Chennai Court July 1931 Judgments
Yanati Venkataraghavamma Vs. Byrisetty Singarayya Setty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad119; 136Ind.Cas.47; (1931)61MLJ683
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside a sale in execution. Only two of the grounds urged before the Lower Court are pressed here. The first is that bidders were scared away by a notification issued at the sale itself, warning them that the appellant's daughter's claim to the property had been dismissed and that she had filed a suit. Reliance is placed on some observations by Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Venkataratnam v. Ranganayakamma I.L.R. (1918) 41 M. 985 : 35 M.L.J. 335 on the undesirability of issuing such warnings. With great respect we must express our dissent. Rule 66 (2) (e) of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, directs the Court to specify 'every other thing which the Court considers material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property'. In this instance, the Court thought that it was material for intending buyers to know that the property was under litigation and directed the Amin to give them that information and we think tha...
Tag this Judgment!P.V.M. MuhaidIn Kader Meera Sahib Maraikkayar Vs. P.L.S. Lakshmanan Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad812; (1931)61MLJ931
1. The appellant, in this case, applied to have an ex parte decree against him set aside. His application was put in more: than a year after the date of the decree. Several ineffective attempts had been made to serve him with summons and ultimately substituted service was ordered and effected. He did not appear and a decree was passed against him ex parte. The Subordinate Judge dismissed his application as time-barred under Article 164 of the Limitation Act. We have been asked in appeal to refer the question at issue, that is to say whether substituted service is due service, to a Full Bench, on the ground of a supposed difference of opinion between two Benches of this Court. The decision of one is to be found in Shariba Beebi v. Abdul Salam I.L.R. (1927) 51 M. 860 : 55 M.L.J. 565, the other in Gyanammal v. Abdul Hussain Sahib : AIR1931Mad813 . In the first case an ex parte. decree passed after substituted service on the defendant was set aside. In revision the High Court reversed the ...
Tag this Judgment!S.S.A.S. Muttayya Chettiar Vs. Periatambi Tevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad784
Curgenven, J.1. I think that the learned Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the execution petition was barred by limitation. It can only be saved by excluding the period during which the insolvency petition was pending against the decree holder and it is conceded that that can only be done if Section 78, Provincial Insolvency Act will in terms apply to the circumstances. It has recently been held by Anantakrishna Ayyar, J., in Rama Pillai v. Kasamuthu, Nadar : AIR1929Mad715 that that section has no application to a case in which the decree-holder and not the judgment-debtor is the insolvent and my agreement with that decision will be sufficient to dispose of this case. There is however the further circumstance that Section 78 excludes the period between the date of adjudication and the date of the order of annulment, and in the present case it has to be admitted that no order of adjudication was passed against the decree-holder at all, so that it follows that no order annullin...
Tag this Judgment!Yaddanapudi Lakshmi Narasimham Vs. Dorapalli Lakshmipathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad830
Curgenven, J.1. Defendant 2 appeals against an order of remand of a suit made by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bezwada. Designating the parties as they stand in the present suit, the few facts which have to be known are these. Defendant 2 obtained a mortgage decree against defendant 1, and in the Court sale defendant 3, it is said benami for the second, bought defendant 1's property. There then ensued. an arrangement between the three defendants and the plaintiff who appears to have been a creditor of the judgment-debtor in that suit, according to which defendant 1 executed a mortgage to the plaintiff for Rs. 400 of the property which had already been sold by the Court, and the auction purchaser, defendant 3, undertook to get the Court sale, set aside. He failed to do this, so that, as matters stood, the mortgage bond passed no legal title to the plaintiff. In these circumstances the plaintiff sued in O.S. No. 368 of 1920 for the recovery of the mortgage amount which the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Mariappa Vaikaran Vs. K.G. Srinivasa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad789
Cutrgenven, J.1. The main contention raised in this revision petition is that the suit was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court, being one for an account as contemplated by Article 31, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff alleged that there was a settlement between the parties in February 19'24 under which the defendant 1, acknowledged a certain amount due in paddy, cash and hay. Subsequently the dealings continued between the parties and the actual amount claimed in the plaint was something different from that shown in the settlement, the paddy being less and the cash being slightly more. The defendant in his written statement entirely denied the truth of the transactions that he executed any settlement or that any balance whatever was due from him. I think in these circumstances that it cannot be contended that the suit was one for an account. The plaintiff claimed a fixed sum and did not call upon the defendant to render an account, nor did he allege that the defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!Guruvammal Vs. Arumuga Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad164; 136Ind.Cas.769; (1931)61MLJ894
Curgenven, J.1. The following table shows how the parties whose names occur in these proceedings are connected: | | _________________________ ____________________ | | | |Krishnaswami Aiyar Subramania Aiyar=Sivakami. Seshagiri=Lakshmi Aiyar | Ammal. | | | | ____________________ | |Guruvammal. Venkataramana Aiyar=Venkammal. | | | Sons. | Ramachandra Aiyar.2. Subramania Aiyar died in 1899 leaving a will bequeathing the land now in dispute to his nephew Venkataramana Aiyar. By a codicil he gave his widow Sivakami Ammal a life-interest in it. Another bequest was of a sum of money to form a trust fund, of which Sivakami was during her life-time the self-constituted trustee. The widow survived Venkataramana Aiyar, and she too made a will, and in it she declared that Venkataramana Aiyar had told her, before his death, that she might include the land in the trust already created. After her death in 1924, on the strength of the allegation in this will that the property was trust property, Venkat...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Ramaswami Iyengar, Official Receiver of Madura Vs. Chinnathambi K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad459; 140Ind.Cas.463
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided is, whether the order of the lower Court, refusing to annul Under Sections 53 and 54, Prov. Insol Act, the mortgage executed by the insolvents, is right or not. It was executed on 24th May 1923 in favour of one Ravuthar, the consideration being Rs. 6,500 of which Rupees 4,000 was to be retained by him for paying off certain debts of the insolvents, Rs. 1,611-2-8 represented the amount due to himself and the balance of Rupees 888-13-4 was paid to the insolvents in cash. The mortgage was assigned by the said Ravuthar on 17th September 1923 in favour of the respondent. The debtors were adjudged insolvents on a petition presented within three months of the original mortgage. I may observe that the respondent admits that the mortgage is enforceable only to the extent of Rs. 2,500, the sum of Rs. 4,000 retained in the hands of the Ravuthar not having been subsequently paid as originally intended.2. The first point to decide is whether the tra...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Veedu Abdul Majid Sahib Vs. Arunachala Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad84; 136Ind.Cas.305; (1931)61MLJ857
1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. He held a mortgage dated the 26th May, 1919, over the suit property which consists of two items. A mortgage of the same property had been executed in favour of the plaintiffs on 10th July, 1919. On 23rd November, 1925, the first item of the suit property was sold to the 3rd defendant in discharge of the mortgage over the two items. The 3rd defendant thus became the owner of the 1st item and as a result of his purchase the 2ad item was freed from his mortgage. When he purchased item No 1, the 3rd defendant did not know about the existence of the mortgage in plaintiffs' favour. The suit property belonged to the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs to enforce their mortgage over the two items. The appellant contended that his prior mortgage-right over the first item should be regarded as still alive and that the plaintiffs should redeem it before they could succeed. This contention was...
Tag this Judgment!Somanatha Swayi and ors. Vs. Karji Ananta Patnaik and ors
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad18
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants and mortgagees of property consisting of four items. The first item has-been subsequently sold to defendant 3, the contesting respondent in the case. Items 3 and 4 have come into the possession of the plaintiffs according to their own case. In the lower Court the plaintiffs sought to recover the mortgage amount which was calculated at Rs. 250 from item 1 alone. The lower Court gave a decree against items 1, 3 and 4 with a direction that items 3 and 4 will be proceeded against first.2. In second appeal Mr. Venkatachariar argues that the plaintiffs are entitled to get a decree against item 1 alone they having the right to exonerate the other items in the suit. It was held by a Full Bench in Perumal Pillai v. Bamanchettiar [1917] 40 Mad. 968 that a mortgagee voluntarily releasing from the suit a portion of the mortgaged property is not bound to abate a proportionate part of the debt and is entitled to recover the whole of the mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!Viswanatha Aiyar Vs. Chimmukutti Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ272
Reilly, J.1. The predecessor of defendant 5 in this case, the jenmi of the land concerned, granted a kanom to defendants 1 and 2. They granted a sub-mortgage of that kanom to defendants 3 and 4, who assigned their right to the plaintiff. After that, on the expiry of the term of the kanom, defendant 5 sued for redemption without making the plaintiff or his assignors, defendants 3 and 4, parties to the suit, obtained a preliminary decree for redemption and settled with the kanom-dars, defendants 1 and 2, by payment out of Court. The plaintiff has brought this suit to enforce his sub-mortgage by sale of the kanom right, which had been mortgaged to his assignors. The District Munsif gave him a personal decree against his mortgagors and a decree for the sale of their possessory right in the land concerned, whatever that might be. The plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge claiming a decree for sale of the kanom; but his appeal was dismissed. He then appealed to this Court, and the seco...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »