Chennai Court December 1927 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.
Ambi Aiyar Alias Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. B. Sundaresa Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.779
This appeal is against an order of the Subordinate judge of Kumbakonara refusing to set aside a sale held on the 24th to 28th April, 1924, and concluded on the 26th of April, 1924. The appellant complains of several irregularities in the conduct of the sale.The first irregularity is not pressed. It relates to the description of the property to be sold. The second irregularity is that the taxes and other payments to which the land is subject was described as Rs. 50 in the proclamation whereas really it ought to hare been Rs. 53-8-2. The property consisted of two lots, lot No. 1 was subject to an annual assessment of Rs. 51-6-0 and lot No. 2 to a Municipal assessment of Rs. 2-2-2. Thus the total of Rs. 53-8-2 ought to hays been mentioned in the column provided for assessment and taxes But the figure that was mentioned was Rs. 50. The variation is so small that it is very difficult to believe that this variation could have produced any serioxis injury te the appellant. The price realised ...
Mahadum Beg Sahib and ors. Vs. M.J. Muhammad Meera Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad493
1. Though the decision in Maharaja of Bobili v. Narasaraju Peda [1912] 37 Mad. 231 was affirmed by Maharaja of Bobili v. Narasaraju Peda A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 16 the grounds of the decisions, if carefully scrutinised, are different. The former decision seems to imply, unless a decree has been sent back by a transfer Court with a certificate of non-satisfaction the parent Court cannot execute the decree unless an order was passed permitting simultaneous executions. But this is not the ground of the decisions of the Judicial Committee. They held that an application for sale of the property attached by the transfer Court cannot be made to the parent Court and the application cannot be considered to be made to a proper Court. This is the interpretation made by the Punjab High Court in Firm Hira Lal Anant Ram v. Firm Sheru Mal Chaina Mal A.I.R. 1926 Lah. 113 and we entirely agree with the observations in that judgment. We do not agree with the decision in Rangaswami v. Sheshappa A.I.R. 1922 Bom....
Mukyaprana Bhatta Vs. T.N. Kelu Nambiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad705
Ramesam, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of a suit in connexion with a chit fund. Plaintiff 1 is the stakeholder of the kuri. Defendant 1 who is one of the subscribers became the successful bidder-in April 1925. He then executed bond dated 13th May 1925 to secure the payment of the future instalments. Under this bond defendant 2 was added as a surety. The bond stipulates that the instalments will be payable at the rate of Rs. 20 on 23rd of each month and if any instalment is not paid on the due date the subscriber (defendant 1) will pay the amount in arrears with interest at Rs. 33-5-4 per cent. along with the next instalment amount and if default is made then also,we and our descendants jointly and severally pay to you or your descendants in one lump sum all the previous instalments that had fallen due and the future instalments with interest at the rate from the date of default for the payment of the first instalment regardless of the fact that the future instalments are...
Mohadum Beg Sahib and ors. Vs. M.J. Mohammad Meera Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.829
Though the decision, in Maharaja of Bobbili v. Narasaraju Peda : (1912)23MLJ236 was affirmed by Maharajah of Bobbili v. Narsaraju Peda Baliara 36 Ind. Cas. 682; 39 M.P 640; 31 M.L.J. 300; 18 Bom. L.R. 909; 14 A.L.J. 1129; 20 M.L.T. 472; 24 C.L.J. 478; 4 L.W. 558; (1916; 2 M.W.N. 541; 21 C.W.N. 162; 1 P.L.W. 26; 43 I.A. 238 the grounds of the decisions, if carefully scrutinised, are different. The former decision seems to imply, unless a decree has bsen sent back by a transfer Court with a certificate of non-satisfaction the parent Court cannot execute the decree, unless an order was passed permitting simultaneous executions. But this is not the ground of the decision of the Judicial Committee. They held that an application for sale of the property attached by the transfer Court cannot be made to the parent Court and the application cannot be considered to be made to a proper Court. This is the interpretation made by the Punjab High Court in Firm, Hira Lal-Anant Ram v. Firm Sheru Mal-Ch...
K.L. Venkataram and anr. Vs. N.S. Chockkier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad531; (1928)55MLJ163
Ramesam, J.1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of insolvency proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Two brothers, K.L. Venkataram and K.L. Gopal, were declared insolvents and their property vested in the Official Receiver of Madura. The Official. Receiver executed sale-deeds of separate items of their properties to various vendees who are the respondents before us. The sale-deeds purport to have conveyed the whole properties and not the shares of the insolvents themselves. The purchasers applied for delivery of possession of the properties and complained of obstruction. The obstruction was based upon a deed of trust, dated 6th January, 1926, under which the shares of the sons were settled for the conduct of a charity. Under this trust deed the insolvents themselves were appointed trustees and they objected to the taking of possession by the purchasers relying on this trust deed. It is unnecessary to consider the nature (bona fide or otherwise) of the trust deed. Wh...
Andi thevan Vs. Nagayasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ369
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit instituted by the respondents before us, as plaintiffs, on a deed of mortgage. It was an ordinary suit for sale of the mortgage security. In the defence raised on behalf of the 3rd defendant who was the auction-purchaser of one item and part of another item covered by the suit mortgage, it was contended that in execution of a money decree obtained against the 1st defendant an attachment had been effected of the suit items and that the suit mortgage was made at a time when such attachment was in force and that as the 3rd defendant purchased the suit items at the sale held in pursuance of such attachment the suit mortgage could not prevail against the purchaser. On these facts the further and the only question that arose was whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to be subrogated to the right, title and interest of a previous mortgage of the said items whose mortgage was paid off with the moneys advanced by the plaintiffs o...
R. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Dharapuram Janopakara Nidhi Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad454
Phillips, J.1. The only question that has been argued is whether the interim Receiver appointed under Section 20, Provincial Insolvency Act, can apply under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for setting aside a sale. Under Rule 90 the persons who can apply areany person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets or whose interests are effected by the sale.2. Under the preceding Rule 89 the persons that can apply are such as either own such property or hold an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale. The difference in the language clearly shows that the persons in Rule 90 are not identical with those referred to in Rule 89. The wording of Rule 90 is really very much wider than it is in the preceding rule. It is also significant that the wording of Rule 90 is substituted for the old Section 311 of the Code of 1882 which only makes provision for ' any person whose immovable property has been sold.' The legislature has by this alteration very much enlarged ...
In Re: Vaduga Kumara Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ206
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the 1st class Magistrate of Melur Division declining to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner by the Special 2nd class Magistrate of Madura under Section 159(1) read with Section 207(1)(c) of the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920. The only point urged before me by Mr. Ethiraj is that a conviction under Sections 159 and 207 cannot be had against the representative of a community. The prosecution was for disobedience of an order to remove an obstruction to a public pathway.2. The Sub-Magistrate in the course of his judgment observes thatthe petitioner is one of the representatives as the treasurer for the community. The charge against him is also in his capacity as a representative of Nadars although it is not stated so in the notice.3. In appeal it was contended that the encroached portion belonged to the Nadar community and not to the accused in his private capacity. The Sub-divisional Magistrate observed in his ...
Rajagopala Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Srinivasa Raghava Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ30
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs who are the sons of the 1st defendant for partition and for setting aside the alienations made by the father, the 1st defendant.2. The case of the plaintiffs was that they and the 1st defendant were members of an undivided Hindu family and that the father, the 1st defendant, made certain alienations which they impeach as not binding on them for the reasons given in the plaint. Several issues were raised. It is only necessary to consider issues 5 and 6. The Subordinate Judge, dismissed the suit on the preliminary point that the suit was barred by limitation, because the 25th defendant, the elder brother of the plaintiffs, who was a major, did not contest the alienations within the period of limitation prescribed by the Limitation Act and that consequently the plaintiffs who were his brothers were barred even though the suit was brought within three years after the 1st plaintiff attained majority and even t...
In Re: Pasuvathia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1927
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ220
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate declining to interfere with the conviction of the petitioner under Section 353, I.P.C., by the second class Magistrate of Palni. The only point for consideration in this case is whether a warrant drawn up in the name of a forester could be validly endorsed by him to a forest watcher. The warrant was made out in the name of a forester for the arrest of two persons. The forester endorsed the warrant to a forest watcher for execution. The watcher along with a forest guard went and arrested two persons for an alleged forest offence. When they were being taken along the road the petitioner is said to have come and told the watcher 'What extraordinary warrants are these? Do you still possess the nerve to enter the parackeri?' and gave a slap on the cheek and told the warrantees to run away. If the watcher was justified in arresting the warrantees under the warrant no doubt he was discharging his d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »