Chennai Court January 1933 Judgments
Nachimuthu Chettiar Vs. Ramakkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad475; 147Ind.Cas.494
Walsh, J.1. The appellant is a mortgagee from a Hindu father of a joint family consisting of himself and his two minor sons. The father applied in I.P. No. 37 of 1923 of the District Court of Coimbatore to be adjudicated an insolvent. The application was on 21st March 1923. It was transferred on 26th March 1923 to the Official Receiver who was appointed interim receiver. The Official Receiver compounded with the appellant who agreed to relinquish his mortgage and have the properties sold free of encumbrance provided he was first satisfied out of the sale proceeds. The Official Receiver got him to reduce the interest also substantially, applied for permission to sell the property free of the mortgage and advertised it for sale for 26th April 1924. Then a suit was filed in the name of the minor sons for partition and an injunction was obtained restraining the Official Receiver from proceeding with the sale. The Official Receiver and the appellant were made parties to the suit. The minor ...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Subramania Ayyar Vs. Swamikannu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad413
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner was accused of an offence under Section 471, I.P.C., in a complaint presented by the respondent to the Subdivisional Magistrate, Chidambaram. The complaint was taken on file for offences under Sections 465 and 471, I.P.C., and transferred to the 2nd Class Magistrate of Vridhachalam for preliminary inquiry under Ch. 18, Criminal P.C. The Sub Magistrate recorded a sworn statement from the complainant and issued processes to the accused and witnesses, but before the inquiry could begin he was succeeded by another Magistrate, who heard preliminary arguments and held that the complaint was barred by Section 195, Criminal P.C., because there was no complaint by the District Munsif of Vridhachalam. The Magistrate then passed an order purporting to discharge the accused (the petitioner) under Section 209(2), Criminal P.C. In revision the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot acting under Section 436, Criminal P.C., set aside the order of discharge and directed th...
Tag this Judgment!Dibba Balesu Vs. Lagudu Chinna Sanyasayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad695; 145Ind.Cas.941; (1933)65MLJ383
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. Under Section 4(1) of the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act (I of 1917) any transfer of immovable property situated within the Agency Tracts by a member of a hill tribe shall be absolutely null and void unless made in favour of another member of a hill tribe, or with the previous consent in writing of the Agent or any other prescribed officer. Where a transfer of property is made in contravention of Sub-section (1), the Agent or any other prescribed officer may, on application by any one interested, decree ejectment against any person in possession of the property claiming under the transfer and may restore it to the transferor or his heirs [Section 4(2)]. An application under Section 4(2) for such ejectment was made before the Special Assistant Agent, Narasapatam, by the appellant. The Assistant Agent found that he was not a person interested and dismissed the application. He put in an appeal to the Agent, and the order was confirmed. This second appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Manjeri S. Krishna Aiyar Vs. the Secretary, Urban Bank, Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ367
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Burn, J., dismissing the appellant's petition for the issue by the High Court of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the trial of Suit No. 179 of 1932-33 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Calicut.2. The appellant who is a legal practitioner was and is a member of the Calicut Co-operative Bank, Ltd. He was a director of the Bank from November, 1919 to December, 1929 and then again from October, 1930 to January, 1932. He was also the legal adviser of the Bank from September, 1922 to December, 1929 and he was also the vakil of the Bank from July, 1922 to March, 1932. The Secretary of the Calicut Urban Bank, Ltd. filed a suit under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932) against the appellant claiming a sum of Rs. 6,017-7-1. That amount is made up as follows:Rs. A. P.(a) Out of pocket expenses charged by theAppell...
Tag this Judgment!Kalavacherla Bapiraju Vs. Ramacharandas Bavajee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ690
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 2nd plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code. Prior to the institution of the suit, the 1st plaintiff applied under the provisions of Act XIV of 1930 to the District Court to obtain orders from the Court under Sections 3 and 4 directing the trustee to furnish accounts and give the necessary information about the trust. The learned District Judge repeatedly gave time to the defendant to produce accounts, but ultimately the order of the Court was not complied with and under Section 6 he passed an order giving permission to institute a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code. After obtaining such permission the other two plaintiffs joined the 1st plaintiff and instituted this suit against the trustee. In the course of the trial, the 1st plaintiff at whose instance permission was obtained from the District Judge dropped out of the suit and later on the 3rd plaintiff also aband...
Tag this Judgment!Manjeri S. Krishna Ayyar Vs. the Secretary, Urban Bank Ltd., Calicut a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad682; 145Ind.Cas.438
Beasley, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Burn, J., dismissing the appellant's petition for the issue by the High Court of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the trial of Suit No. 179 of 1932-1933 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Calicut.2. The appellant who is a legal practitioner -was and is a member of the Calicut Cooperative Bank Ltd. He was a director of the bank from November, 1919, to December, 1929, and then again from October, 1930, to January, 1932. He was also the legal adviser of the bank from September, 1922, to December, 1929, and he was also the Vakil of the bank from July 1922, to March, 1932. The Secretary of the Calicut Urban Bank Ltd., tiled a suit under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932) against the appellant claiming a sum of Rs. 6,017-7-1.3. That amount is made up as follows: Rs. A. P.(a) Out of pocket expenses charged by the appellant ... 1,007 1 0...
Tag this Judgment!A. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Chinnappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad406; (1933)64MLJ637
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. In this case the only matter which has been argued before me in second appeal is that even though the application for arrest on 26th November, 1923, might have been out of time, the fact that the Court ordered notice on it renders the matter that it was in time res judicata. This notice is the only one attempted to be served on the respondent, the 1st defendant in the case. The return that was made on it is, '1st defendant is absent. It is learnt that he went to Salem and other places. The notice was fixed on the outer door'. It was not stated that this information was given to the process-server at the house of the 1st defendant nor who gave him the information. With regard to this, in the B Diary there is a note against 9--1--1924, 'N. S. A. Arrest by 29--1--1924'. I understand that 'N.S.A.' stands for 'Notice served: absent'. There was no declaration by the Court under Order 5, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, that the notice was duly served. That this is not a du...
Tag this Judgment!Koppula Kotayya Naidu and ors. Vs. Chitrapu Mahalakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad457; 145Ind.Cas.308; (1933)64MLJ719
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 1 to 3 (father and two sons) are the appellants. The suit property originally belonged to the 1st defendant and the 4th defendant had a mortgage over it. From the evidence it appears that a portion of it belonged to one Sitayya Naidu, another son of the 1st defendant, but no such distinction has been made in the suit and it is not necessary to refer to it any further. At a revenue sale on 8th May, 1918, the property was purchased by the 4th defendant for Rs. 762 in the name of his clerk. The case of the appellants is that this purchase by the 4th defendant was benami for themselves, the main object of the benami sale being to defeat an anticipated claim for partition from one Ranganayakulu Naidu, the son of the 1st defendant's brother. Though the property was sold, admittedly the appellants continued in possession; but according to the 4th defendant it was thenceforward as his tenants whereas the appellants contend that it was because the real title veste...
Tag this Judgment!ignatia Brito and ors. Vs. T.P. Rego and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad492; (1933)64MLJ650
Bardswell, J.1. The point to be decided is whether the document, Exhibit I, executed by John Joseph Brito on the 18th February, 1913, is to be taken as a will or as a deed of settlement. If it is a will then the appellants, who are his children, are his legal representatives, and their two-thirds share in his properties can be proceeded against in execution of decrees that have been obtained against him by the respondents. If, however, it is a deed of settlement, by which a present estate was conferred upon the appellants during their father's life-time, then the properties cannot so be proceeded against in execution.2. The Trial Court held that Exhibit I was a deed of settlement, but on appeal the District Judge of South Kanara held that it was a will, and this finding has been upheld by Curgenven, J., on second appeal. In their view the main purpose for which the document was executed by J. J. Brito was to make arrangements for the disposal of his property after his death. It is poin...
Tag this Judgment!(Raja Damara Kumara) Chellamma Rao Bahadur and anr. Vs. Doctor Bhogara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad436
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for specific performance to convey in accordance with the terms of a draft, filed with the plaint, executed to her by defendant 1 as trustee of defendant 2 and the members of his family. The property to be conveyed was a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1218 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor, which was passed on an assignment executed in favour of defendant 2 by one Rani Lakshmikantamma of certain arrears of maintenance due to her. The draft also agreed to transfer a charge on a village called Bharanisankarapuram as an indemnity. There was an alternative prayer that, if specific performance was not decreed, the purchase money, viz. Rs. 32,000, may be refunded and for a charge on the decree debt and on certain properties in that connexion. A preliminary issue as to want of jurisdiction was raised by defendant 2 and it was found in his favour by the learned Subordinate Judge. An appeal has been preferred to this Cou...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »