Chennai Court September 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.
Gurusamy Goundan Vs. Sivanmalai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad157; 140Ind.Cas.872
1. Three persons Sivamalai, Chidambara and Amarapathi Goundan obtained a mortgage decree against one Ammani Animal. She sold lands to Palayakottai Pattakarar, and part of the purchase price was paid by him in satisfaction of the decree. Sivanmalai and Chidambara were satisfied, and state in their affidavit that nothing more was due. The third decree-holder Amarapathi however assigned his right to one Gurusarni Goundan and he applied to execute the decree by sale of the hypothecs after recognising his assignment.2. The Subordinate Judge has found these facts to be true, and we fee no reason not to accept his finding. As he says, Amarapathi Goundan got a final decree fraudulently behind the back of the judgment debtor and other decree-holders. Accordingly he dismissed the petition and Gurusami Goundan appeals.3. The appellant contends that Ammani Animal has no right to plead against his application an uncertified adjustment. We entirely agree. It makes no difference that Gurusami Goundan...
The Official Liquidator of the Bellary Electric Supply Company, Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad320; (1933)64MLJ130
Mockett, J.1. The relevant facts in this appeal are that the Respondent's firm purchased 110 shares in the Bellary Electric Supply Co., Ltd., at some time previous to October 14, f925 and that on that date on behalf of his firm the Respondent deposited Rs. 1,400 with the company in respect of 140 more shares. The application for the 140 shares Ex. 1, dated October 14, 1925, contains the words 'I request you to allot me' 140 shares. No share certificate was admittedly issued in respect of the 140 shares nor was a letter of allotment sent. The company went into liquidation on a date subsequent to October 14, 1925, and the Respondent now calls upon the Official Liquidator to refund the Rs. 1,400 because no allotment of shares had been made to him. The Official Liquidator contends that there was such an allotment. The learned District Judge found after an elaborate examination of the facts and the documents that there was no allotment. The short point is: was there an allotment The Respond...
P.S.S. Meyappa Chettiar Vs. Nagammai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad67
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioner was a party to the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., the dispute being one as to the possession of a house. The Sub-divisional Magistrate found that possession was not established by either party and on 27th February 1930, passed an order attaching the house until the right to possession of it by one party or the other was determined by a civil Court. This order was confirmed by the High Court in revision on 12th December 1930. The applicant for revision was the present petitioner. On 30th June 1932 the receiver who had been appointed in accordance with Clause 2, Section 146, Criminal P.C., asked for permission to lease the house and on the following day he leased it to the petitioner. On its becoming known to the Joint Magistrate that the lease had been given to one of the disputing parties he removed the receiver from his appointment and set aside the lease. Against the order cancelling the lease the petitioner has come up on revision.2...
Katamreddi Ramireddi Vs. (Paderala) Sreeramulu Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad120; 140Ind.Cas.826
Pandalai, J.1. This petition arises out of an order passed under Section 78, Hindu Religious Endowments Act 2 of 1927 by the learned District Judge of Nellore. The petitioners before him were the non-hereditary trustees of the temple of Sri Kothandaramaswami at Kovur which is under the superintendence of the District Temple Committee, Nellore. They were holding office when the Act came into force, and are therefore persons who must under Section 51(4) of the Act be deemed to have been appointed under it on the date the Act came into force. The petition was directed against persons holding certain lands of the temple under two leases executed by members of the archaka family for one-half of the lands each. One lease was for 15 years from 20th October 1919, and the other was for 11 years from 22nd March 1919, and the rent reserved was 10 rooms of grain per acre per year. The trustees stated that the archakas had no authority to lease the temple lands as the lands were given to them for e...
P.S.S. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Nagamai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.281
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioner was a party to the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, the dispute being one as to the possession of a house. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that possession was not established by either party and, on 27th February, 1930, passed an order attaching the house until the right to possession of it by one party or the other was determined by a civil Court. This order was confirmed by the High Court in revision on 12th December, 1930. The applicant for revision was the present petitioner. On 30th June 1932, the Receiver who had been appointed in accordance with Clause 2 of s, 146, Criminal Procedure Code, asked for permission to lease the house and on the following day he leased it to the petitioner. On its becoming known to the Joint Magistrate that the lease had been given to one of the disputing parties he removed the Receiver from his appointment and set aside the lease. Against the order cancelling the lease the petitioner has ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1932
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ252
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The view of the learned District Munsif is perfectly right. The question that has been raised may be stated in this form. If two sums of Rs. 600 and 400 respectively are claimed in a suit on the basis of two promissory notes, what is the Court-fee payable?2. Section 17 provides expressly that it is not on the aggregate sum that the fee is to be paid, but on the several sums which go to make up that aggregate. Under that section the test is, what is the amount that would be payable had separate plaints been filed for each of the several distinct claims, all of which the suit embraces? The claim in regard to Rs. 600 is governed by Article 1 of Schedule I, but the other claim in regard to Rs. 400 comes, as the District Munsif rightly points out disagreeing with the Court-fee Examiner, within Article 2 and not Article 1.3. Section 6 is controlled by Section 17, which is the section applicable to the facts of the present case.4. The order of the learned District Munsi...
Secretary of State Vs. N.M.R. Ayyasami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad178
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The view of the learned District Munsif is perfectly right. The question that has been raised may be stated in this form. If two sums of Rs. 600 and Rs. 400 respectively are claimed in a suit on the basis of two promissory notes, what is the court-fee payable? Section 17 provides expressly that it is not on the aggregate sum that the fee is to be paid but on the several sums which go to make up that aggregate. Under that section the test is what is the amount that would be payable had separate plaints been filed for each of the several distinct claims, all of which the suit embraces? The claim in regard to Rs. 600 is governed by Article 1 Sch. 1, but the other claim in regard to Rs. 400 comes, as the District Munsif rightly points out disagreeing with the court-fee examiner, within Article 2 and not Article 1. Section 6 is controlled by Section 17, which is the section applicable to the facts of the present case. The order of the learned District Munsif is right,...
E. Chathukutty Vs. E. Raman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad674; 147Ind.Cas.586
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question in this case is whether the payment made by defendant 27 would save the decree from becoming barred by limitation against the other defendants.2. The previous application for execution was made on 22nd August 1922. The present application was made on 3rd September 1925. Obviously the application is barred by limitation. But reliance is placed on the payment of Rs. 50 made by defendant 27 towards costs in October 1922. The question is whether this payment would operate to save the application from becoming barred by limitation. At the outset I may mention that there was no application filed to certify this payment of Rs. 50 by the decree-holder. There is a decision of this Court which is on all fours with the present case: see Narayana Nair v. Kunhi Raman Nair : AIR1925Mad131 . There it was held that mere payment is not a step-in-aid of execution and it is only the petition put in to certify such payment that can constitute a step-in-aid of execution suc...
S.R.M.M. Seetharaman Chettiar Vs. A.R.M.N. Chidambaram Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad166; (1932)63MLJ941
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Before stating the point of law raised, it is necessary that I should set out briefly the facts which have given rise to these appeals. The decree that is under execution is the one passed in O.S. No. 39 of 1924. The plaintiff in that suit (the appellant) attached before judgment the immoveable property in question. Having obtained a decree in his suit, he has filed E.P. No. 39 of 1927 for the purpose pf bringing the attached property to sale. In the meantime, but subsequent to the attachment before judgment, one Meyappan Ambalam filed O.S. No. 498 of 1924 against the same judgment-debtor and in execution of the decree he obtained, he brought the same property to sale, purchased it in court-auction and conveyed it to the respondent. As such purchaser, he is interested in resisting E. P. No. 39 of 1927 filed by the appellant. He first sought to assert his right by filing a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 55, Civil Procedure Code. But that petition was summaril...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad430; (1933)64MLJ24
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Government Pleader has raised three points.2. The first question is the only one dealt with by the Lower Court in its judgment, and we are satisfied that its decision is correct. For the purpose of ascertaining the court-fee payable, one must have regard to the allegations in the plaint and it is not the function of the Court to ask itself whether those allegations are true or probable. The learned Judge points out that the plaintiff has asserted that there has been a division in status and the court-fee has been paid on the basis of that assertion under Article 17-B of Seheudle II of the Court Fees Act. We agree with the view that the proper court-fee has been paid.3. Point 2.--In the plaint it is alleged that the 6th defendant obtained a decree inter alia against the plaintiff on the basis of a mortgage executed by the plaintiff's father, and the plaintiff prays for a declaration that that decree is not binding on his share of the property. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »