Chennai Court May 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.
Muttevl Venkatacharyulu and anr. Vs. Vemavarapu Ramakrishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.153
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This second appeal is by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, father and son, against the decree of the lower Appel-late Court by which it varied the decree of the Court of first instance and dismissed the plaintiff's suit so far as the 1st defendant (1st respondent) Sri Venkatesa Swami Devasthanam was concerned and gave a decree instead against these appellants. The suit was brought upon a promissory note executed to the plaintiff 2nd respons dent), a cousin of the appellants for Rs. 700 dated 16th November, 1917. The suit was brought against the Devasthanam mentioned above, and against the present appellants the first of whom executed the promissory note and the second of whom was impleaded as the son of the debtor. The plaintiff's case was that the 1st appellant was the archaka and manager of the Devasthanam and had borrowed this sum as such for purposes binding on the Devasthanam and, therefore, a decree was prayed in the first instance against the Devasthanam, and, ...
Parambathakandi Olayatt Kunchu Vs. Ussan Kasim Sait by Muktyar Sale Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.64
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question for consideration in this case is whether the order of the lower Court giving conditional permission to the petitioner to defend the case only on giving security is right, ft has been found by the Court that the petitioner has a defence which has to be considered. It has also found that the plaintiff has seemingly a strong case. In view of the opinion of the learned Judge which I have stated above, it cannot be said that there are no bona fides on the part of the 2nd defendant. In these circumstances I think the learned Judge should have granted permission to the petitioner to defend the case unconditionally. Of course, this Court interferes only very rarely under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. But when the conclusion of the Judge is obviously opposed to the finding expressed in the body of the judgment I think it is a case where this Court should interfere and set aside the order. The order is, therefore, set aside. Each party will bear its o...
Alagasundaram Pillai Vs. Pichuvier, Minor, by Court Guardian Mr. S. Kr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ381
Wallace, J.1. The two questions referred for the decision of the Full Bench are:(1) Does Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code apply to proceedings instituted under Rules 97 or 100 of Order 21?(2) If the above question is answered in the negative, has the Court an inherent power to set aside the order of dismissal for default or an order passed ex parte against the respondent in those applications on sufficient cause being shown?2. As to the first question, it is not contested that Order 9 does not apply to proceedings in execution except such as involve the determination of any question under Section 47, in which case the orders thereon would amount to decrees (see Subbiah Ndicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar and Kailash Chandra : AIR1914Mad162 Tarapdar v. Gopal Chandra Poddar I.L.R.(1926) C. 781 (F.B.) decisions which have been followed in this Court in Kaliakkal v. Palani Koundan (1925) 50 M.L.J. 200 and Narayanan Chettiar v. Muthu Chettiar : (1926)51MLJ219 and the argument at the bar has s...
R. Rathnasabapathy Chettiar Vs. Ammakannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad78; (1929)57MLJ609
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother in this case and I entirely agree in the result. I only desire to say one thing in this connection. There seems to me to be a grave defect in the method of pleading and still more in the method of drawing up the issues which appears to be finding favour in these Courts. It is a settled rule of English pleading that any charge involving anything of the nature of fraud should be set out specifically with particulars where necessary. For instance, if breaches of trust are alleged on the part of a trustee it is essential that they shall be particularised in precise detail such as sums of money or other items of trust property alleged to have been misappropriated. Besides that safeguard we have the system in this country of having issues settled before the trial which is supposed to extract from the pleadings the matters which are really in dispute between the parties and to re...
(Manchiraju) Venkayya Vs. (Vadalamudy) Venkataramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad178
Pandalai, J.1. The dispute in this case is only about a direction given in the decree of the lower Court that the properties sold to defendant 5 must be brought to sale first and those sold to defendant 4 should be sold, if necessary, afterwards. The appellant is defendant 5 and defendant 4 is the real contesting respondent. The suit was brought upon a mortgage Ex. A dated 15th December 1913 executed by defendants 1 and 2 and one Narayanaswami since deceased mortgaging the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule to the plaintiff. On 5th January 1914 defendant 2 alone, one of the mortgagors mortgaged his interest in item 2 of the properties in the former mortgage to defendant 4 who, it has been held, took the mortgage without notice of the former one. Defendant 4 brought a suit upon his mortgage and after decree bought the mortgaged properties himself by private sale on 26th June 1917. Defendant 5 purchased defendant 1's rights in the mortgaged properties by a sale deed Ex. 3, dated...
Ambalavana Thambiran Vs. Vageesam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad226; 122Ind.Cas.455
Wallace, J.1. This C.M.A. and C.R.P. are against the order of the lower Court dismissing an application presented under a scheme decree in A.A. Order 218 of 1925 on the file of the High Court. Under Rule 2 in that scheme, which was for the management of the Anjukoil Devasthanam, it is declared that when a vacancy occurs in the trusteeship:the Pandara Sannadhi for the time being of Thiruvannamalai mutt shall be appointed trustee unless the District Court of Ramnad for any valid reason decides him to be unfit.2. The late Pandara Sannadhi who was the trustee died on 10th June 1928. The petitioners applied under this rule on 25th June 1928: to the lower Court to declare respondent 1, who claimed to have succeeded as Pandara Sannadhi, to be unfit for appointment as trustee and to appoint either one of the petitioners or some other proper person to be trustee and for other reliefs. The District Judge dismissed the application, holding that Rule 2 of the scheme is ultra vires and the petition...
Alagasundaram Pillai Vs. Pichuvier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad757; 120Ind.Cas.567
OPINIONWallace, J.1. The two questions referred for the decision of the Full Bench are:(1) Does Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code apply to proceedings instituted under Rule 97 or 100 of Order XXI?(2) If the above question is answered in the negative, has the Court an inherent power to set aside the order of dismissal for default or an order passed ex parte against the respondent in those applications on sufficient cause being shown?2. As to the first question, it is not contested that Order IX does not apply to proceedings in execution except such as involve the determination of any question under Section 47, in which case the orders thereon would amount to decrees: see Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar 22 Ind. Cas. 899 : 37 M. 462 : 26 M.L.J. 189 : (1914) M.W.N. 205 : 1 L.W. 251 and Kailash Chandra Tarafdar v. Gopal Chandra Poddar decisions which have been followed in this Court in Kalliakkal v. Palani Koundan 92 Ind. Cas. 533 : 50 M.L.J. 200 : 23 L.W. 227 : (1926) M.W.N. 245 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›