Chennai Court August 1931 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.
Alwar Aiyangar Vs. Subramania Dikshathar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad169; 136Ind.Cas.337; (1931)61MLJ863
Curgenven, J.1. The question which arises in this case is whether a Court attaching a debt either before judgment or in execution can inquire into the truth or the existence of the debt. The attachment in the present instance was made before judgment on an application filed on the same day as the plaint. But I cannot find that it makes any difference whether such an attachment was made before judgment or in execution of the decree and it appears to me that Rules 7 and 8 of Order 38, Civil Procedure Code, show that the Court has the same powers in the one case as in the other. There is no authority arising in this Court upon this point. The Full Bench decision in Chidambara Patter v. Raniasamy Patter I.L.R. (1903) 27 M. 67 : 13 M.L.J. 467 related to a disputed title to a debt, which it was held could be investigated under the old section of the Code now corresponding to Order 21, Rule 58. This decision does not deal with the question of investigating the actual existence of the debt its...
K. Tulsiram Vs. Chairman, Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad90
1. The appellant in this case was Chairman of the Madura Municipality from 11th June 1921 till 25th June 1923, Ha was succeeded by Hajee B. Syed Shamsuddin Bahadur, whose term of office lasted till 1st July 1923, when he, in his turn, was succeeded by the defendant in the suit Mr. E. S. Naidu. The rules framed under the District Municipalities Act provide for periodical auditing of Municipal accounts and the Government have prescribed that there shall be an audit every half-year. During the appellant's term of office such audits were regularly made. In 1924, when Mr. R.S. Naidu was Chairman, it was discovered that extensive frauds had been going on in the street-lighting department of the Municipality and a supplemental audit was made of the accounts of the period from 1st April 1921 till 18th January 1924. It was ascertained that owing to the negligence of successive Chairmen a large sum of money had been misappropriated and the auditor surcharged the appellant, his immediate predeces...
Peruri Appalaraju Vs. Peruri Krishnamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad182
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be stated as follows: Defendant 1 is the natural son of the plaintiff, but adopted by his cousin. Defendant 1 obtained a decree on an unregistered mortgage bond which therefore operated as a mere money bond for a sum of Rs. 1,600 which now amounts to Rs. 3,000 in O. S. No. 141 of 1923. He applied for attachment of certain properties of defendants 2, 3 and 4 situated at Thetagunta. The attachment was ordered on 21st September 1927. But on 20th September, the preceding day, the properties whose attachment was sought were sold by Ex. A to the plaintiff for Rs. 9,000, The consideration for the sale deed consisted of (1) a sum of Rs. 4,931-1-9 due to the vendee on two mortgage documents dated 13th March 1922 and 8th December 1923, Exs. D and E-1; (2) Rs. 103-3-4 due on a promissory note to the vendee; (3) Rs. 3,800 intended for discharging (a) the debt due to the Rani of Tuni under a mortgage dated 5t...
Sivasami Odayar Vs. C.R. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad95; 136Ind.Cas.338; (1932)62MLJ68
1. The appellant in this case is a person who took a lease of an insolvent's land from an Official Receiver. The respondent purchased the land in execution of a decree passed against the insolvent and his sons and he sued to recover the value of the crops removed from it by the appellant. The facts and dates are these. The land was attached in execution and proclaimed for sale, the sale being fixed for 30th September, 1920. On 23rd the insolvent applied to be adjudicated and on 28th the Official Receiver was appointed interim receiver. Two days later he moved the Court under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to adjourn the sale. He did not, in terms, ask for possession of the land to be delivered to him, but, as he wanted the sale to be adjourned so that he himself might sell, such a request on his part may be implied. The Court refused the adjournment and the sale was conducted. On 23rd October the Receiver asked the Court not to confirm the sale, but his prayer was again re...
Bharat Das Bavaji Vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad603
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff seeks to have revised an order of the District Judge of Ganjam refusing to allow him to amend his plaint. He is the Mahant of two mutts in that District, and he sued to set aside a scheme framed for them by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The ground taken in the plaint is that there has been no such mismanagement as would justify the Board, Under Section 63, Hindu Religious Endowments Act, in framing a scheme. He now, by the amendment, seeks to add another reason why the Board is precluded from interfering with his institutions. The endowments of the mutts, he says, are appropriated to uses partly of a religious and partly of a secular character, and Section 77 of the Act has the effect that until the Board has determined what portion shall be allocated to religious uses, no part of the endowment is a 'religious endowment' amenable to the provisions of the Act. 'Without making such an allocation therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to frame a sche...
Mari Naganna, Minor and anr. Vs. Peruri Krishnamurthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad139; (1931)61MLJ675
Vepa Ramesam, Kt. Officiating C.J.1. The facts out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises are as follow:2. The suit was filed on an unregistered bond, dated 26th February, 1915. The bond was taken in favour of a minor by his guardian. The minor attained majority on 12th May, 1920 and computing three years provided under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, the suit ought to have been filed on or within the 12th May, 1923. But on that date the District Munsif's Court of Peddapur was closed and so the suit was filed on the re-opening day, i.e., 4th June, 1923. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was in time, and on second appeal our brother Reilly, J., agreed with the Subordinate Judge's view. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of Reilly, J. The question is whether Section 4 of the Limitation Act can be utilised after getting an extension by reason of the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act.3. I may at once observe that there is no direct decision on ...
(Sri Sri Sri Izattasar Kandukuri) Balasuryaprasada Rao Pantulu Garu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad822
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant, This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of professional tax of a sum of Rs. 119-12-0 together with interest alleged to have been collected from him wrongfully by the defendant, the Taluk Board of Chicacole represented by its President. The Board assessed the appellant to a professional tax on the ground that he was carrying on money-lending business as his profession. His case is that he is not carrying on the profession of a money-lender and that his accounts, if inspected, would prove his plea; but that the President of the Board refused to look into them. Without examining the merits of his contention, the lower Courts dismissed the suit, as barred by Section 228, Local Boards Act 14 of 1920. Clause (2) of this section expressly bars a suitto recover any sum of money collected under authority of this Act....provided that the provisions of this Act have been in substance and effect compli...
(Rachakonda) Narayanamurti Vs. Darmana Ramalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad187; 145Ind.Cas.599
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover from defendant 1 and his son defendant 2 Rs. 3,740 due on a promissory note executed by them in favour of defendant 3. Defendants endorsed the note in favour of the plaintiff who is his son-in-law. The contesting defendants pleaded want of consideration for the promissory note and also for the transfer in favour of the plaintiff. The two issues in the case were: (1) Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration; and (2) 'Whether the endorsement of transfer is genuine and supported by consideration. On these issues both the Courts found that the consideration for the suit note was, as alleged by the plaintiff, the withdrawal of the sale deed, Ex. E, from registration and that the transfer of the suit promissory note was not for consideration. The learned Subordinate Judge on these findings gave a decree to the plaintiff treating him as a transferee for collection. ...
Azhagaperumal Pillai Vs. Rasa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad310; (1932)62MLJ399
1. Mr. Rule V. Ramachandra Aiyar for the plaintiffs has supported the decision of the learned Judge by contending that in the proceedings under the Survey and Boundaries Act in 1923, there was a finding that plaintiff 2 was then in possession of the land. Plaintiff 2 in his petition to the Survey authorities alleged that his neighbour (apparently defendant 1 or defendant 6) had trespassed on the land. Defendants 1 and 6 contended that they and: their predecessors had been in possession for forty years. The Head Surveyor decided in favour of plaintiff 2 and marked out the land accordingly but recorded no finding as to possession at the time of the proceedings. On appeal the Sub-Assistant Director of Survey after examining the settlement records said: 'The contention of the appellants is not true and does not deserve any consideration' and dismissed the appeal. We cannot find that his decision rested on any finding that defendants 1 and 6 were not then in possession, or had not been in p...
Chellam Ayyar Vs. G. Subramania Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad414; 137Ind.Cas.792
Curgen Ven, J.1. I think that the order of the learned District Munsif restoring the suit may be sustained but upon somewhat different grounds. The lower Court has experienced difficulty in reconciling the decisions of the Full Bench in Pichamma v. Sreeramulu [1918] 41 Mad. 286, and of Odgers, J., in Viswanatha Asari v. Sami Asari A.I.R.1924 Mad.43, but they are in truth not in conflict. The principle with which each is compatible is that in ordinary circumstances if a party is represented by a pleader, that is an appearance for the purpose of Order 9 and Order 17, Civil P. C. The party was, it is true, represented by a pleader in the present case. But there was a special circumstance which will be apparent from the B. Diary and the judgment in the suit. It appears that on 6th and 7th December 1929 two witnesses for the plaintiff were examined and the plaintiff himself was directed to appear in person on the 10th. On that day however he was absent though his vakil was present, and a fu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »