Chennai Court April 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.
Kattari Nagayya Kama Rajendra Ramasami Kamaya Naicker Avergal Vs. Karu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.379
ORDERRamesam, J.1. These appeals are against orders in execution. To under-stand the contentions raised in these appeals, it will be convenient to set forth the history of the prior litigation.2. The zemindar of Bodinaickenur died in 1888 leaving a widow, a daughter and daughter's son (the zemindar of Septur) and undivided co-parcener, a concubine and an illegitimate son by her. The widow at once entered into possession of the zemindari. In 1889 the undivided co-parcener brought a suit to recover the zemindari. The widow resisted the claim on the basis of a will left by the zemindar. That suit was compromised in May, l890. Under the compromise the right of the plaintiff therein to succeed to the zemindari was recognised but as a price for the compromise the widow was allowed to enjoy the zemindari for the rest of her lifetime. In 1902 the illegitimate son filed a suit to recover the zemindari alleging that his mother was a married wife of the late zemindar and puting forward an alterna...
Ramanayya Vs. Kotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad75; 121Ind.Cas.621
1. This is an appeal purporting to have been 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 suchf orders of refusal of leave to appeal.3. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of this High Court was recently amended on 3rd November, 1927, and on 12th December, 1928.4. 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 revision jurisdiction or in the exercise of (Criminal Jurisdiction) of one Judge of the High Court, or of one Judge of any Div...
Badam Seshayya Vs. Grandni Sathiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.863
Krishnan Paudalai, J.1. This is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor whose application E.A. No. 72 of 1925 dated 15th January, 1925, praying that the decree holder's execution application E. P. No. 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 of the Civil Procedure Code as the decree in 0.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 t...
Pedda Kondappa Vs. Ganne Pullappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.46a
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 insolvency 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....
Subramania Chetty and ors. Vs. Angappa Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1929
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.769
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 1G years the purchaser has been attempting to get possession. In the fourth and last application dated the 28th September, 1921 he was met by one of the three sons of the deceased judgment-debtor by the plea of limitation under Article 180 of the Limitation 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 ...
(Mavili) Erochan Menoki Vs. Punnasseri Elevana Tarwad Karnavan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad820
Walsh, J.1. Defendant 1 who is the karnavan of the tarwad executed a pronote to the plaintiff who brought a suit on it. The Sub-Judge found that defendant 1 was not the manager of the tarwad which was being managed by defendant 4 under karar from defendant 1. He found that the plaintiff was aware of the fact. He also found that the loan was not for family necessity and therefore gave plaintiff a personal decree against defendant but no decree against the tarwad property. A revision is filed against this order.2. It is sought to get over the findings of fact with regard to management by arguing that the appointment of defendant as agent under the karar did not preclude the karnavan from acting himself and that the provisions of the karar must be strictly construed. That a power of attorney or karar must be strictly construed is not denied. Krishna Menon v. Krishnan Nair A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 520 is quoted for the position that a karar executed by the karnavan in favour of an anandaravan unde...
Mavili Erechan Menoki Vs. Komapan Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.65
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The first defendant who is the karnavan of the tarward executed a pro-note to the plaintiff who brought a suit on it. The Sub-Judge found that the first defendant was not the manager of the tarward which was being managed by the 4th defendant under kararirom 1st defendant. He also found that the plaintiff was aware of the fact. He also found that the loan was not for family necessity and, therefore gave plaintiff a personal decree against the first defendant. A revision against tarwad is filed against this order.2. It is sought to get over the findings of fact with regard to management by arguing that the appointment of 4th defendant as agent under the karar did not preclude the karanavan from acting himself and that the provisions of thekarar must be strictly construed.3. That a powor-of-attorney or karar must be strictly construed is not denied. Krishna Menon v. Krishnan Nair 62 Ind. Cas. 598 : 40 M.L.J. 388 : 31 L.W. 384 : 29 M.L.T. 340, is quoted for the positi...
Rolla Subbadu, Minor, by Next Friend Rolla Rogadu and ors. Vs. Somiset ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad791; 122Ind.Cas.791; (1929)57MLJ353
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The question raised in this Second Appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiffs' suit was based upon a hypothecation bond, dated 31st March, 1897, executed by the father of the defendants 1 and 2 and his co-parceners. According to the decision in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai1 the suit would have been time-barred having been instituted only in 1921, that is, beyond 12 years from the date of the hypothecation bond. By virtue of Section 31 of the Limitation Act the plaintiffs had time to file the suit until 7th August, 1910. Before that date an acknowledgment of liability was made by the 1st defendant in the insolvency schedule filed by him on 6th May, 1909. This ac-kowledgment was made more than 12 years after the date of the bond, that is, beyond the ordinary period of limitation prescribed1 by Article 132 of, the Limitation Act but within the two years extra time allowed by Section 31 for instituting the suit. The question ...
Amirtha Nadan and anr. Vs. Innasi Muthu Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad805; 121Ind.Cas.842; (1929)57MLJ453
Wallace, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this C.M.S.A. are as follows;--The respondent obtained a money decree in C.S. No. 53 of 1923 in the Village Court of Lingampatti against the appellants. That decree was sent for execution to the District Munsif's Court of Koilpatti and received there on 13th February, 1925. E.P. No. 539 of 1925 presented in that Court was dismissed for failure of prosecution. A fresh E.P. No. 383 of 1926 was put in asking for attachment and sale of immoveable property. That was treated by the District Munsif's Court as an execution petition on the original side and immoveable property was attached and sold. The sale was confirmed on 22nd February, 1927. The appellants applied under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to the District Munsif's Court to set aside the sale because of irregularities and the sale was set aside. The respondent appealed to the Sub-Court, Tuti-corin, which set aside the order of the District Munsif and maintained the sa...
Secy. of State Vs. Saminatha Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad342a
Jackson, J.1. The question for decision is whether certain documents items 1 and 7, are open to the lower Court's inspection. The point is concluded by Irwin v. D.J. Reid A.I.R. 1921 Cal 282 which follows the English Law, see Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 11, pp. 84 and 137.2. The public officer concerned and not the Judge is to decide whether the evidence referred to shall be given or withheld. If the objection is taken by the proper person, the Court will not go behind it.3. The order directing the open production of the documents is cancelled. The petition is allowed with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »