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.
V.S. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. V. St. N. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ347
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition preferred by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 41 of 1930, who got a decree on 2nd September, 1930, in the District Munsif's Court of Palni against one Venkatachala Chetti, Zemindar of Chatrapatty. On account of default in payment of Government revenue this Venkatachala Chetti's property (Chatrapatty Village) has been brought to sale. The Tahsildar sold the village on 12th November, 1931. The sale was confirmed by the Collector on 23rd December, 1931, and the purchase-money was in the hands of the Tahsildar who conducted the sale. The Respondent, who had obtained a decree against the same judgment-debtor, filed E. P. No. 790 of 1931 on 10th December, 1931, asking for attachment of the money in the hands of the Tahsildar. The District Munsif ordered attachment on 12th December, 1931, which was made absolute on 15th January, 1932. On 16th January, 1932, the Respondent asked the District Munsif of Palni to send for the amount and issue a ...
The Official Receiver Vs. Sagiraju Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad527; (1933)64MLJ397
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an appellate order dismissing an application by the Official Receiver in I. P. No. 145 of 1925 to have two gift deeds, executed by the insolvent in favour of two counter-petitioners, declared fraudulent. The adjudication was on 6th January, 1926, on a petition dated 1st December, 1925. The two gift deeds are dated respectively 8th September, 1922 and 22nd March, 1922. The donees are the two wives of the insolvent. Admittedly the deeds are dated more than two years before the date of adjudication. Consequently Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act does not apply, and the question is whether the petition under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is cognizable under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned District Munsif held that the petition was barred by Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. There is no discussion of the matter in his judgment, but the Principal Subordinate Judge has written a fairly long j...
Raju Thambiran Vs. Arunagiri Thambiran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad397; (1933)64MLJ500
Curgenven, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has decided this case against the plaintiff upon a preliminary point and it is unfortunate that the argument ,upon this point proceeded ex-parte, because the consequence was that a clear current of decisions contrary to the position taken up by the Lower Court was not brought to its notice. This suit was brought by the illegitimate son of a Sudra against the legitimate sons and other descendants for partition of the family property, and the preliminary question which arose was whether in the circumstances of the case, there being no collaterals involved, such a suit would lie. The Lower Court has referred only to two cases and there is an essential distinction between those cases and the present case, namely, that they both related to families in which collaterals existed. Gopalasami Chetti v. Arunachelam Chetti I.L.R. (1903) Mad. 32 accordingly is no authority for the proposition which the preliminary issue raises in this case, nor is Nata...
Bava Sahib Miyan Vs. Abdul Ghani Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad498; 147Ind.Cas.710; (1933)64MLJ728
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the plaintiff-appellant sued for the recovery of possession of certain trust properties. He valued the suit at Rs. 3,030 but objections being taken by the defendants to the valuation an issue was raised on the point and it was found that the properties were worth Rs. .14,000. When he first instituted the suit he had paid Court-fee on Rs. 3,030 but when it was found that the properties were valued at Rs. 14,000 he was asked to pay additional Court-fee on the, 18th January, 1926. This order was passed on the 23rd December, 1925. As the appellant was not able to pay the Court-fee as ordered on the 18th January, 1926, he put in an application asking the Court to allow him to continue the suit as pauper. This application was opposed on two grounds. It was argued that the suit having been filed after the payment, of Court-fee it was not open to the appellant to continue it as pauper. It was also argued that the appellant not having paid the Court-fee on the 1...
Rathnammal Vs. Sundaram Achari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad508
ORDERWalsh, J.1. A suit, S.C. No. 1709 of 1921 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Madura was brought against defendants 1 to 6 for the value of paddy received by one Ganapathi Achari, deceased whose as sets were said to be in the hands of the defendants. Defendants 4 to 6 were exonerated before trial. A decree was passed against defendants 1 and 2. Deceased had by his will granted a life interest in the property now sought to be proceeded against to his widow defendant 2 with vested remainder to defendant 4. After the decree defendant 2 died and the plaintiffs sought to proceed in execution against this property which had come into the possession of defendant 4 on her death.2. The latter objected as she had been exonerated in the suit, but both the lower Courts found that the property was liable. She files this revision petition. The view of the lower Courts with regard to the said property of the deceased in her hands being liable for the decree is I consider clearly wrong. She was exonera...
(Thayyil Puthia Purayil) Ambukutti Vaidier Vs. Kannoth Koottambath Kel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad460
Walsh, J.1. Though this appeal is tried as a civil miscellaneous Appeal, the decision in Seshammal v. Kuppanaiyangar : AIR1926Mad475 , shows that such appeals stand on the same footing as second appeals with regard to their being arguable only on question of law. It is not therefore open to the appellant to contest the finding of fact that the site round the house in question is necessary for and has been used for the convenient enjoyment of the residence. It certainly cannot be said in the light of the Commissioner's plan that there is no evidence for such a finding of fact. On the north and south of the house there is only a narrow strip of land, the distance between the southernmost extremity of the building and the southernmost boundary is only 1 and 3/4 kolea and the distance between the northern verandah and the northern boundary is 4 1/2 koles out of which a portion has to be deducted for the yard of the house. The fact that the tenant may have built a larger house on the proper...
The Official Receiver Vs. Segiraju Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.530
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal from an appellate order dismissing an application by the Official Receiver in I.P. No. 145 of 1925 to have two gift deeds executed by the insolvent in favour of two counter-petitioners, declared fraudulent. The adjudication was on January 6, 1926, on a petition dated December 1, 1925. The two gift deeds are dated respectively September 8, 1922, and March 22, 1922. The donees are the two wives of the insolvent.Admittedly the deeds are dated more than two years before the date of adjudication. Consequently Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act does not apply, and the question is whether the petition under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is cognizable under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned District Munsif held that the petition was barred by Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. There is no discussion of the matter in his judgment, but the Principal Subordinate Judge has written a fairly long judgment ag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›