of this kind. The short question then is, is t...
Gopisetti Veeraswami and ors. Vs. Sagiraju Seetharama Kantayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ394
Spencer, J.1. These suits were brought by certain mokhasadars in the Kistna District to eject their tenants; and the first question that came up for decision at the trial was whether the villages in question were portions of an estate within the definition of the Madras Estates Land Act. under Section 3 of that Act an 'estate' means 'consisting of one or more villages of any of the estates specified in Clause (a) which is held on a permanent under-tenure '. The three villages concerned in this suit, Goteru, Surampudi and Komara-varam are admittedly situated within the ambit of the Zemin-dari of Nuzvid. They were in existence before the Permanent Settlement of 1802. The District Munsif was of opinion that they were even more ancient than the zemindari in which they are situated. The question whether they are held on a permanent under-tenure from the Zemindar must depend on whether the revenue from these mokhasas was taken into consideration in computing the assets of the Zemindari at th...
C.R. Doraiswami Pillai Vs. Chellapuruma Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.588
Odgers, J.1. The learned District Judge on appeal to him by the 8th defendant in the case held that the mortgage-deed on which the suit was founded was invalid and, therefore, the suit failed. He based his judgment principally on his finding that the mortgage-deed was improperly attested and the first point raised before me in second appeal by Mr. Anantakrishna Iyer for the appellant is that the learned District Judge was debarred from considering this point, as it is not taken in the pleadings, in the issues or agitated before the District Munsif. In the pleadings the written statement of the 7th defendant states that the mortgage-deed is not supported by consideration and that the two assignments referred to in the plaint are fraudulent and have no consideration to support them. The 8th defendant pleaded that the original mortgage and the several assignments thereon are not bona fide but simply sham and collusive transactions and are not supported by consideration and that hence they...
Madura Municipality Vs. P.M. Muthu Balu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad576; 94Ind.Cas.411; (1926)50MLJ384
ORDERWaller, J.1. This petition has been filed by the Municipal Council of Madura against the decision of the Sub-Magistrate of Madura Town. Respondent was charged under Sections 249 and 338 of the Madras District Municipalities Act with having failed to take out a license for using a 22 horse power gas engine to work a rice hulling machine. The Sub-Magistrate refused to convict. He found that the case was governed by Section 250 and not by Section 249 of the Act. He was further of opinion that machinery used for rice hulling was not the kind of machinery contemplated by Schedule V (q).2. It is argued on behalf of the Municipal Council that all that is required by Section 250 is permission for the original construction or establishment of a factory and that for the actual working of the factory an annual license is necessary under Section 249. I agree with the Sub-Magistrate that the argument is unsound. The Act clearly intends to draw a distinction between what it describes as 'indust...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »