Chennai Court November 1929 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.
Kristamneni Kristnayya Vs. Karnedhan Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad224; 126Ind.Cas.284
Jackson, J.1. The order of the lower Court cannot be supported. The Court certainly has no jurisdiction under Order XXVI, Rule 9, Schedule I, Civil Procedure Code. There is nothing in the affidavit to attract Order XXXIX, Rule 1, and Order XXXIX, Rule 6 merely gives power to a Court to sell a perishable article and certainly does not authorize it to send a Commissioner to sell any crop. Nor is this a matter in which Section 151 should be invoked The proper course for the respondent would be to apply for a Receiver, if he has right to apply and if he has no right to apply for a Receiver, he has no right to apply for a Commissioner.2. The respondent complains that the suit is being wantonly delayed by the petitioner in this Court--that is a matter for the lower Court.3. The petition is allowed with costs and the order cancelled....
Sri Mirza Raja Sri Pushavati Alakh Narayana Gajapathiraj Maharaj Manya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad755; (1930)59MLJ183
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the trustee to the Vizianagram Estate under a trust deed, dated the 28th October, 1912, to eject the defendants from the properties mentioned in the plaint and to direct payment of past mesne profits amounting to Rs. 1,500 and future mesne profits at Rs. 750 a month till delivery of possession.2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint was that the village referred to in the plaint formed part of the mal assets of the Vizianagram Zamindari which is subject to a permanent peishcush, that some time after the Permanent Settlement the revenues, of the suit village were from time to time granted by the former Zamindars of Vizianagram to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 6 as remuneration in lieu of cash allowance for rendering private and personal services to the Zamindar and subject to the payment of kattubadi of Rs. 37-8-0 and without any rights of alienation, that the grant was resumable at the will and pleasure...
Balaraju Chettiar Vs. Masilamani Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad514; (1930)58MLJ675
Packenham Walsh, J.1. In this case the property of the judgment-debtor had been attached before judgment. After the attachment the suit was dismissed but no order was passed by the Court releasing the attachment. In appeal, the suit was decreed. The decree-holder sought to bring the property to sale on the strength of the attachment before judgment. The person who had purchased the property from the judgment-debtor after the attachment before judgment intervened with a claim. The learned District Munsif was of opinion that the attachment before judgment was not subsisting. The execution petition was accordingly dismissed. The decree-holder appealed to the Subordinate Judge who held that the attachment subsisted. Against this an appeal was filed which was allowed to be treated as a Civil Revision Petition. It came up before Jackson, J., who referred the question to a Full Bench whether, upon the dismissal of the suit, the attachment before judgment ' necessarily ceases under Order 38, R...
Rengathammal Vs. Venkatachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad575
Jackson, J.1. The point here raised is whether when a member of a Hindu joint family has been sued on a pro-note and dies, his brothers may be impleaded as legal representatives. It is argued that they can be so impleaded, no matter whether the deceased did or did not own an estate. They are the legal representatives on the hypothesis that he had an estate, and questions of reality can be left to execution.2. I think such a view would unnecessarily harass the parties so impleaded. It must be shown prima facie that the deceased has an estate before the first definition in Section 2 (11) Civil P.C., applies and in the record of this particular case there is no such showing. The petition is dismissed with costs....
In Re: the Debts and Securities of the Late G.A. Kuppuswami Nayagar (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1929
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ17
1. Having regard to the amendment of the Act, we consider that this petition is now maintainable in this Court, and order the case to be posted before the learned Judge in Chambers.2. The Government Solicitor for the Crown....
In Re: G.A. Kuppuswami Nayagar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.481
1. Having regard to the amendment of the Act, we consider that this petition is now maintainable in this Court and order the case to be posted before the learned Judge in Chambers....
In Re: Vaithilinga Pandara Sannadhi Avergal by Power-of-attorney Agent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad381; (1930)58MLJ521
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The question referred to us is whether the Court has inherent jurisdiction to consolidate Civil Revision Petitions in cases which have been disposed of by a single judgment of the Lower Court so as to enable the party to file one vakalat in the petitions and to pay one process fee for the common respondents. In In re Maharaja of Venkatagiri (1929) 58 M.L.J. 510 we have held generally that this Court has no power to consolidate appeals in such a manner as to conflict with the provisions of any statutory enactment, and specifically that it cannot so consolidate as to permit a single vakalat to be filed in a number of appeals or a single Court-fee, calculated upon the aggregate value of the appeals, to be paid. This decision, of course, applied equally to the case of Civil Revision Petitions and it : accordingly settles the question with regard to vakalats.2. There remains the question of process fees, whether, when one person figures as respondent in a number of case...
(Vemulapalli) Ramakotayya Vs. (Gutha) Viraraghavayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad502
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. The facts necessary for the determination of this reference are briefly these.2. Vemulapalli Subbayya died in 1909, leaving a widow Seethamma, defendant 1 and his mother Bapamma, defendant 3 surviving him. On 2nd October 1918, Seethamma executed a deed of gift in respect of some of the properties that came to her from her husband in favour of her own brother Veeraraghavayya who is impleaded as defendant 2 in this case The gift was effected by means of a document which is filed as Ex. 1 in the case, and on 19th October the plaintiff executed a document filed as Ex. 2 which in effect is a complete relinquishment of all of his rights as prospective reversioner and also purports to give full consent to the transaction evidenced by Ex. 1 to which document indeed he was an attesting witness. The question is whether by reason of his action in these matters he is to be held to be precluded from challenging the transaction. The exact wording of the question is as follows:...
V.R. Rakkappan Ambalam Vs. C. Suppiah Ambalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad485
Pandalai, J.1. In this case the learned Additional Subordinate Judge dismissed a suit upon a promissory note as being barred by limitation, and the only question in this petition is whether that decision was right. The suit as originally framed was on a promissory note for Rs. 540 dated 11th May 1926. This was admittedly insufficiently stamped and, therefore, inadmissible as a promissory note. When this was discovered the plaintiff asked for leave and was granted leave to amend his plaint, as one on a previous promissory note of which the one dated. 11th May 1926 was a renewal. The suit thus became one on a promissory note dated 22nd May 1923 which was properly stamped. On the date of the suit the note of 22nd May 1923 would be barred if it were not saved by some intervening acknowledgment and the plaintiff purported to use the contents of the promissory note dated 11th May 1926 as an acknowledgment to save limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge held that it could not be so used and...
Sinnana Gownden and ors. Vs. Veerappa Gownden and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad676
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case, we trust, has now reached its final stage. The late Chief Justice and Mackay, J., who heard the Letters Patent appeal from the Judgment of Phillips, J., called for findings in a short order which runs thus:'We direct that findings be recorded by the District Munsif on the following points:(1) Has the plaintiff recently raised the level of his land so as to cast an additional burden on the defendant's land?(2) Is the plaintiff entitled to discharge through the point R(a) drainage water from the house; and(b) water drawn from the well for washing purposes and thereafter thrown on the defendant's land?2. This order does not bring out, we understand, that the dispute relates also to rain-water which collects on the plaintiff's land. Before the partition, the two plots of land were owned by a common proprietor. The land on which the plaintiff's house stands is on a higher level. The defendant owns the adjacent house on the lower land. Subsequent to the part...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›