Chennai Court October 1930 Judgments
Rao Bahadur A.T. Pannirselvam Vs. A. Veeriah Vandayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ191
Reilly, J.1. The petitioner in this revision petition was elected President of the District Board of Tanjore in January last His opponent at that election, the respondent here, put in an election petition in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore early in February of this year. Unfortunately for various reasons the disposal of that petition was delayed until the 4th of September last. The petitioner here has urged before us that by the 4th of September the Subordinate Judge had lost jurisdiction to deal with the petition in consequence of a new Act, which had come into force, Act XI of 1930.' There is no dispute that at the time when the election petition was presented to the Subordinate Judge he had jurisdiction to dispose of it; nor is it suggested before us that he lost jurisdiction until the new Act came into force on the 26th August, 1930. The Subordinate* Judge found that the election of Mr. Pannirselvam, the petitioner here, was void and ordered a re-election. That decisi...
Tag this Judgment!(Pujari) Ayilu Reddi Vs. (Pujari) Venkata Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad133
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a memorandum of cross-objections filed by the present appellant in A.S. No. 169 of 1926 on the file of the District Court of Chittoor. This memorandum of objections was dismissed by the learned District Judge without hearing it on the merits, because the appeal itself was rejected for non-payment of deficient court-fee which the appellants were directed to pay under an order of Court. It is now contended on behalf of the appellant, that the lower Court was wrong in not hearing the memorandum of objections in spite of the rejection or dismissal of the appeal. The general rule is that the memorandum of objections has to be heard, when the appeal itself is heard and decided on the merits. Before the passing of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908, there was no express provision as to whether a memorandum of objections could be heard or not when the appeal itself was withdrawn or allowed to be dismissed by the appellant for non-prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver Vs. M. Rm. K.A.R. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad118
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The Official Receiver of Coimbatore is the appellant. One Arunachalam Chettiar obtained a money decree in O.S. 206 of 1926 against one Krishnasami Goundan. The joint family properties of the judgment-debtor and his three sons had been attached before judgment. These were proclaimed for sale in execution of the decree. In the meanwhile, Krishnasami Goundan was declared insolvent and the Official Receiver and the judgment-debtor, the insolvent, applied by E.A 15 of 1928 and E.A. 14 of 1928 for stopping of the sale in execution. The decree-holder opposed these applications and they were dismissed; but the Subordinate Judge directed that the proceeds of the sale in execution should be sent to the Official Receiver for distribution amongst the general body of the. creditors of the insolvent. Accordingly,, a sum of Rs. 5,177-11-0 was sent to the Official Receiver.2. A holder of another decree against Krishnasami Goundan applied for a rateable distribution of the amount se...
Tag this Judgment!V. Guruvappa Chetty Vs. Thayarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad482; (1931)60MLJ433
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued as against his wife, the first defendant, for restitution of conjugal rights and as against defendants 2 to 4, who are respectively his wife's parents and brother, for an injunction restraining them from in any manner interfering with him and his wife and from keeping his wife away from him without his consent. The learned City Civil Judge has dismissed the suit upon a finding upon what may be termed a preliminary issue, the second.2. The plaint was filed on the 5th of August, 1927, and it appeal's that on the 31st of May of that year a consent order was passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Georgetown, between the same parties under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in these terms: 'By consent of both parties, sum of Rs. 6 per mensem is ordered for the maintenance of the petitioner by her husband, the counter-petitioner.' The learned City Civil Judge is of opinion that, as the plaintiff has expressly consented to such an order, it operates...
Tag this Judgment!N. Seshagiri Ayyar Vs. T.N. Ramachandra Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad570
Jackson, J.1. The appellant as receiver in a certain suit attached a debt due from the garnishee, defendant 3, to defendants 1 and 2. In another suit one Nemasah had attached the same debt, and he adjusted his claim, arranging that the debt of the garnishee should be made over to himself a day before the appellant's attachment took effect. Of course Nemasah was not in any way debarred from making a private transfer by his own attachment. Section 64, Civil P.C., avoids transfers contrary to, not (during the continuance of, the attachment. Nor can it be argued that the appellant had any right to interfere with the transaction before his attachment was effective. He may have been a potential decree-holder, but potential decree-holders have no right to rateable distribution. The appellant's claim can only be based on the circumstance that the garnishee objected to his interim attachment, and it was made absolute: vide Ex. C. This objection was under Order 21, Rule 58; and Rule 63 will also...
Tag this Judgment!Moovvara Kakkamvelli Lakshmi Amma Vs. Thazhathitathil Krishna Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad81; (1931)60MLJ219
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The appellant before me was the 3rd plaintiff in O.S. No. 205 of 1921 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Badagara. The suit was for redemption of four items of properties on the footing of a mortgage. The plaintiffs got a decree in the Trial Court for redemption but only in respect of three of the four items mentioned by them in their plaint. The decree directed that on payment by the plaintiffs into Court of a particular amount found to be due on the mortgage, the defendants should put the plaintiffs in possession of the three items. The plaintiffs paid the money into Court in accordance with the directions contained in the decree and obtained possession of the items decreed to them by the Trial Court. The 3rd plaintiff however preferred an appeal to the Lower Appellate Court against that part of the Trial Court's decree which disallowed her the other item claimed in the plaint. The result of the appeal was that the Appellate Court modified the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Sarraju Venkataraghaviah Vs. Sarraju Chenchu Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad502; 136Ind.Cas.38
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Kavali dated 18th May 1925, appointing the defendant as karnam of Somavarappadu, is ultra vires and does not bind him.2. On a vacancy arising in the office of karnam in the proprietary village of Somavarappadu, the proprietor appointed the plaintiff to the office by his order dated 9th December 1924 and sent notice of the appointment as required by the Act (Act 2 of 1894) to the revenue divisional officer, Kavali. On the ground that he is a nearer heir the defendant, a minor by his guardian, applied to the revenue 'divisional officer praying that he should be appointed as the karnam. On 18th May 1925 the revenue divisional officer disallowed the appointment of the plaintiff as karnam holding that the defendant was the next heir to the office and directed the registration of his name as heir to the l...
Tag this Judgment!Malyam Patel Basavana Gowd (Dead) and ors. Vs. Lakka Narayana Reddi an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad284; (1931)61MLJ563
Wallace, J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff, as representative ryot of the ryotwari Malyam village, against defendants 1 and 2, as representative ryots of the ryotwari Kanekal village, for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff's village to take water to its fields from the point A in the Hagari river, shown on the plan, Ex. E-l, without any interference from the defendants, and for consequential injunction to ensure that right. These two villages lie on opposite sides of the Hagari river, Malyam on the east and Kanekal on the west. Both villages have registered wet land irrigated by the river by channels therefrom which are recognised as their irrigation source. When there is water flowing in the river, each village gets its supply direct from channels taken off from the river banks. When the surface flow in the river ceases the ryots have been in the habit of tapping the sub-soil flow and leading it to the main channel. The Malyam ryots claim that it has been their custom...
Tag this Judgment!Uppalapati Hemadri Vs. Kodali Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad113
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of a sum of money, alleged to be due on a promissory-note payable on demand (Ex. A), which was executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2, who subsequently endorsed it to the plaintiff. A decree was passed against defendant 1, the maker of the pro-note, and defendant 2. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit as against the endorser (defendant 2) as no notice of dishonour was given to her by the plaintiff. The correctness of that view is now questioned by the appellant. There is no allegation in the plaint that any notice of dishonour was given to the endorser (defendant 2) nor is there an iota of proof in respect of it. The only allegation in the plaint is, that in spite of demands made by defendant 2 prior to the transfer and by plaintiff subsequent to the transfer, defendant 1 did not pay the amount of the note. It is urged, that if an opportunity is given, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnan and ors. Vs. Ranjithammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad216; (1931)60MLJ709
Curgenven, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff, as owner of land--a claim not now disputed--sued to eject the defendants from a portion of it. Her case was that one Poonjolai had served her predecessor-in-title as waterman, and had been permitted to put up a hut and live on a small portion of the land. The defendants are relatives of Poonjolai, and have succeeded him in occupation of the suit site, and have moreover, according to the plaintiff, encroached upon a further area. There are thus two questions arising for decision:(1) Can the plaintiff eject the defendants from the site which Poonjolai was allowed to occupy?(2) Can she eject them from the area encroached upon? 2. It is agreed that Poonjolai was allowed to occupy the site as a licensee, Since the license was granted the property has changed hands, the plaintiff's mother purchasing it from the Administrator-General in 1902 and settling it upon her daughter, the plaintiff, in 1922. It ft not very easy...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »