Chennai Court April 1929 Judgments
Babu Alias Govinddoss Krishnadoss Vs. Gokuldoss Govardhandoss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ404
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. By my preliminary judgment, dated the 2nd May, 1928, I declared that the plaintiff was entitled to have an account taken of the affairs of the partnership as on the date of the death of his father, namely, the 13th August, 1908. After making that declaration, without forthwith referring the case to the Official Referee, I granted an adjournment at the request of the 6th defendant's counsel, who wanted time to consider his position in regard to his filing an appeal from my judgment. I understand that no appeal has been filed and I am now asked to deal with certain questions of accountability arising between the parties. The plaintiff's right would arise only if it be found that some amount is due to him; but all parties have desired me to first deal with these questions even before the accounts are taken. That means, of course, that the parties believe that the accounts, if gone into, will disclose that a substantial sum is due to the plaintiff. It is on this hypo...
Tag this Judgment!Anumanchi Ramanayya Vs. Thubati Kotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ398
Anantakriskna Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal purporting to have l?een preferred under Section 15 of the Letters Patent against the refusal by a learned Judge of this Court of leave to appeal from the judgment passed by him in a Second Appeal.2. A preliminary objection is taken by Mr. Venkataramana Rao, the learned Advocate who appeared for the respondent, that no appeal lies from such orders of refusal of leave to appeal.3. Clause (1.5) of the Letters Patent of this High Court was recently amended on 3rd November, 1927 and on 12th December, 1928. The effect of these amendments is to declare that no appeal shall lie to the High Court from the judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the High Court (and not being an order made in the exercise of a revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court, or ...
Tag this Judgment!Appathurai Aiyar and anr. Vs. Panayappan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.526; (1929)57MLJ468
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioner before me is the auction-purchaser of the properties sold in execution of the decree in S.C.S. No. 1338 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Manamadura. He himself is the decree-holder in that suit. He purchased the property on the 31st January, 1922. Afterwards on the 29th January, 1925 he filed E.A. No. 240 of 1925 for obtaining delivery of possession of the property. The application was dismissed for non-payment of batta. A fresh application E.A. No. 886 of 1925 was filed on the 29th September, 1925, i.e., within eight months after the dismissal of E.A. No. 240 of 1925. It was held by both the Lower Courts that this petition E.A. No. 886 of 1925 cannot be treated as a continuation of E.A. No. 240 of 1925 and is therefore barred by limitation. The present petition is against this order.2. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that there is no need to treat the present petition as a continuation of the prior application as the pri...
Tag this Judgment!Kasinatha Pillai Vs. Shanmugam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.617; (1929)57MLJ490
ORDERWaller, J.1. No doubt, the language used in the three parts of Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, is different, but it is, I think, impossible to lay down any general principle Or to attempt to define what precisely is meant by the word 'groundless.' Probably, as good a definition as any, is that the evidence must be such that no conviction could be rested on it. It obviously does not mean that the evidence discloses no offence whatever.2. In this particular case, I see no reason to dissent from the view taken by the Courts below. It is most unlikely that any Court would have convicted after hearing the evidence of the only witness examined. The petition is dismissed.Krishnan Pandalai, J.3. This is a petition to revise the order of discharge passed by the Second Class Magistrate of Tuticorin under Section 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint was brought by the father-in-law of one Sankaragomati Chettiar who had recently died against the cousins of the deceased a...
Tag this Judgment!iswarayya Vs. Swarnam Iswarayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ54
Jackson, J.1. This is an application under Section 56, Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869), for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the order and decree of this Court in Appeal No. 169 of 1927 fixing the alimony to be paid by petitioner to respondent, his divorced wife, at Rs. 260 a month.2. The amount originally fixed by the District Judge was Rs. 120 and this was confirmed on appeal. Then the respondent petitioned the District Judge for an increase and he fixed the amount at Rs. 160 plus Rs. 150 for the children. This Court found that nothing need be paid to the children who were no longer minors under the Act, but increased the alimony of the mother to Rs. 260.3. The petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Act for increasing the amount of alimony once it is fixed and this Court is not justified in reading Section 37 as entitling the Court to make such orders as regards maintenance as may from time to time be reasonable.4. He also contends that inasmuch as the re...
Tag this Judgment!Thiruthiyil Unniri Kutti Vs. Narayana Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad777
Pandalai, J.1. This second appeal is from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing respondent 1's (plaintiff's) suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 30th May 1922 between him and respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 and 2) whereby the latter agreed to grant the former a lease or kanom of their shop which was and is still in the occupation of the appellant (defendant 3) as a yearly tenant. The District Munsif found all the original defences to the suit on the merits against the defendants but during the trial raised at the request of defendants an additional issue (issue 5) whether plaintiff is entitled in law to specific performance. On this issue he held against the plaintiff on the ground that the bargain was for a kanom which is virtually a mortgage and that the plaintiff lender cannot get specific performance of a contract to borrow. He relied on Meenakshisundaram Mudaliar v. Ratnasami Pillai. The Subordinate Judge confirmed all the findings of fact arrived at...
Tag this Judgment!(Pedda) Kondappa Vs. (Ganne) Pullappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad910
Waller, J.1. I am inclined to take the view that the appellant has been adjudicated on an act of insolvency not relied on in the application against him. The act of insolvency alleged in the application was the sale of the property to a person who was not a creditor. That might have been an act of insolved. with reference to Section 53 of the Act. What, however, the Judge found was that an act of insolvency had been committed because the appellant had preferred some of the creditors by paying them off out of the proceeds of the sale. That seems to me to be a very different matter. The petitioning creditors did not put it forward. It was the appellant that put it forward as a defence.2. I would dismiss the application, allowing the appeal with costs.Pandalai, J.3. I agree....
Tag this Judgment!(Kattari) Nagayya Kama Rajendra Ramasami Kamaya Naicker Avergal Vs. Ka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad344
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals are against orders in execution. To understand the contentions raised in these appeals, it will be convenient to set forth the history of the prior litigation.2. The zamindar of Bodinaickanur died in 1888 leaving a widow, a daughter and daughter's son (the zamindar of Septur) and undivided coparcener, a concubine and an illegitimate son by her. The widow at once entered into possession of the zamindari. In 1889 the undivided coparcener brought a suit to recover the zamindari. The widow resisted the claim on the basis of a will left by the zamindar. That suit was compromised in May 1890. Under the compromise the right of the plaintiff therein to succeed to the zamindari was recognized but as a price for the compromise the widow was allowed to enjoy the zamindari for the rest of her lifetime. In 1902 the illegitimate son filed a suit to recover the zamindari alleging that his mother was a married wife of the late zamindar and putting forward an alternative cla...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Chettiar and ors. Vs. Angappa Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad328
Pandalai, J.1. This second appeal is from an order to deliver property to an auction purchaser in execution. The sale took place in 1917. Its confirmation was opposed but it was confirmed on 5th March 1919, by the appellate Court. From that time onward for a period of more than 10 years the purchaser has been attempting to get possession. In the fourth and last application dated 28th September 1923, he was met by one of the three sons of the deceased judgment-debtor by the plea of limitation under Article 180, Lim. Act. The first application for possession was dated 15th November 1919. An order was made for giving possession on that application but not carried out owing to the obstruction of the daughter-in-law of the judgment-debtor and so the application was treated as 'closed'. The second application dated 15th December 1919, was for removal of obstruction and possession but removal of obstruction could not be ordered or possession given on account of the pendency of obstruction pro...
Tag this Judgment!(Badam) Seshiayya Vs. (Grandhi) Sattiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad414
Pan Dalal, J.1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor whose application E.A. 72 of 1925 dated 15th January 1925 praying that the decree-holder's execution application E.P. 543 of 1923 dated 7th December 1923 in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 676 of 1922 should be dismissed was itself dismissed by both the lower Courts. A preliminary objection to the second appeal was taken that no second appeal lies under Section 102, Civil P. C, as the decree in O.S. No. 676 of 1922 was of a small cause nature and the value of the subject-matter was less than Rs. 500. The appellant's advocate does not contest this objection which must prevail.2. As he has also filed a revision petition against the order of the lower Courts I proceed to dispose of it. In substance the petitioner's (judgment-debtor's) objection in the lower Courts was that the decree-holder was proceeding to get his property brought to sale in the absence of a subsisting attachment and that this irregularity-should be stop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »