Chennai Court February 1931 Judgments
S.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad672; (1931)61MLJ812
Curgenven, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two applications by the Official Assignee of Madras for the delivery to him of certain property alleged to belong to a firm known as the T.S.N. Firm, which was adjudicated insolvent on 10th March, 1930, by the High Court of Rangoon in I.C. No. 14 of 1930. The applications recite that that High Court sent a copy of the order of adjudication to this Court, and requested that, under Section 126 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act read with Section 77 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, the Official Assignee of Madras should be directed to act as auxiliary to the Official Assignee of Rangoon in respect of the properties within the jurisdiction of this Court. This direction being given, the Official Assignee sent a representative to Tiruppapuliyur to take possession of certain properties believed to belong to the insolvent firm, but the representative was met by a refusal to deliver on the ground that the properties were trust properties the i...
Tag this Judgment!Rasu Pillai Vs. Vaithilinga Muthirian and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad588
Pandalai, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant in this second appeal and the only point that is capable of being raised in second appeal is whether this suit was competent in respect of property No. 1, in other words, whether the plaintiff's remedy in respect of that property was not by way of execution. To understand this point the following facts are necessary to be known. In a former suit, No. 445 of 1918 brought by the present appellant against the present respondent 1 and his mother who was then alive the appellant sued for possession of this self same property, item 1 and obtained a decree. He got son of it in execution pending peal.2. In the appeal the decree of the first Court was reversed. After the reversal the present respondent 1's mother who was a co-defendant in the suit applied for restitution by redelivery of the property. After he had got possession through Court the appellant had before the application for restitution walled up the opening of property No. 2 in the presen...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appachi Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ123
1. Before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Palladam there were six accused persons charged with the murder of one Narayana Goundan on the 27th of September last. Of these five accused were committed to the Sessions but the 5th accused was discharged by him. As in the opinion of the prosecution the same evidence which established a prima facie case against the five accused also did so against the 5th accused, an application was made to the District Magistrate to revise the order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate. When the petition was put in on the 24th January last the District Magistrate dealt with it in the following manner as will appear from his endorsement on the petition:As I am informed that the records are in the Sessions Court and the time is too short to get them to enable me to consider this case, I think it would be convenient' if this application were presented to the Sessions Judge.2. After that the petitioners thought that the better course would be to withdraw the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Kanni Rowther Vs. Naina Mahomed Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad590; (1931)60MLJ659
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by the defendant against the order of the District Munsif of Madura Town, directing the addition of the respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, and permitting them to continue the suit. 2. The suit was instituted by one Musafar Rowther, oh behalf of himself and other members of the community of Melagar Uraimwraigars of Ghoripalayam, and the necessary permission of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, was also obtained. The suit is therefore a representative suit. The proper cause title for such a suit is:Musafar Rowther, on behalf of himself andall the other members of the community .. Plaintiffv.Muhammad Kanni Rowther .. Defendant.3. The aforesaid Musafar Rowther died at the end of May, 1928. His son intervened with two applications, to be added as a plaintiff, but both of them were dismissed, the first, on the ground, that in a representative suit of this kind, the son of the deceased who filed such a suit could not...
Tag this Judgment!Govinda Kangani Vs. Murugesa Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad720
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal may be briefly stated as follows : The plaintiff brought a suit for a declaration of his rights as a charge-holder to the extent of Rs. 480 over the suit properties which consist of two items. Item 2 belonged to defendant 2 and item 1 was purchased in his name and in the name of his concubine, Lakshmi Am-mal, but having regard to the findings both the items should be treated as belonging to defendant 2. Item 2 was mortgaged by him on 1st March 1910 to one Shankarappa Mudali. He and his concubine afterwards mortgaged both the items to the same person for Rs. 100 on 2nd May 1910 (see Ex. C-1). On 2nd December 1918 one Shunmugarn Chetty and one Narayanaswami Chetty obtained a decree in O.S. No. 530 of 1918, against defendants 2 to 4. Defendant 1 obtained an assignment of this decree. The suit properties were attached in 1919 and sold; and were purchased by defendant 1. On 2nd Octob...
Tag this Judgment!(Gudimalla) Narasimham and anr. Vs. (Paidimarri) Venkata Subbayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad171
Pandalai, J.1. This was a suit upon a mortgage (Ex. A) in which the plaintiff was awarded a decree by the District Munsif for about Rs. 356 and in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge for Rs. 2,982 odd. The discrepancy between the figures is mainly due to the difference in the findings of two Courts as to the plaintiff's right to compound interest. The District Munsif took a view which was adverse to the plaintiff on the question of compound interest, while the learned Subordinate Judge took a view in his favour. In second appeal by the defendants three points are raised: first, that the decree of the Subordinate Judge awarding compound interest to the plaintiff is wrong; second, that the decree of the Subordinate Judge awarding post diem interest to the plaintiff is wrong; and thirdly that the defendants should have been awarded compensation for alleged breaches of the mortgage contract by the plaintiff. The second and third points may be briefly dealt with as there is no substance...
Tag this Judgment!Thoppai Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. A. Govindarajalu Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ34
1. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to interest on costs paid by him to the respondent under a decree afterwards reversed on appeal, which have to be unfunded to him by way of restitution. In Rodger v. The Comptoir d'Escompte de Paris (1871) L.R. 3 P.C. 465 their Lordships of the Privy Council did not allow interest on costs to be refunded and remarked that it had never been the habit in ordering the refunding of costs paid under a decree to order that refunding with interest. In Forester v. The Secretary of Stale for India in Council they remarked that interest on costs to be restored was 'less favoured' than interest on other amounts to be restored. But in Kedar Nath Pakrasec v. Doya Moyee Delia (1873) 20 W.R. 49, a Bench of the Calcutta High Court and in Ram Sahai v. The Bank of Bengal I.L.R. (1886) 8 A. 262, a Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed interest on costs so refunded. And since those decisions Section 144 of the present Code of Civil Procedure has bee...
Tag this Judgment!S. Vijiaraghavalu Naidu Vs. M. Rajamani Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad512
Jackson, J.1. This petition seems to have been admitted to see whether the learned District Munsif when he refused to receive documents that were six months late, a delay for which there was no satisfactory explanation infringed the precept of Ramaswami Chettiar v. Tyagaraja Pillai A.I.R.1928 Mad.516. It does not seem that Ramaswami Chettiar v. Tyagaraja Pillai A.I.R.1928 Mad.516 in any way modifies the law as laid down in Order 13, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P.C. The rule is peremptory that documents on which a party intends to rely must be produced at the first hearing and Rule 62 of the Civil Rules of Practice does not relieve the party of that obligation.2. I am not prepared to hold that the learned District Munsif has erred. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sarangapani Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Pichu Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad710
Pandalai, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the rejection of the appeal for nonpayment of court-fees in the lower appellate Court on the market value of the two-thirds share of the properties mortgaged and belonging to the appellants or on the decree amount, whichever is less, was right.2. The respondents-plaintiffs brought a suit on a mortgage executed by defendant 1, the undivided father of the present appellants, who were defendants 2 and 3. They contended that the debt was incurred by their father for illegal and immoral purposes and that their share of the mortgaged property was not responsible for the debt. The first Court found that the appellant's defence was unfounded and gave a decree for the amount sued for against the properties mortgaged. From that decree the present appellants filed an appeal to the lower Court and paid court-fees on the value of their two-thirds share of the mortgaged property valuing it on the footing of ten times the assessment. On o...
Tag this Judgment!Muthayya Chettiar Vs. Ar. Rm. V. Ar. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.778
1. The question which arises in this Second Appeal which if decided against the appellant would be conclusive is whether an attachment before judgment of a co parcener's interest when not followed by a decree during the said co-parcener's life-time operates to defeat the right of survivorship. This question is governed by direct authority in this Court Ramanayya v. Rangappayya 17 M. 144. It was a decision of the year 1893. Not only has no doubt been since cast upon that decision in this Court but the view there taken has been reinforced by the converse case which is illustrated by the decisions in Muthusami Chetty v. Chinnammal 24 Ind. Cas. 320 : 26 M. L. J. 517, and Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Official Receiver of Tinnevelly 92 Ind.Cas.504 : 49 M.L.J.616 : (1925) M.W.N.832 : A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 72. These latter decisions are to the effect that where the co-parcener whose interest is attached before judgment survives the decree, the attachment takes precedence over the right of survivorshi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »