Chennai Court August 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.
Ammalu Amma and ors. Vs. Narayanan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad509
1. Themain question raised and argued in this second appeal is of some difficulty and altogether out of the common The suit from which the second appeal has arisen was instituted by respondent 1 as plaintiff for the purpose of recovering from the tarwad of which he. was also a member and all the other members of which were made parties defendants in the action, defendant 1 being the, karnavan for the time being, the debts alleged to be due by the tarwad to one Theyyassan Nair, the former karnavan. The debts are said to consist of 21 items The plaintiff claims to be entitled to recover those items on the ground of his having succeeded thereto under the will of Theyyassan Nair made in of about the year 1913 Theyyassan Nair died on 3rd October 1916, and the suit was instituted in or about September 1919. The learned Subordinate Judge in the trial Court practically held that the debts were not proved and further that the claim was barred by the law of limitation and dismissed the plaintiff...
T.S. Ramaswamy Ayyangar and anr. Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad684
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an application to set aside a sale in execution of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1917, under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The mortgage itself being subsequent to a prior mortgage the decree directed the sale subject to the prior mortgage. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition without enquiring into the petitioner's allegations. There was an appeal to the High Court and the case was sent back for further enquiry by Spencer and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ. The matter has been fully enquired into by the present Subordinate Judge of Dindigul and the petition has been again dismissed. The petitioner appeals.2. The sale is sought to be set aside on account of the following material irregularities in making the proclamation and affecting the sale.(1) The property consists of various parcels of land situated in six villages and it was directed to be sold in one lot instead of being sold separately, thus reducing the number of possible bid...
Ameechand NagIn Doss and Co. and ors. Vs. Raoji Bhai Moti Bhai Patel a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad233a
1. The judgment of this Court confirmed that of the learned trial Judge on the original side. The question to be determined therefore is Does the appeal involve some substantial point of law? Mr. Venkatachari contends that a point of law decisive of the case is a substantial question within Section 110; in other words, although the point of law may be obviously untenable, if the decision in the case turns upon it, that point would be a substantial point of law. For this position he relies upon Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Pratabgarh but we are clearly of the opinion that it does not support his contention. The case does not fulfil the requirements of Section 109(a) and (b) and Section 110, and leave is refused. The petition is dismissed with taxed costs of the respondent.2. C.M.P. 2594 of 26. The review petition is not pressed and is dismissed, but without costs....
T.S. Ramaswami Ayyangar, Official Receiver of Ramnad and anr. Vs. M.L. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.295
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an application to set abide a sale in execution of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1917, under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The mortgage itself being subsequent to a prior mortgage, the decree directed the sale subject to the prior mortgage. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition without enquiring into the petitioner's allegations. There was an appeal to the High Court and the case was sent back for further enquiry by Spencer and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ. The matter has been fully enquired into by the present Subordinate Judge of Dindigul and the petition has been again dismissed. The petitioner appeals.2. The sale is sought to be set aside on account of the following material irregularities in making the proclamation and effecting the sale:1. the property consists of various parcels of land situated in six villages and it was directed to be sold in one lot instead of being sold separately thus reducing the number of p...
P.S. Ayyathorai Mudaliar Vs. M.P. Managala Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad971; (1927)53MLJ735
1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application made by the petitioner for setting aside the election of the 1st respondent as a councillor for one of the seats in the first ward of the Palni Municipality. The chief ground alleged by him in support of his application was that on the date of the nomination of the 1st respondent he was holding the office of trustee of Sri Dandayuthapani Swami temple at Palni, that one Selvadandapani Gurukkal who was a heriditary archaka of the temple was already sitting as a councillor, that there is relationship of employer and servant between the two and that therefore his nomination and subsequent election were invalid under Section 49, Clause (2), Sub-clause (vi) of Act V of 1920. When the alleged disqualification of the 1st respondent was brought to the notice of the Vice-Chairman, he held that his nomination was improper and invalid and excluded his name from the list of valid nominations. The 1st respondent, however, moved the Governm...
Bodapati Adenna Vs. Bodapati Chinna Ramayya (Dead) and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ445
1. The question for our decision in this C. M. S. A. (with which has been filed a C. R. P.) is whether a lessee, subject to whose lease immoveable property has been sold in court auction, can apply under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside. The District Munsif dismissed the application but it was allowed by the Subordinate Judge on appeal.2. Rule 89 of Order 21 runs as follows:Where immoveable property has been sold in execution of a decree, any person, either owning such property or holding an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before such sale, may apply to have the sale set asideupon complying with certain conditions. The argument addresed to us is twofold:(a) that a lease obtained before a sale is not an 'interest' held in the property 'by virtue of a title acquired before such sale; and(b) that the property sold excluded the lessee's right and therefore that the lessee cannot be said to have an interest in that property.3. Accordin...
Thana Velayudha Nadar Vs. V.S. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad609
Reilly, J.1. The petitioner who had been adjudged insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, applied for his discharge within the time fixed. The Subordinate Judge refused to grant the discharge and dismissed the petition. On appeal by the petitioner the District Judge confirmed the Subordinate Judge's order, but went further and annulled the adjudication. The annulment of the adjudication appears to have been made by the District Judge without jurisdiction. He does not mention under what provision he intended to act; but it has been suggested now that he did so under Section 35 of the Act, because the petitioner had contracted debts in transactions on which he embarked without any capital and had no assets, and his presentation of an insolvency petition in such circumstances was an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the petitioner ought never to have been adjudged insolvent within the meaning of that section. If a debtor satisfies the condition laid down by th...
Padmanabha Aiyar and anr. Vs. Sitarama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ96
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. My learned brother and myself have recently had quite a number of cases in which the question that arose for determination was the same as in this second appeal, namely, whether on a proper construction of certain documents, read in the light of surrounding circumstances, the transaction between the parties should be held to be mortgage by conditional sale or merely a sale with an agreement to resell. We may observe with regret in passing that, in spite of the differences and variety of judicial opinion with regard to such cases, the legislature, which is clearly in a position to set at rest such questions being raised, has not yet thought fit to do so. Though the question that has arisen in this case is the same as in several other cases, there is at least one distinguishing feature in this case and that is that the transaction has been brought about not as in nearly all other cases by two documents, one of sale and the other an agreement of resale, but that t...
Subramania Aiyar Vs. V. Rama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ67
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of East Tanjore at Mayavaram dismissing O.S. No. 40 of 1921 on the ground that the proper court-fee has not been paid. The order rejecting the plaint could have been passed only under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. The suit was brought by the plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner, under the Hindu Law, of one Ramaswami Aiyar and he claimed the property after the death of his widow and his daughters. The plaintiff is his daughter's son. The suit was filed on the last day allowed by the law of limitation. To some extent this fact seems to have prejudiced the Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff. While we have no particular sympathy with a stale suit, I do not see any reason why one should be prejudiced against the plaintiff on that ground. The plaint was presented on 28th August, 1920. It was returned by the office with four requisitions. The fourth is 'valuation has not been given in resp...
Subramania Ayyar Vs. V. Rama Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1002
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of East Tanjore at Mayavaram dismissing O. S. No. 40 of 1921 on the ground that the proper Court-fee has not been paid. The order rejecting the plaint could have been passed only under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil P. C. The suit was brought by the plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner, under the Hindu law, of one Ramaswami Ayyar and he claimed the property after the death of his widow and his daughters. The plaintiff is his daughter's son. The suit was filed on the last day allowed by the law of limitation. To some extent this fact seems to have prejudiced the Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff. While we have no particular sympathy with a stale suit, I do not see any reason why one should be prejudiced against the plaintiff on that ground. The plaint was presented on 28th August 1920. It was returned by the office with four requisitions. The fourth is:Valuation has not been given in respect of all ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »