Chennai Court March 1928 Judgments
Vattam-ramakrishnayya Vs. Vattini Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad291
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaring the plaintiff's right to the properties mentioned in Schedule D or in the alternative for fresh partition. The facts of the case are : There were three brothers, Ramakrishnayya, Nagabushanam and Gopalakrishnayya. On 12th April 1917, Narasimhain, P.W. 3, purchased the undivided 1/3rd share of Gopalakrishnayya in the family properties. In 1919 Narasimham became insolvent and the Official Reciver brought the properties to sale and the plaintiff became the purchaser of all the l/3rd share. As regards Nagabhushanam, he also sold his l/3rd share to a stranger. These properties were under a mortgage and in August 1917, defendant 1, that, is, Ramakrishnayya filed O.S. No. 517 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada, to redeem the family properties. He impleaded in that suit, his two other brothers and also Narasimham, as purchaser of Gopalakrishnayya's share, and the Official Receiver. One of th...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Moideen Pillai Sahib Vs. M.O. Umar Uduman Tharaganar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad391; 113Ind.Cas.548
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly dismissing the petition of the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent contested a seat in the Palamcottah Municipality. The respondent was declared elected and the (petitioner filed an application before the Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, for declaring the election of the respondent illegal. The Subordinate Judge held that the election was vitiated by illegality and allowed the petition. An application was made to this Court by the respondent which came on for hearing before Curgenven, J. Umar Uduman Tharaganar v. Moideen Pillai : AIR1929Mad257 He held that he was bound by the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of illegality and remanded the petition to the Subordinate Judge for a fresh finding upon the issue,whether the election was materially affected by the irregularity foundand for disposal accordingly. The Subordinate Judge has now found that the irregular...
Tag this Judgment!Vattam Ramakrishnayya Vs. Vattini Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.137a
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaring the plaintiffs right to the properties mentioned in the D schedule or in the alternative for fresh partition. The facts of the case are: There were three brothers Ramakrishnayya, Nagabhushanam and Gopalakrishnayya. On the 12th April. 1917, Narasimham, P.W. No. 3, purchased the undivided one-third share of Gopalakrishnayya in the family properties. In 1919 Narasimham became insolvent and the Official Receiver brought the properties to sale and the plaintiff became the purchaser of all the one-third share. As regards Nagabhushanam, he also sold his one-third share to a stranger. These properties were under a mortgage and in August, 1917, 1st defendant that is, Ramakrishnayya filed O.S. No. 517 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada to redeem the family properties. He impleaded in that suit, his two other brothers and also Narasimham, as purchaser of Gopalakrishnayya's share and the Offi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mannen Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ712
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bezwada, in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1927 affirming the conviction of the petitioners under Section 64 of the Abkari Act. The first point raised before me is that the trying Magistrate, after the close of the case, received from the Sub-Inspector in charge of the prosecution a memo of arguments without notice to the defence and gave judgment. The second point urged is that there is no evidence to connect the 3rd accused with the offence and as regards accused Nos. 1 and 2 they did what they were told to do by accused No. 4, who has been acquitted. The 3rd accused is a license-holder of toddy shop No. 1. Accused 1 and 2 who were coolies were asked to transport some toddy to No. 1 shop. They took the toddy to No. 3 shop, where they were arrested by the Abkari Officer. Their contention that they acted under the orders of accused 4 and that they did not.know where toddy shop No. 1 was, was dis...
Tag this Judgment!Seethai Ammal and anr. Vs. K. Narayana Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad976; 113Ind.Cas.63
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Fall Bench of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, refusing to record satisfaction of the decree in S. C.S. No. 13949 of 1921 on its file. To appreciate the arguments before us it is necessary to state a few facts of the case.2. A promissory note was executed by one Rangachari in favour of one Ranga Ayyangar. That was transferred by endorsement to one Narayana Ayyangar who obtained a decree on it in S. C.S. No. 13949 of 1921. In the District Munsif's Court of Srivilliputtur one Seethai Ammal filed O.S. No. 776 of 1922 against Ranga Ayyangar as defendant 1, that is,, the endorser of the promissory note and Narayana Ayyangar, the endorsee, as defendant 2. This Narayana Ayyangar was the decree-holder in S. C.S. No. 13949 of 1921. It seems at an early stage of the suit, on 21st January 1923, Narayana Ayyangar, defendant 2, was exonerated as a party. Later on applications were made by Seethai Ammal for attachment of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Raman Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad672
Phillips, J.1. This petition is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the order of this Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground that, as he was in contempt, he could not be allowed to proceed with the appeal and that the proceedings could not be stayed indefinitely until he purged his contempt. It is contended firstly, that although the petitioner was in contempt, he ought to have been heard as there is nothing debarring him from such a privilege. He relied on two cases. One is Ricketts v. Morington [1834] 7 Sim. 200. It is somewhat difficult to know exactly what the circumstances were in that case and it appears that the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with his case as it had been brought to hearing by the rules of the Court. What happened thereon does not appear from the report. The other case relied on is Gordon v. Gordon [1904] P 163; in the circumstances of that case it was held that the party in contempt could be heard. In the course of t...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.A.P.L. Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Raman Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1928
Reported in: 117Ind.Cas.724
ORDERWilliam Watkins Phillips, J.1. This petition is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the order of this Court dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground that, as he was in contempt, he could not be allowed to proceed with the appeal and that the proceedings could not be stayed indefinitely until he purged his contempt. It is contended firstly, that although the petitioner was in contempt, he ought to have been heard as there is nothing debarring him from such a privilege. He relied on two cases. One is Ricketts v. Mornington (1834) 7 Sim. 200 : 4 L.J. Ch. 21 : 58 E.R. 813 : 40 R.R. 107. It is somewhat difficult to know exactly what the circumstances were in that case and it appears that the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with his case as it had been brought to hearing by the rules of the Court. What happened thereon does not appear from the. report. The other case relied on is Gordon v, Gordon (1904) P. 163 : 73 L.J.P. 41 : 52 W.R. 389 : 90 L.T. 5...
Tag this Judgment!K. Venkitarayan and ors. Vs. V. Kesavan Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad778
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs who were then minors. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the appellants. Their father was one Kesavan Pattar. There was a partition between the plaintiffs' father and their uncle, Krishna Pattar Kesavan Pattar, the plaintiffs' father was declared insolvent and his interest in the property vested in the Official Receiver. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition making various allegations of immorality, gambling and other vices against their father on account of which, they say, that he incurred debts and as such, those debts are not binding on them. The Official Receiver obtained possession of the property and during the pendency of this suit an injunction was obtained against the Official Receiver effecting a sale of the family properties. But it appears that another Official Receiver was appointed who had no notice of the injunction and he proceeded to sell the family properties. The law as then under...
Tag this Judgment!Tallamraju Venkatasubba Rao Vs. President, Taluk Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ110
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the District Munsif, Tenali, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff is a vakil in Tenali. He appeared to defend two suits filed against the Taluk Board, Repalli, under instructions from the then President of the Taluk Board. After the termination of the suits, he sent in his bill for payment. The present President is not the person who instructed him to appear and the Board now objects to pay the bill. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that there was no provision in the Local Boards Act empowering the President to engage a vakil to work in suits by and against the Taluk Board without the sanction or approval of the Board. The question is whether the President of a Taluk Board has power to instruct a vakil to defend a suit without obtaining the previous sanction of the Board. Section 21 of the Local Boards Act is the section which empowers the President to exercise executive power and Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad784
Waller, J.1. This case raises a somewhat difficult question. The insolvent has drawn out the deposits that stood to his credit in the Railway Provident. Fund. With part of them he redeemed some of his wife's jewellery and the balance he handed over to her. The question is whether the Official Assignee has any claim on them. It is strenuously contended on behalf of the insolvent and his wife that the Official Assignee has no such claim. Section 3 (1), Provident Funds Act of 1925 is, no doubt, very widely expressed, but it seems to me that the short answer to the question propounded is that the sub-section is intended to protect compulsory deposits, only so long as they remain deposited in the fund. A number of decisions has been cited, but most of them do not touch the point that has now arisen. Veerchand v. B.B. and C.I. Ry. [1905] 29 Bom. 259, was the case of a depositor who had retired from service, but had not yet drawn out his deposits. The decision was that they could not be attac...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »