Chennai Court February 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.
Al. A. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Vellachami Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.623
1. The Appellant is an alienee of the insolvent's property He appeals against an order admitting the proof of a creditor He is not a person aggrieved by the order admitting proof Ha may be very remotely affected by the decision in favour of the creditor. This case is governed by the principle that an aggrieved person must be one who is affected by the order appealed against as put by James L.J., in Ex parte Sidebotham, In re Sidebottom (1880) 14 Ch. D. 458 : 49 L.J. Bk. 41 : 2 L.T. 783 : 28 W.R. 15. The fact that the appellant was allowed by the lower Court to mom-examine the witnesses of the creditor would not give him a locus standi in the proceedings so as to enable him to present an appeal against the order in favour of the creditor. The cases in Alagappa Chettiar v. Nagaratna Mudaliar : AIR1918Mad497 are Kumarappa Chettiar v. Murugappa Chettiar 36 Ind. Cas. 771 are dial tinguishable from the facts of the present case. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Perumal Pillai Vs. Perumal Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ253
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. The short point in this case arises in this way. The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit on the 18th November, 1921. He then died on the 25th February, 1922, before a final decree had been passed. No application had been made or acceded to within three months of the plaintiff's death to add his legal representatives to the record. It is contended that in the circumstances the suit must be deemed by the provisions of Order 22, Rule 3, to have abated. The question referred to us is whether on a proper construction of the authorities that is the true position. The most illuminating principle which should guide us appears to me to be contained in the case of Chapman v. Day (1883) 48 L.T. 907 tried before Pollock, B., and Justice Lopes, J., and the passage that appears to put it very shortly is contained in the judgment of Lopes, J.It is said that, the defendant having died, the maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona applies, I t...
V.G. Shanmuga Mudaliar Vs. Kaveri Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad708
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff, a minor, impeaches and seeks to set aside a consent decree passed in O.S. No. 571 of 1922, a suit filed in this Court, by his mother Murugammal against her mother-in-law. Thayarammal. The following pedigree may serve to explain some facts:V.R. Sabapathi Mudaliar = m. Thayarammal, d. September 1917 | d. February 1926-------------|Gangadhara Mudaliar = m. Murugaramal d. without issue 22-3-1922 d. 6th June 1926|Plaintiff (adopted by Murugammal on 14-4-1926).2. I have given some material dates in the above table. Sabapathi is said to have left some considerable property worth between Rs. 50,000 and a lakh. The family lived in harmony till the death of Gangadhara. On his death, disputes arose between Murugammal and Thayarammal, the former claiming that the entire property in the possession of the family belonged to her husband at his death; the latter asserting that it was her stridhanam property over which she had absolute control. Thereupon, Murugamma...
P.L.M. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. S. Rajagopala Pandarathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad773
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff, one Palaniappa Chetti, brings this suit on a mortgage-deed, Ex. A, executed by defendant 1, the Zamindar of Gandarvakottai, on 17th June 1917, for Rs. 10,000. The District Judge has refused a mortgage-decree, but has given a personal decree against defendant 1 for Rs. 2,053-12-3 and interest. The plaintiff appeals and contends: firstly, that Ex. A is a properly executed mortgage-deed and also that the whole of the consideration passed under that document and asks for a decree as prayed for in the plaint. Defendants 3 and 4, who are the contesting respondents, are purchasers of one of the two villages mortgaged under Ex. A, and they contend that the mortgage-deed is not valid as a mortgage and that no consideration passed. So far as the Rs. 2,000 decreed is concerned, they do not contest it as it is payable only by defendant 1 and does not affect their interests.2. The most important point for consideration is whether Ex. A is a valid mortgage. The District...
Dinavahi Venkata Hanumantha Rao Vs. Yerugulapati Gangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad608; 110Ind.Cas.611; (1928)55MLJ168
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the case are as follows: - A creditor filed a petition for adjudicating the respondents as insolvents on 28th April, 1924. Notices were issued on the petitioners and one D. Hanumantha Rao, the appellant, was entered in the list of creditors in August, 1924. On the 5th September, 1924, it was found that the original petitioner would not proceed with his case. The pleader said to the Court that he had no instructions. On that day an order was made allowing D. Hanumantha Rao to prosecute the petition (vide B Diary). A later order shows that this order on 5th September, 1924, was regarded as an order substituting Hanumantha Rao for the original petitioner within the meaning of Section 16 of the Act (vide Order, dated 20th April, 1925, in I.A. No. 337 of 1925). Later on the objection was taken that the appellant's debt was barred by August, 1924 or September, 1924 and as his debt was not subsisting, he cannot prosecute the petition. The District Judge allowed the ...
Dewan Bahadur G. Narayanaswami Chetty Vs. C. Ramaswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1928
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ677
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff files this suit to enforce an equitable mortgage created in his favour by the 1st defendant. The suit is brought against the two defendants, who are brothers-in-law, in their capacity as executors with probate of the will of Andalammal who died in January 1913. The 1st defendant borrowed from the plaintiff four sums of money, namely, Rs. 400, Rs. 1,200, Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 500 on the 26th of August, the 18th of October, the 5th of December, 1917, and the 9th of March, 1918, respectively. In respect of each of these sums, the 1st defendant executed a promissory note without describing himself as the executor of Andalammal. The plaintiff's case is that the 1st defendant represented to him that monies were required for the estate of the testatrix and deposited the title deeds of the suit house which belonged to her, intentding to create an equitable mortgage.2. The pleas raised are these, firstly, that no mortgage was created, but the plaintiff, having o...
G. Narayanaswami Chetty Vs. C. Ramaswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad817
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff files this suit to enforce an equitable mortgage created in his favour by defendant 1 The suit is brought against the two defendants, who are brothers-in-law, in their capacity as executors, with probate of the will of Andalammal who died in January 1913. Defendant 1 borrowed from plaintiff 4 sums of money, namely Rs. 400, Rs. 1,200, Rs. 1,800 and Rs. 500 on the 26th August, the 18th October, the 5th December and the 9th March 1918, respectively. In respect of these sums defendant 1 executed a promissory note without describing himself as the executor of Andalammal. The plaintiff's case is that defendant 1 represented to him that the moneys were required for the estate of the testatrix and deposited the title-deeds of the suit house which belonged to her, intending to create an equitable mortgage.2. The pleas raised are these: firstly, that no mortgage was created, but the plaintiff, having obtained the title-deeds in another connexion, has fraudule...
Cheria Kunhi Shridevi Amma Tirumumpu and ors. Vs. Valia Narayan Tirumu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad20; 114Ind.Cas.839
Ramesam, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken by the respondent that no second appeal lies. The appellant's vakil refers us to the decision of myself and Devadoss, J., in Vishnu Umbadri v. Tazakat Manayul [1928] M.W.N. 390 where we held that a second appeal lies and Order 40, Rule 1, Civil P.C. has nothing to do with an application for execution. Mr. Kutti Krishna Menon for the respondent brought to our notice the decision in Srinivasa Prosad Singh v. Kesho Prasad Singh [1911] 14 C.L.J. 489 where it was remarked that Section 51 and Order 21, Rule 11 must be read with Order 40, Rule 1. This is no doubt an obiter dictum, but it is cited without any disapproval by Woodroffe on Receivers (Edn. 3, p. 161). Above all, my brother pointed out in the course of argument, that whereas Rules 12 to 57, Order 21, Civil P.C. contain modes of carrying out the processes of execution, in Order 21, Rule 11 (j) (i) (ii) (iii) (v) there is no rule dealing with the mode of appointing a receiver which is th...
N.M. Venkatarama Iyer Vs. Collector of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad836
Beasley, C.J.1. The petitioner's lands in Naduvacheri village were acquired to the extent of 47 cents in accordance with the scheme sanctioned in G.O. No. 3559, Revenue, dated 10th November 1917. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 17th November 1925. After the award was made the petitioner put in an application on 22nd December 1925, under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act ( 1 of 1894 ), requiring the matter to be referred to the Subordinate Court on the ground that there had been a gross undervaluation of the properties acquired. Under Section 25 (2) of the Act, when an applicant has omitted without sufficient reason to make a claim, the amount awarded by the Court, i.e., the Subordinate Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appellant had omitted to make a claim under the Act and that such omission was without sufficient reason. Upon that finding he could not under the Act award an amount in excess...
Kypreth Moithiyan Kutty Vs. Natukandy Puthiapurayil Mammali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ208
Krishnan, J.1. The question argued in this second appeal is whether when a follower of Marumakkatayam Law makes a gift of property to his wife and children, she having already children living by a former husband, the donees take the property with the incidents of tarwad property such as impartibility attached to it or only as ordinary donees each entitled to an equal share as tenants-in-common.2. Three cases have been cited to us as having a bearing on the question Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee : (1892)2MLJ226 , Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker I.L.R. (1915) Mad. 317 : 1915 29 M.L.J. 481 and Imbichi Beevi Umma v. Raman Nair : (1919)37MLJ220 . It was laid down in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee : (1892)2MLJ226 that when a Marumakkatayam man's property is given to his wife and children without any expression of intention how they were to enjoy it, they must be held to have taken it with the incidents of property held by a tarwad. It will be rioted that in this case the wife and chi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »