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.
K.P.S. Karuthan Chettiar Vs. R.M.M. Raman Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.590
1. A preliminary objection is taken on the strength of the decision in Iyappa Nainar v. Manikka Asari 27 Ind. Cas. 241 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 not 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 orde...
Nadupi and ors. Vs. Subbaraya Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1196
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. I am very dissatisfied with the findings arrived at by the learned District Judge, but I see no option but to take his findings as they are. The suit was brought by two persons who were not at the time of this suit in possession. They, therefore, could not merely rely upon their possessory title and say: 'We are in possession. These people must be ejected and they must go.' They had not been in possession from a very long time and, therefore, they could only eject the defendants by showing that they had some sort of what I may conveniently call a paper title. In order to do that, they had ultimately to rely on Ex. A. That was a sale of house and lands and the plaintiffs' case was that although the sale of the lands was a genuine enough transaction, the sale of the house was benami. If the matter had stood there all might have been well. But the parties raised a further question on which the learned Judge has given a finding. His finding is that the sale was taken...
Subramania Iyer, Minor, by Next Friend Sankara Ammal Vs. T.V. Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.266
William Watkins 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 son in the family property, The question has been already decided in this Court in Official Assignee of Madras v. Ramachandra Aiyar : (1922)43MLJ569 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 Sankaranarayanam Pillai v. Rajamani : (1924)46MLJ314 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 son's 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 reconsiderat...
Paidapati Venkatanarasu Vs. Vikram Kotayya and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ119
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant sued to establish his right to, and to recover possession of, the suit land on the ground that it formed part of the 'Shroff-Service inam land ' of the village. The defendants contended that questions relating to Shroff's Service are governed by Madras Act III of 1895 and that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try the suit. Accepting their contention the District Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court. On appeal, the District Judge, holding that the suit is triable in a Civil Court, set aside the District Munsif's order and remanded the case to the Lower Court for disposal. The District Munsif then gave a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the suit lands and past profits. This decree was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge. In second appeal the question as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit was once again raised and the learned Judge, Wallace, J., after calling for findings from the ...
Raghavalu Nayudu and ors. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad144
Odgers, J.1. This appeal involves a question of water rights. The plaintiffs are certain inhabitants of Sumangalai village, Cheyyar taluq, and they brought this suit against the Secretary of State in Council for a declaration that they and the other ryots of Sumangalai and Kunnathur villages are entitled to the customary right of erecting a turf bund across the masonry work of the Sumangalai and Kunnathur Hissa tank every year and that the defendant, i.e., the Secretary of State be restrained from interfering with that right.2. The plaintiffs allege in their plaint that by the water-mamoolnama of 1815 they had by that date established the right of damming the water in the Hissa tank. According to the plaint they used to dam up the interspaces between the dam stones of the kalingula which was then out of repair. As I read paragraph 4 of the plaint, the device of damming up the interspaces was to prevent practically the entire water of the tank from running waste. In 1875 the Government ...
Chellakani Lakshmi Venkata Bhusura Ram Rao Vs. Yandapalle Venkataraju ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1146; 97Ind.Cas.703
1. The appellant, a minor applied through his mother and guardian to set aside certain sales held in execution of a mortgage-decree obtained against him and his father, who had executed the suit mortgage. It is now contended that in accordance with the law laid down in Sellappa Goundan v. Masa Naiken A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 297 that the minor who was represented in the suit by his father was not properly represented, as the father's interest was adverse to that of his son and consequently that the decree passed in the suit and subsequent proceeding thereon are all void.2. The head note to the case relied on certainly seems to support this proposition as a proposition of law, namely, that the interest of a father is adverse to that of the minor sons. Whether this is not somewhat too broadly stated it is unnecessary to consider now, because the present case can be differentiated by the fact that when the mortgage in this suit was executed the appellant was not born. When he was born the family ...
Paidapati Venkatanarasu Vs. Vikram Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad900; 97Ind.Cas.790
1. The plaintiff-appellant sued to establish his right to, and to recover possession of, the suit land on the ground that it formed part of the 'Shroff-service inam land' of the village, The defendants contended that questions relating to Shroff's service are governed by Madras Act III of 1895 and that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try the suit. Accepting their contention, the District Munsif returned the plaint for presentation to the Revenue Court. On appeal, the District Judge, holding that the suit is triable in a Civil Court, set aside the District Munsif's order and remanded the case to the lower Court for disposal. The District Munsif then gave a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the suit lands and past profits. This decree was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge. In second appeal the question as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit was once again raised and the learned Judge, Wallace, J., after calling for findings from the lower Court, came...
Raghavalu Naidu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.832
Odgers, J.1. This appeal involves a question of water rights. The plaintiffs are certain inhabitants of Sumangali village Cheyyar Taluq, and they brought this suit against the Secretary of State, in Council for a declaration that they and the other raiyats of Sumangali andKunnathur villages are entitled to the customary right of erecting a turf bund across the masonary work of the Sumangali and Kunnathur Hissa tank every year and that the defendant, i.e., the Secretary of State be restrained from interfering with that right. The plaintiff's allege in their plaint that by the water mamoolnama of 1815 they had by that date established the right of damming the water in the Hissa tank. According to the plaint they used to dam up the interspaces between the dam stones of the Kalingula which was then out of repair. As I read para. 4 of the plaint, the device of damming up the interspaces was to prevent practically the entire water of the tank from running waste. In 1875 the Government replac...
T. Kaliyappa Mudaliar Vs. Minor Kumaraswami Mudali by Next Friend Poon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ290
Phillips, J.1. Mr. Justice Wallace has referred a point for the decision of a Bench, namely, whether a party when he appeared by a pleader who after an application for adjournment has been refused, reports no instructions is to be deemed ex parte or whether he if personally present in Court at the time must be deemed to have ' appeared ' in the case. Wallace, J.'s order by inadvertence purports to refer the above question alone for our decision, but we must take it that the Civil Revision Petition itself has been referred for disposal.2. The question at issue was decided in Gopala Row v. Maria Susaya Pillai I.L.R. (1906) M 274 17 M L J 225 by a Bench of this Court, where it was held that a plaintiff fails to appear within the meaning of Section 102, Civil Procedure Code, when his pleader declines to proceed with the suit. It makes no difference that the party himself was present in Court. This case actually determines the point before us, and there has been no reported decision to the ...
Omayachi by Authorised Agent Meenakshisundara Aiyar Vs. O.S. Ramachand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad899; 97Ind.Cas.411; (1926)51MLJ349
1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge confirming an order of the Official Receiver requiring a succession certificate from the appellant before payment of her claim. under Section 64 of the Provincial Insolvency Act a creditor entered in the schedule is entitled to be paid his dividend out of the assets of the insolvent, and Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act does not appear to be applicable to such payments because it is only applicable to decrees or orders for the payment of debts. In the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, the framing of the schedule under Section 352 was deemed to be a decree in favour of the creditors as held in Arunachala v. Ayyavu I.L.R. (1884) M 318, but in the Insolvency Act of 1907 and the later Act of 1920 there is no such provision. Consequently, it would appear that Section 4 of the Succession Certificate Act is not applicable to the payment of dividends by the Receiver. This is only natural, for in paying out the debts due by the ...