Chennai Court November 1930 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.
Moparthi Nayudamma and ors. Vs. Zamindar of Devarakota
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.16
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. The only point raised in this second appeal relates to the amount of Pleader's fee awarded by the lower Appellate Court to the successful plaintiff. The suit was for a declaration in respect of the right of fishery and injunction. The plaintiff succeeded in both Courts. In, appeal Rs. 50 was given as Pleader's fee. The learned Advocate for the appellant argues that the Pleader's fee ought to be only Rs. 25 under Rule 31 of the Legal Practitioner's Fee Rules issued in 1925. Under Rule 31 (b) (1) the minimum fee is Rs. 25 for all cases not falling under Clause 1, 2, 3 of Section 7, Court Fees Act or under Clause 4, Sub-clause (f) of that section. But Mr. Raghava Rao relies on Rule 37 (b) which relates to declaratory suits. This is a suit for declaration followed by injunction. If the subject-matter is capable of valuation, we are thrown back on Rule 31. But the subject-matter here is a fishery and it is not capable of valuation according to the rules in the Court Fees ...
Gangama Naick Vs. N.L.V.R. Veerappa Chetti Through His Authorised Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.833
Madhvan Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit to establish his title instituted by a defeated claimant in execution proceedings.2. The plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree against one Ramakrishna Naicken in O.S. No. 34 of 1915 on the file of the Periakulam Munsifs Court in respect of a promissory note dated 15th October, 1912, for Rs. 600, Ia execution of the decree the plaint properties were attached on 16th August, 1925, and sold in Court auction and were purchased by the plain tiS on 31st August, 1917. When he tried to take possession of the properties, he was obstructed by the defendants and hence the present suit was filed by him to establish his title.3. The judgment-debtor, Ramakrishna Naicken, nad various dealings with different persons. He had executed a mortgage on 18th August, 1909, for Rs. 5,00 in favour of tha first defendant's wife, Subbammal. In 1914 various decrees were obtained against him and he was put ia jail. At t...
Ganta Venkatasubbayya and anr. Vs. Peeru Pacha Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ178
1. In A.A.O. No. 61 of 1926 it was decided that a decree such as this could be executed against the removed trustees. So far as the appellants here (counter-petitioners 1 and 2) are representatives of defendant 2, one of the removed trustees, they cannot resist execution, and the appeal is dismissed with costs. So far as the appellant 1 claims also some right under defendant 2's sister, who was not a party to the suit, his remedy against the Subordinate Judge's order was by suit, not appeal....
Raman Koravan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad427
Beasley, C.J. 1. In the Court below seven accused were charged with the offence of dacoity. and another, accused 6 was charged with dishonestly receiving stolen property under Section 412, I. P.C. The jury convicted accused 1, 2, 6 and 7 and accused 1, 2 and 7 of dacoity and the 6th of receiving stolen property. Accused 3,4, 5 and 8 were found 'not guilty.' The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury in regard to accused 8 and acquitted him. In respect of the conviction of accused 1, 2 and 7 of dacoity, he sentenced accused 1 and 2 to five years rigorous imprisonment each and accused 7 to four years' rigorous imprisonment, The jury having acquitted accused 3, 4 and 5 of the offence of dacoity, the learned Sessions Judge was dissatisfied with that acquittal and has referred the case to the High Court on the ground that the verdict of acquittal of those accused is perverse and that they should have convicted them of the offence of dacoity with which they were charged.2. T...
T.S. Lakshmana Ayyar and ors. Vs. R.S. Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad340
1. The suit from which this appeal is presented was by representative worshippers of the Madura Devasthanam against the ten members of the Madura, etc. Devasthanams Committee, defendants 1 to 10, and the Secretary of State, defendant 11, for a declaration that the appointment by defendant 11 of defendants 1 to 10 as members of that committee is illegal and invalid because defendant 11 has no power to modify the scheme for these Devasthanams framed by the District Court of Madura in O.S. 4 of 1922, and for an injunction restraining defendant a 1 to 10 from interfering with the management of the suit devasthanams. The District Court dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs appeal.2. In O.S. 4 of 1922, which was a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C., the District Court, in its decree dated 12th April 1924,. framed a scheme for the better administration of the suit devasthanams, appointing a committee of five members to be known as the Madura etc. Devasthanams Committee. The District Court decr...
M. Varadaiah Chetti and anr. Vs. K. Narasimhulu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ173
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises have already been set out in the judgment in C.R.P. No. 1399 of 1925. On the 19th July, 1925, the newly appointed trustees as petitioners sought to execute the decree of the Subordinate Judge referred to in C.R.P. No. 1399 of 1925 and they filed E.P. No. 51 of 1925. The respondents opposed that petition and raised a number of objections before the then Subordinate Judge of Vellore who dismissed the petition on the grounds that the newly appointed trustees the petitioners were not parties to the decree and had not been added as parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, that the right to execute the decree was not given to them, that they had not come under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and were not transferees of the decree and further that the order that the Court was to approve of the appointment of the newly elected trustees was ultra vires and also that the decree is a variation ...
Peer Ammal and anr. Vs. N.S. Nallusami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad149; (1931)60MLJ239
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question is whether this appeal was presented in time. The material dates are as follows:The appeal is from a preliminary decree on a mortgage passed ex parte by the Subordinate Judge of Madura in O.S. No. 128 of 1926 first on 8th August, 1928. The appellants, (defendants 1 and 4) applied under Order 9, Rule 13 on 9th August, 1928, to set aside the ex parte decree and the Court set it aside on 12th October, 1928. Meanwhile, the appellants had also on 9th August, 1928, applied for copies of the judgment and decree and they were ready for delivery on 27th September, 1928, so that, had the appellants wanted to appeal, they had out of the 90 days available about 1 1/2 months more after 12th October, 1928. As the decree was set aside by the Sub-Judge himself, no appeal was preferred. But the plaintiff (respondent) applied in C.R.P. No. 116 of 1929 to this Court to revise the order of the Sub-Judge setting aside the ex parte decree and this Court on 22nd Nove...
M. Varadaiah Chetti and anr. Vs. K. Narasimhalu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Mad41
Beasley, C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises have already been set out in the judgment in Adinarayana Chetty v. Narasimha Chetty A.I.R. 1931 Mad. 471. On 19th July 1925, the newly appointed trustees, as petitioners sought to execute the decree of the Subordinate Judge referred to in C.B.P. No. 1399 of 1925 and they filed E.P. No. 51 of 1925. The respondents opposed that petition and raised a number of objections before the then Subordinate Judge of Vellore who dismissed the petition on the grounds that the newly appointed trustees, the petitioners, were not parties to the decree and had not been added as parties Under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C.; that the right to execute the decree was not given to them; that they had not come Under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C., and were not transferees of the decree, and further that the order that the Court was to approve of the appointment of the newly elected trustees was ultra vires and also that the decree is a variation of the pr...
Adari Sanyasi Vs. Vaddadi Nookalamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad592
Walsh, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order of remand made by the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in A.S. No. 62 of 1927. The learned Subordinate Judge had passed this order of remand previously on 10th November 1927, but he was directed by the High Court to dispose of a petition, I. A. No. 1925 of 1927, which was for security for costs in the appeal, before disposing of the appeal. A preliminary point is taken by the appellant that he has not done so and that this order of remand must be set aside on that ground alone. We find, however that in para. 4 of his order the learned Subordinate Judge says:If it is to be deemed that no definite order was passed one way or the other on I. A. 1295, it must be presumed that the order recording the petition was an order declining to call on the appellant to furnish security. In this view of the matter the petition. I. A. 1295, must be deemed to have been dismissed. The petition is therefore dismissed.2. As the learned Subordinate Judge has ...
Ramanuja Naicker Vs. Solaiappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad270; (1931)60MLJ471
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The appellant assignee decree-holder is the purchaser of 17 properties in a mortgage suit O.S. No. 68 of 1919 at a sale dated 24th March, 1924. The 1st respondent is the purchaser of 7 of these properties under a previous Court sale dated 18th December, 1923, for a simple debt due by the same debtor. The 1st respondent on 16th June, 1924, by E.A. No. 90 of 1924 applied to the Court executing the mortgage decree to set aside the sale to the appellant alleging (1) material irregularity in conducting and publishing the sale, and (2) that the preliminary mortgage decree had been previously satisfied by the mortgagors themselves and that the subsequent assignment of the decree and execution sale were conducted fraudulently in collusion between the assignee decree-holder and judgment-debtors in the mortgage suit in order to defeat the respondent. Apparently, being advised that the latter objection could not be heard in execution, the 1st respondent applied by E. A. No...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »