Chennai Court November 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.
K.G. Ethirajalu Chetty Vs. A.P. Rajagopalachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad138; 115Ind.Cas.244a
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This is an application for the appointment of Receiver by the plaintiff who has filed the suit on a registered deed of mortgage, dated the 15th of February, 1926, for Rs. 23,238-3-5 re payable with interest at 12 per cent, per annum alleged to have been created by the 1st defendant and his deceased brother for the recovery of Rs. 31,190-3-3 with costs and further interest.2. The affidavit in support of the application states that the properties yield a rent of Rs. 145 a month while the monthly interest accruing due is Rs. 300, that the defendants arc not paying the interest which they are bound to pay under the deed of mortgage but are enjoying the rents of the properties themselves, that the value of the properties has considerably diminished and it is not possible to recover the amount by a sale of the properties, that a very large sum is due for interest alone and that it is necessary, that a Receiver should be appointed for the purpose of receiving the re...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad227; (1929)57MLJ648
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiffs sue for a declaration that the defendant, the Secretary of State, has no right to charge water-cess in respect of certain lands belonging to the second and cultivated by the first plaintiff.2. The plaint sets forth that these lands are zamindari ryoti situated in Veeravallipalam village, near a channel known as Togarapaya; if it be found that water was taken for irrigation purposes from this channel, then it is water which does not belong to Government and to which plaintiffs' land has a natural right (Para. 5-b of plaint).3. The defendant denied that the channel was ryoti, claiming that it was part of the river Godavari, where it is both tidal and navigable, the water therein belongs to Government and plaintiffs have no natural right.4. There is no precise sketch of the locality, possibly because no precision can be guaranteed. The lands admittedly lie between the flood banks of the northern branch of the Godavari delta, and when the waters annually subside, t...
Donepudi Subramanyam Vs. Nune Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad323; (1929)56MLJ489
Wallace, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of Phillips, J., in Second Appeal dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The 1st defendant held a decree against defendants 2 to 4. In execution of that decree he applied for attachment of certain properties. The attachment was ordered on 22nd June, 1915 and was effected on 25th June, 1915. Between these dates on 24th June, 1915 an insolvency petition was presented by defendants 2 and 3. An adjudication followed on 16th December, 1915. Plaintiff, alleging a sale of these properties to him by defendants 2 to 4 on 11th March, 1915, had filed a. claim petition against the attachment on 28th July, 1915. That was allowed on 8th November, 1915. On 31st March, 1916 1st defendant sued to set aside the order on the claim petition making the plaintiff and the insolvents parties but not joining the Official Receiver. His suit failed in the Trial Court, but he succeeded in the District Court on appeal, and a Second Appeal to the High Cou...
Donepudi Subramannyam Vs. Nune Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.46
Wallace, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal is against the judgment of Phillips, J. in second appeal dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The 1st defendant held a decree against defendants Nos. 2 to 4. In execution of that decree he applied for attachment of certain properties. The attachment was ordered on 22nd June, 1915, and was effected on 25th June, 1915. Between these dates on 24th June, 1915, an insolvency petition was presented by defendants Nos. 2 and 3. An adjudication followed on 16th November, 1915. Plaintiff, alleging a sale of these properties to him by defendants Nos. 2 to 3 on 11th March, 1915, had filed a claim petition against the attachment on 28th July, 1915. That was allowed on 8th November, 1915. On 3lst March, 1916, 1st defendant sued to set aside the order on the claim petition making the plaintiff and the insolvent parties but not joining the Official Receiver. His suit failed in the trial Court, but he succeeded in the District Court on appeal, and a second appeal ...
(Cherukuri) Venkataratnam Vs. Bola Guravayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad84
Odgers, J.1. Appeal No. 281 of 1925 is by the defendant. The suit corresponding was C.S. No. 29 of 1924 and asked for possession of A and B schedule lands and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to lands in Schs. A, A-l and B. The defendant was in possession of A and B scheduled properties and the suit was decreed. Appeal 196 of 1926 is by the plaintiff (defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) corresponding to Suit No. 61 of 1924 which was for recovery of A-l schedule properties of which possession had been awarded to plaintiffs (in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) by an order under Section 145 Criminal P.C. This was dismissed.2. C.R.P. 626 of 1925 corresponds to O.S. No. 1 of 1925 which was a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession of A and B schedule properties. The plaintiff was defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924, and the suit was dismissed. Hence the defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924 is the appellant in both the appeals and the petitioners in the C.R.P. before us.3. App...
Cherukuri Venkataratnam Vs. Bolla Guravayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1928
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.18
Odgers, J.1. Appeal No, 281 of 1925 is by the defendant. The suit corresponding was O.S. No. 29 of 1924 and asked for possession of A and B schedule lands and for a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to lands in schedules A, A-I and B. The defendant was in possession of A and B scheduled properties and the, suit was decreed. Appeal No. 196 of 1926 is by the plaintiff (defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) corresponding to Suit No. 61 of 1924 which was for recovery of A-I schedule properties of which possession had been awarded to plaintiffs (in O.S. No. 29 of 1924) by an order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was dismissed.2. Civil Revision Petition No. 626 of 1925 corresponds to O.S. No. 1 of 1925 which was a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession of A and B schedule properties. The plaintiff was defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924, and the suit was dismissed. Hence the defendant in O.S. No. 29 of 1924 is the appellant in both the Appeals an...
M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad275
1. This is a series of connected appeals, the main point in which is the correctness of the lower Court's-cancellation of the execution sale held in execution of a mortgage-decree which the appellant in C.M.A. 487 of 1925 obtained by assignment.., The mortgage was over six villages of the Sivaganga Zamindari, the mortgagors being the daughters-of the late Zaimindar. At the Court sale, the mortgagee-decree-holder, who is the appellant in C.M.A. 487 of 1925, bought the right, title and interest of the mortgagors in four out of the six villages and' the appellant in C.M.A. 566 of 1925. bought the same in two out of the six; villages. The contesting respondents to these two appeals are the mortgagors and certain puisne mortgagees who are defendants 15 to 17. These claim that the sale was vitiated by illegalities and irregularities which occasioned to them substantial injury on account of the low price fetched for the property at the sale. The lower Court has, on their petition-E. A. 210 of...
M.L.M. Ramanatham Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.705
1. This is a series of connected appeals the main point in which is the correctness of the lower Court's cancellation of the execution sale held in execution of a mortgage-decree which the appellant in C.M.A. No. 487 of 1925 obtained by assignment. The mortgage was over six villages of the Sivaganga zemindari, the mortgagors being the daughters of the late zemindar At the Court sale, the mortgagee-decree-holder, who is the appellant in C.M.A. No. 487 of 1925, bought the right, title and interest of the mortgagors in four out of the six villages and the appellant in C.M.A. No. 566 of 1925, bought the same in two out of the six villages. The contesting respondents to these two appeals are the mortgagors and certain puisne mortgagees who are defendants Nos. 15 to 17. These claim that the sale was vitiated by illegalities and irregularities which occasioned to them substantial in jury on account of the low price fetched for the property at the sale. The lower Court hap, on their petition E...
M.P.P.S.T. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Valliammai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.775; (1929)56MLJ555
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. Before dealing with the questions of law raised in this appeal it is necessary to set out briefly the facts which raise them. They are all matter of record and are not disputed. One Jayanna Rao Daga brought a suit, C.S. No. 98 of 1911 on the Original Side of this Court against a family of Nattukottai Chetties who may be described for the present purposes as M.P.P.S.T. which is their vilasam. On the 7th of January, 1912, he obtained a decree for Rs. 8,957; he took no steps to execute it, but on the 8th of May, 1913, he assigned his decree to one R.M.M. Subramaniam Chetti for a sum of Rs. 3,800. R.M.M. discovered that neither the judgment-debtors nor any of their property was to be found in Madras. So on the 17th of October, 1916, he applied to have the execution proceedings under the decree transferred to the District Court of Ramnad on the ground that the judgment-debtors resided within the jurisdiction of that Court and had immoveable properties situ...
(Rayavarapu) Narasimham and ors. Vs. Sooma Javalli Trade Committee of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad633; 118Ind.Cas.285
Wallace, J.1. These are two connected civil revision petitions in the matter of the amendment of a plaint. The original petitions asked for the same relief and were disposed of in the lower Court: by one order. They will be dealt with together.2. The plaintiff is the Seema Javilli Trade Committee of Chirala by its manager. The defendants are a company Rayavarapu Narasimham and Bros. Maduri Kottayya & Co. and partners. The substance of the plaint is that out of the fees collected: by the manager, the plaintiff, on behalf of the plaint committee from the members for the upkeep of certain charities the defendants borrowed from time to time moneys as a loan, and that on the debt owing on the date of the plaint the principal and interest amounted to Rs. 6,000 and odd. Two of the defendants are themselves members of the plaint committee. The plaint states that when notice of the meeting for 9th March 1927 to the committee to settle this matter was sent to these defendants they ignored it and...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »