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.
Gandham China Brahmayya Vs. Pappusetty Gangulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.114; (1928)55MLJ33
1. The sale was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 9th August 1918. There is no doubt that the Revenue Divisional Officer is a 'Collector' within the meaning of the Sections 37-A & 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act. See Madras Act I of 1891, Section 3, Clause 6 taken with Regulation VII of 1828. If he was a Collector within the meaning of Section 38, he is the only officer to confirm the sale or to set aside the sale acting under the proviso to Section 38, Clause (3). He has confirmed the sale and did not choose to exercise his power under the proviso. The result is, the sale has become final and unimpeachable. Neither the District Collector acting under the general powers of revision under Regulation VII of 1828, not the Board of Revenue has any jurisdiction to interfere with the sale. The provisions of Madras Act II of 1864 are complete and cannot be affected by a general Act like Regulation VII of 1828. See Sundaram Aiyangar v. Ramaswami Aiyangar I.L.R. (1918) M. 955 : 35 M...
Kutbuddeen Sahib Vs. Periyanayaga Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ114
1. The short question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether a Subordinate Judge, who is a presiding officer of an ordinary Sub-Court and not of a Court of Small Causes has, when exercising small cause powers, authority to act under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code. Order 37, Rule 1 declares that that order shall apply inter alia toany other Court to which Sections 532 to 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 have been already applied.2. Under Section 538 of the Code of 1882, Sections 532 to 537 of that Code could be applied toany other Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction to which the Local Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, apply them.3. As a matter of fact, however, no such notification appears to have been issued under this Act. Under the previous Code, Act X of 1877, Sections 532 to 538, which correspond to Sections 532 to 538 of the Code of 1882, a notification was issued and published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 23rd O...
Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya Vs. Peyyeti Gopalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad479(1); (1928)54MLJ674
1. Only the power of the father to sell the shares of the sons passes to the Official Receiver [Sat Narain v. Behari Lal(1924) LR 52 IA 22 : ILR 6 Lah. 1 : 47 MLJ 857]. But the power is subject to the same qualification as it is in the father's hands, Allahabad Bank, Ltd., Bareilly v. Bhagwan Das Johari I.L.R. (1925) A 343 and Balavenkata Seetharama Chettiar v. Official Receiver, Tanjore : AIR1926Mad994 . In this case the sons' shares have been attached and, after such attachment, the Official Receiver cannot exercise the power of sale. It is true that, in respect of such properties which were sold by the Official Receiver prior to the attachment of the sons' shares by the decree-holder, the above observations do not apply. Except as to such properties, the appellant is entitled to proceed with the execution by selling the sons' shares. He will now be allowed to execute the decree by selling the sons' shares.2. The appeal is allowed with costs in this Court. The costs in the court belo...
V. Achuthan Nair and anr. Vs. Manavikraman Alias Kunhettan Raja and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad152; (1928)54MLJ675
1. We do not think that, when the legal representatives for a deceased defendant or respondent are on record, an application to bring on the legal representatives within three months is necessary. It is enough if the plaintiff or appellant at some time or other before the hearing of the suit or appeal states the fact and gets it noted on the record. The decision in Shankar Bat v. Motilal I.L.R. (1924) B 118 on this matter is not necessary for the case. Anyhow we do not agree with it. The decision in Gurditta Mal v. Muhammad Khan (1925) 7 Lah. LJ 544 has been dissented from by the Lahore High Court itself in Gopal Das v. Mul Chand I.L.R. (1926) Lah 399. See also Maung Po v. Ma Shwe Ma I.L.R. (1924) R 445 and the decision of Jackson, J., in C. R. P. No. 527 of 1927 with which we agree.2. The result is there was no abatement of the suit even as regards 1st defendant. When the District Munsif stated in his order, dated 8th August, 1925, that the abatement as regards the 1st defendant will ...
K. Ramankutty Menon and ors. Vs. Beevi Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad266
Phillips, J.1. In this suit for redemption the plaintiffs' who are the junior members of a tarwad sue on the strength of a. karar executed in their favour by defendant,?, the karnavan. Their right to sue was; questioned at the trial and the District Munsif found that the karar amounted to a renunciation of the karnavasthanam by defendant 7, but did not invest the plaintiffs with authority to bring this suit.. The Subordinate Judge in the appeal says:I agree with the lower Court and hold that Ex. BB is a document of renunciation by the karnavan of all his rights in favour of the plaintiffs,but, notwithstanding this finding has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that they were not entitled to sue.. The question, therefore, that arises in second appeal is the construction of the karar, Ex. BB. It is a long document and begins by reciting the fact that defendant 7, the karnavan had on two previous occasions entrusted other persons-with the management of the tarwad affairs but as ...
Kizhakkerpat Ramankutty Menon and ors. Vs. Beevi Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1928
Reported in: 115Ind.Cas.55
William Watkin Phillips, J.1. In this suit for redemption, the plaintiffs who are the junior members of a tarwad sue on the strength of a karar executed in their favour by the 7th defendant the karnavan. Their right to sue was questioned at the trial and the District Munsif found that the karar amounted to a renunciation of the karnavastanam by the 7th defendant, but did not invest the plaintiffs with authority to bring this suit. The Subordinate Judge in the appeal says 'I agree with the lower Court and hold that Ex. BB is a document of renunciation by the karnavan of all his right in favour of the plaintiffs' but, notwithstanding this finding has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that they were not entitled to sue. The question, therefore, that arises in second appeal is the construction of the karar, Ex. BB. It is a long document and begins by reciting the fact that the 7th defendant, the karnavan, had on two previous occasions entrusted other persons with the management ...
Ramaswami Chettiar Alias Veerappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Tyagaraja Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.16; (1928)55MLJ34
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents to recover the balance of purchase money claimed under a sale deed filed as Ex. A in this case. The defendants raised various defences and pleaded that nothing was due. The issues were settled on the 1st of September, 1922. When the issues were settled no order was passed as to the lists of documents or the production of documents. After settlement of issues, the case was transferred to the Additional Sub-Court, East Tanjore, at Mayavaram and after some adjournments the case was taken up for hearing on the 15th of March, 1923. On that date the defendant's vakil filed two applications. One was an application to receive certain documents and the other was an application for an adjournment. The documents which they wanted the Court to receive consisted of certified copies of certain decrees and orders obtained from Courts, registration copies of certain documents obtained from the Sub-Registrar's Office, sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›