Chennai Court January 1933 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.
Appaji Reddiar Vs. Thailammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad417; (1933)64MLJ493
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Jackson, J. The question raised here is whether that order which was one ordering the respondent in this appeal to be brought on the record as the legal representative of the deceased original appellant is an appealable order or not. In my view, it is not. Applying the test applied by Sir Arnold White, C.J., in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa Chettiar (1910) Mad. 1 : 21 M.L.J. 1 this is certainly not an appealable order. That test has so often been referred to and I do not propose to re-state it here. I may however summarise my reason's for saying that this is an order which is not appealable. An order to be appealable must of course be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. In my view, this is not a judgment which finally settles the rights of parties but has the effect of allowing litigation which is proceeding further to proceed to a final adjudication. The facts of the case...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad618; (1933)65MLJ186
Bardswell, J.1. The appellant is the Secretary of State. The respondent was the karnam of a village in the Kistna District. He was dismissed on 4th October, 1921, by the Revenue Divisional Officer of Ellore for having got appointed as talayari, a young boy, whom he made use of as his own servant. On appeal the District Collector, on 2nd December, 1921, modified his punishment to one of suspension for a year. He then, very ill-advisedly, presented a second appeal to the Board of Revenue. He had, in fact, no right of appeal as under the proviso to Section 23(1) of Madras Act III of 1895 there can be a second appeal to the Board, on a matter of punishment, only in the case of a dismissal of a Village Officer. None the less the appeal was entertained by the Board which, apparently without hearing the present respondent, set aside the Collector's order of suspension and restored the original order of dismissal. The respondent then filed O.S. No. 699 of 1922 in the Court of the District Muns...
Bappu Alias M.P. Kader Batcha Sahib Vs. Dhurvas M. Venkatachalapathi A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad227; (1933)64MLJ606
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The 3rd defendant has preferred this appeal against the mortgage decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Madura in a suit brought by plaintiffs 1 to 3 (now respondents 1 to 3). These plaintiffs are members of an undivided Hindu family carring on money-lending business under the name and style of Dhurvas M. Venkatachalapathi Ayyar, Lakshmana Ayyar & Sons. Their ancestors were carrying on the same business which is continued by the plaintiff's guardians in the same way. The suit was originally instituted in the name of that firm as represented by the present 1st plaintiff as one of its partners. Objection was taken by the 3rd defendant on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in the name of the firm, but it should have been filed by all the three plaintiffs in whose favour the assignment of the suit mortgage was effected under Ex. B. Later on, the present plaintiffs 2 and 3 were added as supplemental plaintiffs on 17th August, 1026. It was contended by the...
M. Paramasivan Pillai Vs. A.V.R.M.S.P.S. Ramasami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad570; 145Ind.Cas.449; (1933)65MLJ222
Ramesam, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of our brother Pandalai, J., in C.M.A. No. 375 of 1931. When the appeal came on for admission before our brothers Reilly and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ., while admitting it they directed it to be posted before a Bench of three Judges on the ground that the appeal raised a very important question on which conflicting views were expressed.2. The facts of the case are as follows. The 1st defendant executed a deed of mortgage in favour of one Krishna Pillai on 30th May, 1924, for Rs. 20,000. The present 1st plaintiff is his brother, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and the 7th defendant are his nephews and the 4th plaintiff is his grand-nephew. Krishna Pillai died and in the family arrangement entered into after his death the mortgage document fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the 7th defendant. The 2nd defendant is the undivided brother of the 1st defendant. The property that was originally mortgaged was the othi right in the suit ...
N.M. Kadir Meera Saheb Taraganar Vs. N.M. Pir Mahomed Taraganar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad523; (1933)64MLJ732
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. One Pir Mahomed Taraganar executed a power-of-attorney in favour of one N. K. Mahomed Moideen Taraganar to conduct certain suits for him and realize the money. As the latter had advanced him money, and moneys realized by the agent were made a sort of charge for payment of the debt, and the power-of-attorney was not to be cancelled,, until the dues had been settled, the agent brought suits on the two mortgage deeds on behalf of the principal and, obtained decrees. Pending proceedings for sale of the mortgaged properties, the decree-holder put in applications stating that the decree amounts had been paid in full and satisfaction might be entered. His applications to enter up satisfaction were put in on 18th March, 1930. On 27th March, 1930, the agent assigned the decrees to one Kadir Meera Saheb, the appellant in these proceedings. The appellant put in an application under Order 21, Rule 16 to permit him, after recognizing his assignments, to oppose the applications ...
Bayya Naiko and ors. Vs. Desetti Krupa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad325
Walsh, J.1. This appeal concerns a question of limitation. The preliminary decree in the mortgage suit was passed on 19th April 1911. The final decree was made on 24th April 1914. E.P. No. 931 of 1922 was admittedly put in on 8th August 1922 within time. This execution petition reached a certain stage when sale had been applied for and fresh schedule and affidavit were filed. The order on 3rd March 1923 was 'for settlement of proclamation 7th March 1923.' The next order was 'Proclaim and sell on 18th June 1923. Final hearing on 25th June 1923.' This order was dated 7th March 1923. Meanwhile an appeal had been filed as regards defendant and an order staying execution had been passed, which was dated 6th March 1923, by the District Court of Ganjam and received on 9th March 1923. On this date when the stay order was received the order is 'call on 28th instant.' On 28th March 1923 the entry is 'No final order received from District Court. Await 16th April.' The last order is on 16th April ...
Nalabolu Ramireddi Vs. Thunga Chinna Venku Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad510
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In Order 8. No. 471 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif of Kavali, defendant 1 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14, Order 11, Rule 15 and Section 151, Civil P. C, for directing the plaintiff to produce in Court the documents as per list, or give inspection of the same to defendant 1 alleging thatit was not possible for defendant 1 to file his written statement without inspecting those documents.2. The matter was contested. The learned District Munsif, after hearing the pleaders, of the parties, disposed of that application in these words: 'The petition is struck off.' In connexion with execution applications, this phrase 'struck off was once a very favourite phrase which often found acceptance with Courts, with the result that a lot of difficulties arose in subsequent proceedings in execution in construing what exactly was meant by the phrase' struck off 'in such orders. It is not necessary to refer to the legal history of the expression struck ...
Thavva Rangasayi and ors. Vs. Thavva Nagarathnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad890; (1933)65MLJ630
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this revision petition arises are as follows: - O.S. No. 36 of 1930 was filed for partition in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ellore on behalf of an infant Plaintiff by his mother as next friend. The 1st Defendant is an uncle of the Plaintiff; the 2nd Defendant is his son and the 3rd Defendant is the Plaintiff's half-brother. The Plaintiff, his deceased father and the Defendants were members of a joint-family. The Plaintiff's father died on the 16th May, 1929, and the suit was instituted on the 29th October, 1929, on the allegation that the Defendants were misappropriating the Plaintiff's share in the family properties and that they refused to deliver the Plaintiff's share though demanded and turned him and his mother out of the family house in September, 1929. While the suit was pending the Plaintiff died on the 21st March, 1931. His mother then applied to be brought on record as legal representative. The Subordinate Judge passed an order directi...
Jujishti Panda Vs. Lakshmana Dola Behara and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad435
Beasley, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Wallace, J. in second appeal. At that stage for the first time it was contended that the suit was barred by Section 47, Civil P.C. It was objected that plea ought not to be allowed to be raised at that stage, but Wallace, J., held that it was a matter of law affecting the validity of the suit and that it was a point of jurisdiction that had to be decided and he accordingly allowed that plea to be raised. In the original mortgage suit defendants 2 to 4 were parties and the plaintiff's claim against them was on the footing of their being in possession of the suit property. They raised the defence setting up title in themselves adversely both to the mortgagors and the mortgagee. Thereupon the plaintiff exonerated them and gave up the suit against them and having done this he proceeded to enter into a compromise with the mortgagors. All these facts are set out in para. 10 of the learned District Munsif's judgment. The decre...
M.N. Nagendran Chettiar Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad583; (1933)65MLJ108
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be stated as follows. The respondent Lakshmi Animal obtained a deed of maintenance from her deceased husband's brothers in 1918, under which a house was charged with the payment of the maintenance to her. The owners of the house also executed a second mortgage of it in 1922. As the maintenance was not paid up to the year 1927, Lakshmi Animal filed a suit, O.S. No. 454 of 1927, without making the second mortgagee a party and obtained a decree. In execution of the decree she was appointed receiver on 27th January, 1930, for realisation of the profits of the house and appropriating the same towards her decree. She got possession of the house in April, 1930. The second mortgagee filed a suit on his mortgage, O.S. No. 12 of 1928, without making Lakshmi Animal a party and obtained a decree and got the property sold. It was purchased by Nagendram Chetty, the appellant before us, on 28th January, 1931. He sought to obtain posse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »