Chennai Court April 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.
R.D.K. Venkatalingama Nayanim Bahadur Varu, Rajah of Kalahasti Vs. Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad911; (1927)53MLJ533
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor ordering an execution to proceed. The appellant is the 30th defendant in the case. The 1st defendant died and the 30th defendant was brought in as the legal representative of the 1st defendant, the Rajah of Kalahasti. The suit was to recover money paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants for cess, peishcush, etc. The plaintiff owns two villages in the zamindari and obtained a decree in the suit which makes the defendants jointly and severally liable, and not only directs recovery by the sale of the assets of the late 1st defendant in the hands of the 30th defendant but it is also said that in a portion of the decree, not printed, certain villages now held by the 30th defendant are ordered to be sold to satisfy the decree. The first thing to be noticed is that there has been no appeal and the reason that is given to us for that is this. 30th defendant wanted to appeal, but the plaintiff assure...
M.W. Elliot, Official Receiver Vs. Kopparapu Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad869; (1927)53MLJ742
Odgers, J.1. When this appeal first came on we adjourned it to see if the appellant, the Official Receiver of Cuddappah, had obtained leave of the District Court to appeal, or, if not, to enable him to apply to it for the leave. This is required as the matter falls under Section 75(3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and the appeal is not as of right. The District Judge has now on application made to him held that the appellant should have applied for leave prior to filing the appeal in the High Court. The words of the sub-section aremay appeal to the High Court by leave of the District Court or of the High Court,and the question is do they enact that leave is a condition precedent to sue. It is contended that it must be so, otherwise the provisions as to limitations for filing the appeal would be unmeaning. There is no doubt that this appeal was filed within 90 days but the objection is that it was not really an appeal when it was filed, as it was not accompanied by a leave to appeal ...
Doorvas M. V. Ramkrishna Aiyar Vs. Mari Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1025
Odgers, J.1. The petitioner in this case is an assignee decree-holder from one Subbier of a decree obtained by the latter in a mortgage suit, O. S. No. 100 of 1920 on the file of the first Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura. On the 17th August 1921 a final decree was passed in the suit. On the 19th September 1923 Subbier was adjudicated an insolvent on a petition presented in March 1923. Respondent 4 then obtained a decree against Subbier in O. S. 248 of 1921 and pending this suit he got (in 1921) an order for attachment before judgment and attached this decree, i. e., in O. S. 100 of 1920. On the 7th July 1922 Subbier assigned this decree in O. S. 100 of 1920 to the petitioner. After respondent 4 obtained his decree in O. S. 248 of 1921 he took proceedings to execute the attached decree in O. S. 100 of 1920 and filed R. P. 53 of 1923. On the 27th June 1923 this was dismissed for default of further prosecution.2. On the 20th February 1924 the petitioner filed the present pe...
(Mahabool Surfuzuvanthu Sri Rajah) Parthasarathy Appa Rao Savai Aswara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad121
Odgers, J.1. The first of these is a revision-petition against the order of Mr. S. Venkatasubba Rao, the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, dated 30th April 1925 whereby he appointed a commissioner to take the accounts in respect of points 5 to 8 (the meaning of which will be explained later on) and whereby he framed an additional point on which the commissioner was also to take accounts.2. The second is a petition to revise another order of the same date whereby the same Subordinate Judge allowed a petition by defendants in the suit (O.S. No. 30 of 1916) for an independent enquiry and judgment by that Subordinate Judge on the points in dispute that arise in the suit as the result of the judgment of the Privy Council.3. The litigation of which the suit referred to 30 of 1916 is an off-shoot, originated in 35 of 1895 and concerns the Medur and Nidadavole estates. The previous history detailed to us at great length is, I find, set out in the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in...
Cuddappah Ghouse Khan Vs. Balasubba Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.109
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act wherein the appellant asked for leave to prosecute his suit--O.S. No. 43 of 1924--on the file of the Sub-Court, Bellary. It appears that on the 30th July, 1921, one Balasubba Rowther, the respondent in the petition to the District Judge of Coimbatore, was adjudicated insolvent. On the 9th June, 1924, a suit was instituted in the Bellary Sub-Court on a promissory note which had been executed on 14thMay, 1921, by the insolvent to a third party and which in March, 1924, was transferred to the appellant here. The plaintiffs in the suit are said to have only become aware of the insolvency of Balasubba Rowther when the latter riled his written statement. They have, therefore, applied to the Coimbatore Court which is the insolvency Court, for leave to prosecute the suit which, as stated was refused on the ground t...
Mahaboob Sur Fuzuvanthu Sri Rajah Parthasarathy Appa Rao Savai Aswarao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1927
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.646
Odgers, J.1. The first of these is a revision petition against the order of Mr. S. Venkatasubba Rao, the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, dated 30th April, 1925, whereby he appointed a Commissioner to take the accounts in respect of points Nos. 5 to 8 (the meaning of which will be explained later on) and whereby he framed an additional point on which the Commissioner was also to take accounts.2. The second is a petition to revise another order of the same date whereby the same Subordinate Judge allowed a petition by defendants in the suit (O.S. No. 30 of 1916) for an independent enquiry and judgment by that Subordinate Judge on the points in dispute that arise in the suit as the result of the judgment of the Privy Council.3. The litigation of which the suit referred to, No. 30 of 1916, is an off-shoot, originated in No. 35 of 1895 and concerns the Medur and Nidadavole testates. The previous history detailed to us at great length is, I find, set out in the judgment of their Lordships of th...
Rapaka Venkateswarlu Alias Gurraja, Minor by Next Friend Rapaka Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad959; (1927)53MLJ555
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond Ex. A, dated 26th September, 1898. The bond provided for compound interest at 13 1/2 per cent. per annum with annual rests. It was executed by the three brothers. One of the brothers died and the property and the liability fell to the other two brothers. On the 4th July, 1903, a portion of the property was sold and a payment of Rs. 709 was made towards the bond but this payment was not endorsed on the bond. On the 31st March, 1914, another payment of Rs. 20 was made and this was endorsed on the bond. In this the old payment of Rs. 709 was referred to. This endorsement was signed by one of the two surviving brothers, Subbarayudu. The elder brother Seshiah did not sign it. The 1st defendant is the adopted son of Seshiah. In the plaint the plaintiff relied upon this payment by Subbarayudu and endorsement as saving limitation. In the written statement all that the defendant stated was that the endorsement is not genui...
Choutipalli Yerra Venkata Reddi Vs. Choutipalli Krishna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1010
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur who has given a decree in terms of an award passed on private arbitration between the plaintiffs on the one side and the defendants on the other. The decree follows the terms of the award. It is pleaded before us that the arbitration award is invalid for two reasons. The first is that the arbitrators did not allow the defendants to adduce evidence or even to state their case. Now, in the terms of the reference itself which was signed by the parties, it is clearly stated thatboth the parties have represented before you what each of us has to say about his respective rights in the family property.2. It is, therefore, a most disingenuous statement in the petition by the defendants that the arbitrators did not even allow them to state their case. As regards the contention that the arbitrators did not even allow them to adduce evidence, we read the reference to mean that the arbitrators had already he...
Bhogaraju Kanakamma Vs. the Secretary of State for India and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad145; (1928)54MLJ230
Devadoss, J.1. The appellant is a registered pattadar of some lands. She brought a suit against the 1st defendant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, for the recovery of a sum of money collected from her as penal assessment for unauthorised irrigation of her fields with water from a government channel. The District Munsif gave a decree in her favour; but the Subordinate Judge dismissed her suit on the ground that the water which flowed through a breach aided in the cultivation of her lands. The facts found are that there was a breach in the channel which supplies water to the appellant's fields. That was closed and, a few days after its closure, it was again breached owing, it is alleged, to cattle passing and repassing on the portion of the bund newly put up and the water that flowed through the breach passed on to the appellant's fields. The Subordinate Judge holds the appellant liable to the levy of penal water-cess as her lands were benefited by the water which flowed thr...
(Vankayala) Venkataratnam Vs. Dhanalakota Varahalu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad56
Curgenven, J.1. It is impossible to justify the order of review, against which this -civil revision petition is presented under the terms of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C. The only conceivable ground for granting the review is that the medical certificate, constituted new and important evidence, which, after the exercise of diligence was not within the petitioner's knowledge, and which was subsequently discovered. The learned Subordinate Judge does not say in his very brief order, that he deemed the certificate to fulfil these conditions, and it is perfectly clear that it does not. The order refusing to restore the suit was passed on 25th January 1926 upon an application dated 15th December 1925. The certificate purports to bear date 16th December 1925 and no explanation whatever has been offered for the failure to produce it before that order was passed, e.g., when the application was heard on 25th January. I think that before granting the review the lower Court was bound to consider th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »