Chennai Court January 1928 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.
Venkatachalam Chettiar Vs. Annapurni Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ223
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a state and unfounded claim. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties: Samu Chetti. | | |Papammal m. Chockappa Chetti. Thangammal. | | | Suppammal.Venkatachalam Chetti Munuswami Chetti d. 1st Nov. 1910 | (Plaintiff). m. Annapurni (1st defendant) | Narayanaswami Govindaraju (d. about 1921). (d. 1892 or 1893) m. Velliammal d. 1902-03.2. The plaintiff states that, over twenty years ago, on the death of Velliammal, he became entitled to the suit house, 1992, Thambu Chetti Street, Madras, along with his brother Munuswami, the husband of the 1st defendant. It is not disputed that in the ordinary course the plaintiff and Munuswami would have taken Narayanaswami's property on his widow's death as his bandhus.2. The house in question was purchased in 1892 by Narayanaswami. He had no issue and he and his wife brought up Annapurni, the 1st defendant, as their foster-daughter. The latter was a near relation of Velliammal, being her niece, and that...
Rangaswami Nadar Vs. Sundarapandia thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad635
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was for sale on a mortgage. The plaintiff was the mortgagee and defendant 1 the mortgagor. Defendant 3 was made a party to the suit on the ground that he claimed ownership in respect of item 2 of the property, the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff has been granted a decree in respect of half of item 2 in the suit.2. The point taken last by the learned vakil for the appellant may first be disposed of. He argued that defendant 3 was not a necessary party at all to the suit upon the mortgage, but he was made a party as a person claiming title to the property in himself and the plaintiff made him a party to the action on the ground that the property which was subject to the mortgage was in his possession. No objection was taken to this course and we cannot possibly accede to the contention that at this stage we should allow this point of misjoinder to be taken for the first time.3. It was next argued that ...
Rangasawmi Nadar, Minor, by His Grandfather and Guardian Arasamuthu Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.548
The suit out of which this second appeal has arisen was for Sale on a mortgage. The plaintiff was the mortgagee and the 1st defendant the mortgagor. The 3rd defendant was made a party to the suit on the ground that he claimed ownership in respect of the 2nd item of the property, the subject-matter oi the suit. The plaintiff has been granted a decree in respect of half of item No. 2 in the suit.The point taken last by the learned Vakil for the appellant may first be disposed of. He argued that the 3rd defendant was not a necessary party at all to the suit upon the mortgage, but he was made a party as a person claiming title to the property in himself and the plaintiff made him a party to the action on the ground that the property which was subject to the mortgage was in his possession. No objection was taken to this course and we cannot possibly accede to the contention that at this stage we should allow this point of misjoinder to be taken for the first time.It was next argued that the...
Ramathai Anni Vs. K. Kanniappa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.167; (1928)55MLJ235
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application of a creditor to adjudge a person an insolvent. The facts are one Vedamurthi Mudaliar, a well-to-do landowner of Melasevval in the Tinnevelly District, was the Karaswan of two chits to which the 1st respondent was a subscriber. He drew the prizes but was not paid the prize amount excepting a small portion. Vedamurthi Mudaliar became heavily involved in debt and became unable to pay the amount due to the 1st respondent and on 24th January, 1922, he filed an application under the Provincial Insolvency Act for adjudging Vedamurthi Mudaliar an insolvent alleging various acts of fraudulent preferences and fraudulent alienations, particularly one in favour of a relation, Muthu Kamakshiappa Mudaliar, for Rs. 48,000. Vedamurthi Mudaliar contested the petition on various grounds, the main ones being that the 1st respondent was not a creditor and that nothing was due to him in respect of the chit transaction, that he had not committed any a...
Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Valambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad612
1. The first question is whether the respondent is entitled to intervene under Section 47, Civil P.C. Now this is not a case of a person filing a claim petition relying on a paramount right i e., a right inconsistent with the right of the mortgagor. The respondent recognized the right of the mortgagor, in 1917 when he executed his mortgage but says that that right has since been purchased by herself in January 1925 and, therefore, the mortgagor has nothing to be sold by the mortgagee. In so contending she comes in as a representative of the mortgagor. The objection is to the execution of the mortgage decree by sale of the properties and therefore the question relates to the execution of the decree. Thus Section 47 applies and the relative rights of the parties can be determined in the proceedings.2. Coming to the merits: there are two applications of lis pendens in this case. (1) The mortgage of 1917 was made while the decree obtained by the respondent is pending satisfaction and has n...
Kn. Pr. Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. R.M.S.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad491
1. The first question in this appeal is whether a subordinate Court in British India has power to restrain by injunction a party from prosecuting a suit in a foreign Court (though within the British Empire). The Chartered High Courts have such power, not by reason of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P.C., but by reason of the equity jurisdiction they inherited from the old Supreme Courts: Rash Behary Dey v. Bhawani Charu Bose [1907] 34 Cal. 97 and Munglechand v. Gopalram [1907] 34 Cal. 101. Those decisions were followed in Uderan Kesaji v. Hyderally [1909] 33 Bom. 469, though the remarks of Woodroffe, J., in Hukumchand Boid v. [1909] 33 Bom. 469; Kamalanand Singh [1906] 33 Cal. 927 about the inherent powers of a Court now governed by Section 151, Civil P.C., were also relied on. But it is noteworthy that Woodroffe, J., himself in Rash Bihari Dey v. Bhawani Chan Bose [1907] 34 Cal. 97 does not rely on the inherent powers of a Court but only on the equity jurisdiction inherited from the Su...
S.R. Nanjunda Chettiar Vs. Nallakaruppan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ120
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in E.A. No. 834 of 1925.2. The petitioner obtained a money-decree against one M.S. Pandaram, and in execution sold on 14th October, 1925, three mortgage debts, drawing the money on 15th October, 1925.3. The respondent had obtained a decree against the same person in the Court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore. Its transfer for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge was ordered on 12th October, 1925. On 14th October, 1925, the respondent filed his execution application. On 15th October, 1925, the records were received from the District Munsif. The question for determination is whether the respondent's application of 14th October, 1925 was an application to the Court for the execution of decree for the payment of money as contemplated by Section 73, Civil Procedure Code.4. There is no doubt that such application must be to the Court which passed the decree or if the decree has been sent ...
In Re: A.N.B. Baluswamy Iyer and A.N.B. Narasimha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ175
Williams Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. This appeal was argued on the assumption that the decision in Jagannatha Rao v. Viswesam : AIR1924Mad682 was correct, but when arguments were completed judgment was reserved until the decision of the Full Bench, to which the question of the correctness of the above ruling-had been referred, was available. That decision in Subramania Aiyar v. Sabapathi Aiyar I.L.R. (1927) Mad. 361 : 54 M.L.J. 726 has now confirmed Jagannatha Rao v. Viswesam : AIR1924Mad682 and therefore the original arguments hold good.2. In this case the insolvent was adjudicated on 2nd December, 1919, and a partition deed executed on 26th November, 1919 has been held to be void as against the Official Assignee. On 1st April, 1920, the Official Assignee took out a notice of motion asking that the partition deed should be declared void and for an order that the interest of the minor sons in the family property should be vested in the Official Assignee. This motion formed the subject-matte...
S.R.M.S. Raman Chetty Vs. A.R.M. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.205; (1929)56MLJ64
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner is an executing decree-holder, and to bring his application within time he must establish that the batta memorandum filed by him on 11th July 1922 was an application to take a step-in-aid of execution. This, the Lower Court has held, he cannot establish and hence the petition.2. On 3rd July, 1922 he applied for the arrest of the judgment-debtor. The arrest was ordered on 10th July 1922. Then in accordance with Rule 166 of the Civil Rules of Practice the applicant brought into Court the necessary fees with the memorandum in question which contains in columns 1 and 5 the statement 'Batta for arrest.'3. Were it simply a matter of applying the words of Article 182 in the Indian Limitation Act to the circumstances of this case 1 do not think that there would be any difficulty. Applying to a Court to take a step-in-aid is asking a Court to go forward, to do something more, in fact, to take another step. The steps in this process are clearly defined. There is the ...
Official Assignee Vs. Ramachandra Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad735
Phillips, Offg. C.J.1. This appeal was argued on the assumption that the decision in Ramachandra Jagannatha Rao v. Viswesam A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 682 was correct, but when arguments were completed judgment was reserved until the decision of the Full Bench, to which the question of the correctness of the above ruling had been preferred was available. That decision, i.e., in Subramania v. Sabapathi A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 657, has now confirmed Ramachandra Jagannatha Rao v. Viswesam A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 682 and, therefore, the original arguments hold good.2. In this case the insolvent was adjudicated on 2nd December 1919 and a partition, deed-executed on 26th November 1919, has been held to be void as against the Official Assignee. On 1st April 1920 the Official Assignee took out a notice of motion asking that the partition-deed should be declared void and for an order that the interest of the minor sons in the family property should be vested in the Official Assignee. This motion formed the subject-mat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »