Chennai Court November 1930 Judgments
Mallappa Chettiar Alias Rathnasabapathi Chettiar and anr. Vs. Alagiri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad791; (1931)60MLJ475
Jackson, J.1. This is a revision petition against an order of remand passed by Mr. K. S. Ramaswami Sastri, District Judge of Ramnad, on 18th March, 1929, in A.S. No. 282 of 1926.2. The learned Judge tabulated three points for decision, and decided them all except that he required a finding from the Lower Court as regards the yellow marked items on the suit map. This of course is provided for in Order 41, Rules 25 and 27. But the learned Judge has remanded the case 'in the exercise of his Court's inherent power.' No reason has been suggested for this surprising procedure), and the only reason which can be inferred from the record, that the quarter was closing and the Judge wished to add a disposal to his returns, is one which this Court would be loath to believe.3. The question now is whether when the Code contains specific provisions which would meet the necessities of the case in question, such provisions should not be followed, instead of the inherent jurisdiction being invoked.4. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Soudagar Muhammad Abdul Rahim Baig Saheb Vs. Soudagar Muhammad Abdul H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad553; (1931)61MLJ139
Wallace, J.1. These eight appeals arise from four original suits which were disposed of by the Lower Court in four judgments which are practically one judgment. The suit was filed in the following circumstances. A Mahomedan, Abdul Karim Baig, who was a cloth trader, died on 30th September, 1912, leaving a widow, two major sons, two minor sons and three minor daughters. The widow, the minor sons and the youngest daughter are the plaintiffs in the four suits. The two major sons are the 1st and 2nd defendants in the four suits. The plaintiffs' general assertion, apart from minor differences, which will be dealt with later on, is that, on the death of the father, defendants 1 and 2 continued his cloth trade as a family trade for the benefit of the family and made profits thereby, that although an attempt at partition was made in 1915 it did not alter the position of parties, that the family trade was continued from 30th September, 1912, the date of the father's death, till October, 1918, w...
Tag this Judgment!Devanai Ammal Vs. Mahadeva Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad313
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J. 1. In this case one Palani alias Dharmalinga Chetty was entitled to a certain sum of money under a deed of settlement executed by his father and that sum of money was with one Lakshmana Chetty. Lakshmana Chetty, who died in 1908, left a will dated 24th April 1906, whereby he appointed five executors for his estate and directed them inter alia to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 to the said Palani alias Dharinalinga Chetty (Ex. A). Defendant 2 was the residuary legatea under the said will. As he was then a minor defendant 1 was thereby appointed his ' executor', that is, apparently his guardian.2. Two of the five executors did not accept office, but the other three did and administered the estate. These three were : (1) Venkatachala Mudali, defendant 3 who was alive on the date of this suit but is now dead and represented by respondents 12 to 15 in the second appeal; (2) Kumaraswami Ayyar who died before the suit and whose sons and legal representatives were added as defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Ramabrahmam Vs. Gudimalla Andalamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad597
1. We do not agree with the learned District Judge that a transfer by a Court sale in execution is entirely outside the scope of Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act. It is possible that, as alleged in this case, such a sale may be collusive and in execution of a collusive decree. In Thiruvengada Mudaliar, In the matter of : AIR1928Mad889 , it was held that a charge made by a decree in pursuance of collusive arbitration proceeding's was within the section. In Puran Nath v. Atwargir [1915] 29 I.C. 217, a Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that for debtor to put immovable property out of the reach of his creditors by bringing a collusive suit against a third party as if for recovery of possession and then to compromise it so as to leave that party in possession would be a transfer within Section 4 (b) (now Section 6 (b), Provincial Insolvency Act, and if so, it would clearly be liable to attack under Section 53.2. Nor has the learned District Judge considered the applicability of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Maistry and anr. Vs. Nachiar Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad233
ORDERJackson, J.1. The point raised in this petition is whether the substance of the evidence in Section 264(1), Criminal P.C., must be such a complete summary of the evidence as to afford material for appeal or merely a statement of the evidence which the Court thinks substantial. Considering that the Court is not required to record any evidence at all, and that therefore there is no test by which the substantiality of its record can be gauged, I think it is right to assume that the matter rests with the Court. This is the view taken by Devadoss, J., in In Re: Chockalinga Pandaram A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 597. In Nurudin Sheikh Adam v. Emperor A.I.R. 1928 Bom. 433 the substance of the defence evidence was not even attempted to be given. In the circumstances I am not prepared to interfere. Where a case is hotly contested it is questionable whether a Magistrate is well advised to try it summarily.2. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Arumuga Goundan Vs. Subramania Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad324
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff who had been permitted to sue as a pauper died pending the suit and his-concubine's son and heir who claimed to have succeeded to the subject-matter of the suit was added in his place as plaintiff 2 and permitted to proceed with the suit. Defendant 1 then applied under Order 33, Rule 9. Civil P. C, to dispauper the substituted plaintiff on the ground that he was possessed of sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The lower Court took evidence, and, being satisfied that the newly added plaintiff was not a pauper, directed him to pay the court-fee due on the plaint. He now seeks a revision of that order.2. I am not prepared to interfere with the finding of the lower Court that the above plaintiff is not a pauper. The question is whether on this footing he can be dispaupered under Order 33, Rule 9, and ordered to pay the court-fee which would have been paid by the original plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper.3. Now i...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Maistry and anr. Vs. Nachiar Ammar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.174
ORDERJackson, J.1. The point raised in this petition is whether substance of the evidence in Section 264 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be such a complete summary of the evidence as to afford material for appeal or merely a statement of the evidence which the Court thinks substantial. Considering that the Court is not required to record any evidence at all, and that, therefore, there is no test by which the substantiality of its record can be gauged, I think it is right to assume that the matter rests with the Court. This is the view taken by Devadoss, J., in In re Chockalinga Pandaram 109 Ind. Cas. 897 : 28 L.W. 394 : A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 597 : 29 Cr. L.J. 635 : 55 M.L.J. 117 : 10 A.I. Cr. Rule 271. In Urudin Sheikh Adam v. Emperor 112 Ind. Cas. 221 : 29 Cr. L.J. 1005 : 30 Bom. L.R. 954 : A.I.R. 1928 Bom. 433 the substance of the defence evidence was not even attempted to be given. In the circumstances I am not prepared to interfere. Where a case is hotly contested it is quest...
Tag this Judgment!C. Abdul Hakim Sahib and anr. Vs. Chattanadha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad457; (1931)60MLJ435
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This matter has been posted for being spoken to. While the ruling I gave the other day applies' generally to suits removed to the High Court under Clause (13) of the Letters Patent,' it cannot govern cases transferred from the City Civil Court, as a special Act applies in that case. The question at present arises in such a case and I therefore desire to amplify my ruling so as to make it applicable also to case's of that description.2. The questions I have to decide may be thus stated:(1) When a suit is removed and tried by the High Court as a Court of Extraordinary Original Jurisdiction, are Court-fees leviable under the Court Fees Act or under the High Court Fees Rules?(2) When a suit filed in the City Civil Court is so removed, does it follow the general rule or is it governed by any special provisions ?3. I must first turn to the Court Fees Act. Chapter II of that Act relates to fees in the High Courts and in the Presidency Small Cause Courts; Chapter III to ...
Tag this Judgment!Nidamarthu Balasurya Bheemaraju Vs. Changati Mrutyanjayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad354
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be stated as follows: Bhujanga Rao and Veeresalingam were two cousins being grandsons of two brothers. They had a number of family lands which they were enjoying in common, the lands not being divided by metes and hounds but they were divided in interest and Bhujanga Rao was living in distant places and Veeresalingam was managing the family lands. Bhujanga Rao died in 1885. Before his death he left a will dated 24th December 1884 by which he gave his share of the property to his daughter Mahalakshmamma for life and after her death to his grandson the present plaintiff who was the son of another daughter of his, Kanakamma. After Bhujanga Rao's death apparently the joint possession and enjoyment continued. Veeresalingam died in 1896 leaving the defendant his son a boy of 13. The lands were being leased by the defendant's maternal uncle up to 1905 when the defendant refused to give Mahalakshmamma her share of the property. Then she filed O...
Tag this Judgment!Upadrasta Venkatalakshmamma Vs. Garikipati Seshagiri Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad303; (1931)60MLJ628
Reilly, J.1. In this case a decree was obtained by the plaintiff for money against one Ramachandrayya on the 29th February, 1912. After a number of other execution petitions eventually a petition, E.P. No. 125 of 1924, was put in for execution of the decree against Ramachandrayya on the 18th February, 1924. In the course of those proceedings it came to light that Ramachandrayya had disappeared seven or eight years earlier, and therefore it was presumed that he was dead. The decree-holder in those circumstances wished to prosecute the same execution petition against Ramachandrayya's widow as his legal representative and put in an application E.A. No. 543 of 1924 for that purpose on the 5th July, 1924. It-will be seen that' that application to treat the widow as Ramachandrayya's legal representative was put in more than 12 years after the date of the decree. It was contended that on account of that lapse of time, Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure prevented the execution, against ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »