Chennai Court August 1932 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.
Tadepalli Sriramulu and ors. Vs. the Firm of Kothpara Sriramulu, Kothp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad55; 140Ind.Cas.324; (1932)63MLJ719
Jackson, J.1. This is a class of case which has given Courts considerable trouble. The present 1st defendant obtained a preliminary decree upon a mortgage against the father of the present plaintiffs. There then followed these applications for a final decree.Ex. A. Steps not taken. Dismissed.Ex. B. Dismissed for failure to pay batta.Ex. C. Dismissed.Ex. D. 29th September, 1919, ordered on 14th November, 1919.2. The plaintiffs have brought a suit to set aside the consequent sale on the plea that when the Court passed orders upon Ex. D, it had already dismissed the suit and was functus officio. The lower appellate Court has held that the Court's final decree was not made without jurisdiction and plaintiffs appeal.3. In this case it is a pure assumption that the suit was dismissed, and there is no reason to suppose that the Court really intended anything of the sort. In Lachmi Narain Marwari v. Balmakuud Marzuari where the Judge actually used the phrase 'The suit is dismissed for want of ...
R. Kandaswami Chettiar Vs. Municipal Council of Pollachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad260
Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore passed under Section 51, District Municipalities Act, on an application to him under the same section by the present petitioners. They were respectively the President and the Secretary of the Pollachi Town Bank, Limited, having been elected to these offices on 15th July 1931. They were also Councilors of the Municipal Council of Pollachi. The life of the council then in existence was, in pursuance of Section 177 of the Amending Act of 1930, extended by Government to 1st December 1931, some time previous to which the elections for the new council, which was to come into existence on the above date, took place. At that election which was governed by the District Municipalities Act as amended, the present petitioners, being still President and Secretary of the Bank, were re-elected members of the new council. No objection was apparently then taken. They entered on their offices and were functi...
(Panniyamkandi) Kelu Kutti Vs. Calicut Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad428
Burn, J.1. The facts have been clearly stated in the judgments of the lower Courts. There are findings by both Courts that the plaintiff-appellant has encroached upon the limits of a water-course. The only question for discussion here is whether the watercourse is a public drain. If it is, the plaintiff has no right to obstruct it without the permission of the Municipal Council, and the chairman was within his rights in removing the obstruction: Section 142, Madras District Municipalities Act. There is no definition in the Act of a 'public drain.' It is contended for the appellant that the only drains which can be called 'public drains' are those provided and maintained by the Municipal Council under Section 137. This is fallacious. Every drain provided and maintained by the Municipal Council must of course be a public drain, but it does not follow that a drain cannot be a public drain merely because it has not been provided, and is not maintained, by the Municipal Council. There were ...
K.N. Guruswami and ors. Vs. Muhammad Khan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad112; 140Ind.Cas.588; (1932)63MLJ761
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the effect of an ex parte judgment passed by a foreign Court against an absent foreigner. The facts may be briefly stated. The appellants are subjects of the Mysore State and they filed a suit in the District Court of Bangalore against three defendants, the last of whom is the respondent before us. The suit was based upon a promissory note alleged to have been executed by them and also upon a contract, which they were stated to have entered into. The 3rd defendant (the respondent) was a British subject and was residing at the time of the suit in the District of Coimbatore, where (the appellants allege, though this fact is denied) he was served with the summons in the suit. He, however, did not appear, but a judgment was passed by the Bangalore Court against him also. This foreign decree, the appellants sought to execute in the Lower Court, but the learned Judge refused their application under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure C...
In Re: Maromma and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad125
Burn, J.1. It is contended by Mr. T.M. Venugopal Mudaliar, for the appellants that the statement made an oath by the appellants under Section 164, Criminal P. C, were not 'in relation to a proceeding' in the Court of Session and that therefore the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to prefer complaints against the appellants. It is also contended that statements recorded by a Magistrate in the course of a police investigation under Section 164, Criminal P.C., are not evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Expl. (1893) 16 Mad 421, Section 193, I.P.C. In support of the latter contention Mr. T.M. Venugopal Mudaliar quotes the case of Emperor v. Purushottam Ishwar Amin AIR 1921 Bom. 3. In citing this case I think Mr. T.M. Venugopal Mudaliar has either not perused the report of it himself, or else he has hoped that I should be satisfied with a perusal of the headnote. For I find that Pratt, J., (vide pp. 858 and 859 of 45 Bom.) has expressly stated that, ...
In Re: Maromma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.756
Burn, J.1. It is contended by Mr. T.M. Venugopal Mudaliar, for the appellants that the statement made on oath by the appellants under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, were not 'in relation to a proceeding' in the Court of Session and that therefore the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to prefer complaints against the appellants. It is also contended that statements recorded by a Magistrate in the course of a Police investigation under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code are not evidence in a stage of a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Expl. (2) to Section 193, Indian Penal Code In support of the latter contention Mr. T.M. Venugopal Mudaliar quotes the case of Emperor v. Purushottam Ishwar Amin 60 Ind. Cas. 593 : 45 B. 834 : 23 Bom. L.R. 1 : 22 Cri.L.J. 241. In citing this case I think Mr. T.M Venugopal Mudaliar has either not perused the report of it himself, or else he has hoped that I should be satisfied with a perusal of the headnote. For I find that Pratt, ...
Venkata Reddi Vs. T.V. Dorasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad63; 140Ind.Cas.378; (1932)63MLJ722
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the appellant before us is the 4th defendant in O.S. No. 1 of 1926. The plaintiff obtained a decree in that suit for Rs. 4,214-0-4 towards peishkush and road cess. In O.S. No. 25-A of 1918, which was a suit for redemption of a mortgage, the defendant obtained a final decree for Rs. 6,908-14-4. This final decree is a decree directing the sale of the mortgaged property and if there is any deficiency it should be paid by the plaintiff. In the connected appeal No. 35 of 1931 we have held that that final decree should not have been amended by the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor and should remain as it was originally passed. The result is the mortgage decree is a decree for an amount which in the last resort may have to be paid personally by the plaintiff. In the petition against which this C.M.A. arises, E.A. No. 512 of 1928, the 4th defendant seeks to set off the money decree against him in O.S. No. 1 of 1926 against the mortgage decree obtained by him and to stop ...
Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupathi (Deaceased), ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad83; 140Ind.Cas.498; (1932)63MLJ792
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the application for execution is barred by limitation. The decree is dated 1st December, 1917. The application for execution was presented on 28th June, 1926, the date on which the first Court re-opened after the summer recess of 1926. The prior execution application was 'presented on 1st February, 1923. It is clear that the present application would be barred by limitation unless the facts relied upon by the decree-holder are sufficient to save limitation. The judgment-debtor was committed to jail on 28th February, 1923. This decree-holder has remitted by postal money orders to the Jail Superintendent subsistence allowances necessary for the detention of the judgment-debtor in prison. Those remittances had been made on 24th March, 1923, 23rd April, 1923, 23rd May, 1923 and 25th June, 1923. It is argued that the remittance made on 25th June, 1923, is sufficient to save limitation as being a step-in-aid of execution. If this pay...
Ponnu Chettiar Vs. Sambasiva Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad293; (1933)64MLJ682
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question as regards the effect of the appointment of a receiver in a suit to enforce a simple mortgage. The appellant obtained a money decree against one Ganapathia Pillai in O.S. No. 78 of 1923 (District Munsif's Court, Mayavaram) and in execution, of that decree attached certain properties. To enforce a mortgage executed by the aforesaid Ganapathia Pillai, the respondent filed O.S. No. 55 of 1924 (Mayavaram Sub-Court) and obtained an appointment of receiver over the mortgaged properties, which included those already attached. Thereupon, the appellant applied in the mortgage suit for leave to execute his decree against the receiver. Not only was that request complied with, but leave was also granted to him to implead the receiver as a party to the execution proceedings. Thereafter, in execution of the money decree, the attached properties were put up for sale and purchased by the decree-holder himself, that is, the appellant. The sale was in...
S. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Al. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad95; 140Ind.Cas.329
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by defendant 2 and arises out of a suit brought by plaintiff-respondent 1 for the recovery of Rs. 1,167 from defendants 1 and-2 alleged to be the balance of, rent and cesses payable by them for Faslis 1332 to 1336 under a registered lease deed dated 18th July 1922 (Ex. A). Plaintiff and defendants 3 to 6 are the owners of two Dharmasanam villages called Anjamadai and Kachan. These villages were enfranchised by the Inam Commissioner and comprise 130 pangus. The inams consisted of both warams at the time of the enfranchisement and the present claim by the plaintiff is based upon the lease deed, Ex. A. The main dispute between the plaintiff and defendant 2 is as regards the liability to pay the cesses in respect of the aforesaid inams. On the plaintiff's side, the contention is that the lessee under Ex. A was bound to pay the entire amount of the cesses payable in respect of the villages whereas the contention on behalf of defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »