Chennai Court October 1932 Judgments
Mottai Goundan Vs. P.S. Ramaswami Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad290
Walsh, J.1. The petitioner in this matter is defendant 1 in O.S. No. 216 of 1929 on the file of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam. The suit was for a declaration that certain alienations made by defendant 1 are not binding on plaintiff 2 and on her share in the suit properties, on the ground that the suit properties are the separate properties of plaintiff 2's husband. The first issue raised waswhether defendant 1 was estopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs to the suit properties and from contending that they are the joint properties by reason of the decree in O.S. No 3 of 1910 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tirupur.2. The learned District Munsif first gave a finding in defendant l's favour on this point. Afterwards an application was made to him to review his order which lie did and gave a finding in plaintiff's favour on the point. An appeal was taken to the District Judge who remarked that the suit was still in its trial stage and that the correctness of ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasalu Naidu Vs. Ramakrishna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad353a
Bardswell, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree and judgment of Reilly, J., in S.A. No. 1223 of 1927. The suit was originally filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Arni by two plaintiffs who are now the respondents before us. Their case was that on 20th December 1916 they and the defendant, who is now the appellant, entered into an oral agreement that they should invest capital in equal shares and carry on at Arni a business in groundnuts, paddy and rice on certain terms, under the name and style of Sri R.A. Subbarayulu Naidu Co. They carried on business accordingly at Arni from 20th December 1916 till August-September 1918. Then they stopped the mandi business at Arni as they found it unprofitable; but, after an interval, they 'decided to continue the said company' and carry on business instead at their own village, Vallam, by buying groundnuts and stocking them. This business at Vallam, in which they were assisted by sub-partners, was carried on from 17th November 1919 till ...
Tag this Judgment!His Holiness Lakshmindra Tirta Swamiyar Vs. the President of the Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad306; (1933)65MLJ364
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. Venkataramana Rao has raised an objection in limine that the appeal is incompetent. The material words of Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act are:The Court shall, on the application of the President of the Board or Committee, recover the amount as if a decree had been passed for the amount by the Court against the religious endowment concerned.2. Mr. Venkataramana Rao contends that the effect of the section is merely to prescribe the mode of execution and that only such provisions as relate to the method of procedure become by force of this section applicable. We see no reason for adopting this very narrow construction. When the duty to execute an order of an outside body is entrusted to a judicial tribunal, it is difficult to conceive that its function is merely to perform an executive act; and, when the words employed are wide enough to include the exercise of judicial powers, there is less reason to hold that the Court does not possess ...
Tag this Judgment!Saphar Sitapati Rao Vs. Chittaluri Sitabayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad662; 145Ind.Cas.993; (1933)65MLJ387
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. In this case we may omit from consideration all the proceedings connected with stay of execution under Order 41, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. The High Court granted stay of execution on the defendant depositing Rs. 1,300. She failed to do so in time. When the defendant did deposit it, plaintiff attached it as money due under the decree and the whole of the subsequent proceedings show that it was treated, as indeed it was bound to be, as money paid in execution of the decree. The defendant asked the Subordinate judge in E. A. No. 726 of 1931 to take security for this sum of Rs. 1,300 before handing it over to the plaintiff. The order begins:This is a petition asking the Court to take security from the respondent for Rs. 1,300 deposited in Court in part satisfaction of the decree amount.2. It is clear therefore that this was an application under Order 41, Rule 6, and it was entirely discretionary on the part of the Court to grant or refuse it. The reason alleged for...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.S. Anantanarayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ351
ORDERBardswell, J.1. This is a petition put in not by, but on behalf of, two persons, who have been convicted by the First Class Joint Magistrate of Chingleput of offence punishable under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908 and Section 4 of Ordinance V of 1932. The point taken in this petition is that they have in fact being convicted only of one offence, that of picketing, which can fall equally under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and under Section 4 of the Ordinance and that, therefore, the Joint Magistrate in awarding them separate sentences for the conviction under each count has acted illegally with reference to Section 71, Indian Penal Code.2. Under Section 17(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act a person can be punished if he is a member of an unlawful association, or for in any way assisting in the operation of any such association. By Section 4 of Ordinance V of 1932, which is known as the Ordinance for the Prevention of Molestation and Pick...
Tag this Judgment!T.B. Kesava Reddiar Vs. Tahsildar of Polur and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad319
ORDERBurn, J.1. The prayer is that this Court:should be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to the Election Officer... and to direct the said officer to include my name in the list of nominated candidates and then to proceed to hold the election....2. This is obviously a prayer for a direction which would be suitable in a writ of mandamus, but is quite inappropriate in a writ of certiorari. This Court has no power to issue a writ of mandamus. (Section 50, Specific Relief Act). The petition must therefore be dismissed. Moreover, the relief sought is only nominally against the Election Officer; it is in reality against the Government who by their Order in G.O. No. 3810 L and M Mis., dated 24th September 1932, cancelled the order of the Election Officer. Polur, accepting the nomination papers of the petitioner, and further directed under Rule 35(1) of the Rules for the election of members of Local Boards, that the petitioner's name be excluded from the list of valid nominations and ball...
Tag this Judgment!Mariappan and anr. Vs. Nalla Sevugan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad298
Walsh, J.1. In this case two suits were filed on two promissory notes executed by the father of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant's father put in a written statement alleging want of consideration. Issues were framed on 1st February 1930. Defendant 1 appears to have died soon after and his minor sons were added as legal representatives. They filed an additional written statement and additional issues were framed on 15th April 1930. There were a number of adjournments and there was an ex parte decree on 25th October 1930. This ex parte decree was set aside on 15th October 1931 by the District Court (C.M.A. No. 18 of 1931). The trial was then adjourned to 27th November 1931 and on that day the present petitioners, who were defendants 2 and 3 put in an application for issuing certain interrogatories to the plaintiff. On this the Court passed the following order:I think that on a simple suit on a promissory note, the interrogatories sought to be exhibited are irrelev...
Tag this Judgment!Navamani Nadar and anr. Vs. Vedamanicka Nadar (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad424; (1933)64MLJ526
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question in this petition is one of limitation. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, of Tuticorin on the ground that it was barred under Article 111 of the Limitation Act as one for unpaid purchase money personally from the purchaser brought more than 3 years after the date of the sale. The facts are as follows. The plaintiff's father sold to the defendant on 28th April, 1919, for Rs. 500 a portion of the property which had been mortgaged by the vendor to a third party prior to the sale. The consideration of Rs. 500 was made up as follows: 'Rs. 312-0-0 being the amount reserved with you (purchaser) in order that you (purchaser) may redeem the hypothecation executed by me; Rs. 88-0-0 received in cash and Rs. 100-0-0 to be paid before the Registrar, total Rs. 500.' The purchaser paid Rs. 188 and took possession of the property. He did not pay the amount of the hypothecation to the third party who therefore brought a suit in 1924 impleading ...
Tag this Judgment!Coimbatore Sri Venkatachalapathi Nidhi, Ltd. and ors. Vs. G.K. Nanjapp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad299; (1933)64MLJ117
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by him for the recovery of Rs. 5,000 with interest on 5 Hundis, Exs. A to A-4. A decree has been given in his favour for the principal amount. The learned Judge having refused to award him interest on the principal amount, in this appeal the plaintiff claims that he is entitled to interest.2. The suit was instituted under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code under the special rules relating to summary procedure on negotiable instruments. Under Rule 2(2)(a) of this order the plaintiff is entitled to get interest on the amount claimed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79 or Section 80, as the case may be, of the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 up to the date of the institution of the suit, or for the sum mentioned in the summons, whichever is less, and for interest up to the date of the decree at the same rate or at such other rate as the Court thinks fit. Since there...
Tag this Judgment!Azhagappa Chetti, Minor, by Mother and Guardian Oonnamalai Ammal Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1932
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.1242; (1933)64MLJ629
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This appeal arises out of a certain execution proceeding in which the plaintiff in O.S. No. 31 of 1919 seeks to execute a part of a compromise decree passed in that case. There are two related families which for the purpose of this case we may call the S. A. and the S. N. families. These families had endowed certain charities. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 31 of 1919 belongs to the S. A. family and he brought a suit against the S. N. family for reliefs which will be detailed later. The parties compromised the suit by an agreement, reduced to writing on the 20th April, 1921. A decree in terms of the compromise was granted on the 7th September, 1921. The plaintiff put in an execution petition, Ex. A, on the 2nd March, 1925, in which he asked for the arrest of the 1st defendant and for delivery of documents as per terms of the decree. It is stated in the remarks at the end of the petition that the petition is not barred by limitation as the suit was one in respect of a sc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »