Chennai Court March 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.
Jammi Hanumantha Rao Vs. Aratla Latchamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1193; (1926)51MLJ563
Devadoss, J.1. The appellant applied for the probate of the will of one Narasamma, dated 4th June, 1920. The grant of probate was opposed by the respondent who is the widow of the brother of Narasamma's husband, and the District Judge held that it was not proved that Narasamrna executed the will and dismissed the application.2. Mr. Jagannadha Doss for the appellant raises the contention that the respondent was not entitled to oppose the grant of probate as she had no interest in the estate of the deceased so as to be entitled to. enter caveat under Section 69 of the Probate and Administration Act (V of 1881). As there is a conflict of authority on this point and as the respondent has not appeared to oppose the appeal, we asked Mr. Anantha Aiyar to appear as amicus curiae, and we are thankful to him for bringing to our notice the cases opposed to the contention of the appellant. Under Section 69 'In all cases it shall be lawful for the District fudge, if he thinks fit, to issue citation...
Woriur Commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. Kaja Maroop Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1081; 101Ind.Cas.525
1. We are unable to agree with the decisions of the Courts below that the surety was entitled to be discharged. In his bond he made two undertakings, viz. (1) that the judgment-debtor would within 30 days apply to be adjudicated insolvent and (2) that he (the surety) would produce the judgment-debtor on the dates fixed for his production. He agreed that on failure to comply with either of these conditions, he would himself satisfy the decree. His liability was not made to depend on the happening of the double event, viz., failure of the judgment-debtor to present an insolvency petition and failure of the surety to produce the judgment-debtor on the dates fixed. The security bond was in fact drawn up in accordance with the provisions of Section 55 (4), Civil P. C , which provides for the security being realized when there is an undertaking both to apply and to appear and a failure to comply with both undertakings.2. The section has been so understood in the Courts of Bombay, Patna and L...
Yaramath Khan Vs. Amir-ul-umra Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1198; 97Ind.Cas.375
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order allowing execution against the judgment-debtor in O.S. 1310 of 1921 on the file of the District Munsif of Kurnool The District Munsif allowed execution to proceed, overruling the objection raised and the District Judge has confirmed the order.2. It is contended in second appeal that the lower Courts have not complied with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 15(2) and, therefore, their orders are bad.3. There are eleven decree-holders and one judgment-debtor, the 1st defendant, who is the appellant before me. The execution application was put in by four of the decree-holders, the other decree-holders being counter-petitioners, to the application. No objection seems to have been taken by the 1st defendant' under Rule 15(2) that execution should not be allowed on an application of some only of the decree-holders. The learned Judge has, therefore, not passed any definite order under Clause (2).4. The application itself was professedly by the a...
S.M.A. Khuddus Vs. Sowdagar Mahammad Hussain
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1015; 97Ind.Cas.389; (1926)51MLJ252
Krishnan, J.1. This is a revision petition which raises a some what curious point of law. The plaintiff had brought a suit originally for rent or mesne profits for two months and odd, and for that he got a decree. Subsequently, he brought a suit for the recovery of possession of the property and asked in that suit for future mesne profits and that suit also was decreed in his favour. In the present suit he claims mesne profits from the end of the period for which he had claimed mesne profits in the first suit up to the date of the second suit. A question is raised whether this present suit is not barred by reason of the second suit under Order 2, Rule 2. There is no direct authority on the point. We have therefore to decide it on general principles.2. In Ponnammal v. Ramamirda Aiyar 28 M L J 127(F B) a Full Bench of this Court decided that where a person had brought a suit for possession of property, he could bring a second suit for past mesne profits in respect of the same property, t...
Pootheri Illath Kuttikrishnan Nair, Proprietor, Malabar Tile Works Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.475; (1926)51MLJ311
1. In this case a point of some little interest arises because the plaintiff on a contract for supply of timber sued two defendants, the first of whom he alleged to be the principal and the second he alleged carried the transaction through. What the learned Judge has done is to give judgment against both of them. In my opinion that cannot be done. The liability of principal and agent is not joint but alternative see Morel Bros and Go., Ltd. v. The Earl of Westmorland (1904) A C 11 which really confirms the very careful examination of the subject in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls in the Court below. Now it is said that the English Law has been altered by Section 233 of the Indian Contract Act together with its illustration. The section runs:In. cases where the agent is personally liable, a person dealing with him may hold either him or his principal, or both of them, liableand then the illustration is,A enters into a contract with B to sell him 100 bales of cotton and afterward...
Sobhanadri Appa Rao and anr. Vs. Venkataramayya Appa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad212
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107 of the Government of India Act to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada refusing to allow one of the amendments of the plaint prayed for by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs applied for two amendments one of which has been allowed but the other was disallowed; and it is against the latter order that the plaintiffs have come up in revision.2. The plaintiffs wanted to add in the plaint a statement that there was no final and completed partition and that they were, therefore, entitled to claim a fresh partition; it is this amendment that has been disallowed.3. Under Order 6, Rule 17 all such amendments should be allowed as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to allow the amendment in question here, because he thought that the amendment was not likely to raise a case which would succeed if t...
Subramania Aiyar Vs. T. V. Krishna Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad701
Phillips, J.1. The question we have to consider, is whether the Official Receiver of an insolvent's estate has power to sell the interest of the insolvent's sons in the family property The question has been already decided in this Court in Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 55 where it was held that although the interest of the sons does not vest in the Official Assignee by reason of the adjudication it would be competent to the latter to deal with their shares if the debts of the insolvent were of such a nature as to be binding on their interests. Again in Sankara Narayana Pillai v. Rajamani A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 550 to which I was a party, it was held that the sale by the Official Receiver purporting to be of the whole of the family estate of the insolvent passed to the vendee the sons,' share also. It is now contended for the appellant that in view of the recent decision of the Privy Council in Sat Narain v. Behari Lal these cases require reconsideratio...
Nachiappa Chettiar Vs. Kandappan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad958a; 97Ind.Cas.413
Wallace, J.1. I can see no ground for disturbing the order of the lower Court. The surety by his bond undertook a liability to produce the judgment-debtor before the Court of the District Munsiff of Devakottah, until he was finally discharged of his insolvency. Petitioner pleads that this 'final discharge' does not relate to the I.P. in the District Court which is still pending and in which the judgment-debtor has not yet had a final discharge, but only to another contemplated I.P. at the date of the bond, which was put in later and dismissed on 22-3-22 I am unable to accept the contention and petitioner's own conduct itself proves it is wrong. When he was ordered on 20-6-22 to produce the judgment-debtor, he did not plead that his liability had ceased on 22-3--22 with the dismissal of the second I.P. but accepted the continuance of his liability and requested and obtained one month's time to produce the judgment debtor. The date for the production of the judgment-debtor was adjourned ...
K.P.S. Karuthan Chettiar Vs. R.M.M. Raman Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1159
1. A preliminary objection is taken on the strength of the decision in Iyappa Nainar v. Manicka Asari [1917] 40 Mad. 630 that no appeal lies in this case That decision was one under the Insolvency Act of 1907 and it is argued that it is not applicable to the present Act which is somewhat different in form It is, however, unnecessary to decide this question as we think that on the merits the appeal must fail The District Judge has dismissed the appellant's application (1) to annul the insolvency adjudication and (2) to take action against him under Section 69. In order to obtain an order for annulment it must be shown that the order of adjudication ought note to have been made. The only allegation put forward by the appellant is that the insolvent was in possession of accounts in 1907, and when he was adjudicated in 1914 he alleged that he had no accounts at all. Even if the insolvent's statement was false it does not necessarily follow that the order of adjudication was wrong In order ...
R. Pethu Naidu Vs. Chuna Lakshmana Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1011; 97Ind.Cas.780
Krishnan, J.1. The garnishee no doubt denied the debt but nothing was done regarding it ; the Court merely recorded the fact and directed the debt to be sold. The existence of and the amount of the debt were at no time in issue. This case, therefore, is different from the case in Subbier v. Moideen Pitchai A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 562 where the learned Judges say 'the whole matter was in issue in the execution and garnishee proceedings.' The order to sell the debt has, therefore, not got the effect of barring the garnishee from showing subsequently that no debt is due. This is the only point taken. The petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »