Chennai Court November 1933 Judgments
Thirumala Chettiar Vs. Chellam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad190; (1934)66MLJ468
Curgenven, J.1. This is an application for a Writ of Certiorari to vacate the order of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram as Election Commissioner in O.P. No. 72 of 1932 on his file. The order declared the election of the Petitioner void and directed a re-election.2. We have heard some argument as to whether a Writ of Certiorari lies against the order of an Election Commissioner. Mr. T. M. Krishnaswami Aiyar has scarcely contested that on all ordinary principles such a Writ would lie, the test of course being whether the officer against whose proceeding it is directed was acting in a judicial capacity. A construction of that phrase which we think we may adopt here has been given by Scrutton, L.J. in Rex v. The London County Council (1931) 2 K.B. 215, where he says:It is enough if the tribunal in question is exercising, after hearing evidence, judicial functions in the sense that it has to decide on evidence between a proposal and an opposition.3. In the present case it is clear that t...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muthukrishna Ayyar and anr. Vs. V. Sankarasubramania Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad267
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The plaintiff and defendant 3 are sons of one Veerasami who died on 14th May 1926. The plaintiff's deceased father and defendant 1 were carrying on a partnership trade. On 29th May 1926 defendent 1 got a release deed executed by defendant 3 and by the mother of plaintiff as the latter's guardian by which plaintiff and defendant 3 received Rs. 9,000 for their share in the partnership. Plaintiff filed this suit for accounts of the partnership to be taken. He stated that the release deed was not binding on him as his mother was neither de jure nor de facto his guardian in executing it, and moreover that it was obtained by fruad, coercion and undue nfluence.2. Defendant 1 contended that plaintiff was bound by the release and had to get it set aside before he could sue. As the decisions of the High Court appeared to be conflicting as to whether such a deed had to be set aside, it having been held by a single Judge of this Court in Doraiswami v. Thengavelu : AIR1929Mad668 , ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Seshagiri Rao Vs. T.V. Seshagiri Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1935Mad160
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The suit was brought on a promissory note executed by defendant 2 signing his own name and also signing as guardian of the minor defendant 1. In the prayer column the only relief asked for was against the assets of the minor in the hands of defendant 2. The plaintiff afterwards asked leave to amend the plaint by asking for relief against defendant 2 personally. The amendment was allowed and defendant 2 then alleged that the personal claim against him was barred on the date the amendment was allowed. To save limitation the plaintiff relied on a M.O for Rs. 2 received by him on 19th August 1929 from defendant 2. The Court did not find it proved that it was towards payment of the promissory note debt, and consequently the personal relief against defendant 2 was refused to plaintiff. This revision petition is filed against that order. It is argued for the plaintiff on the authority of Saminatha v. Muthayya (1892) 15 Mad 417, a very similar case, that as defendant 2 was a p...
Tag this Judgment!R. Rajagopala Ayyangar and ors. Vs. Ranganatha Ayyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad615; 152Ind.Cas.375
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Madhavan Nair, J. in second appeal. The facts out of which this appeal arises are stated by him in his judgment and it is, therefore, unnecessary to restate them now. The question is whether Madhavan Nair, J., was right in holding that Ex. B-1, which is an assignment of the rights under Ex. B, was a document which required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In my opinion, he was right in so holding. It is quite true that Ex. B does not, in terms, state that a charge has been created. The question is whether what it does state is sufficient in itself to create the charge in question, namely, the vendor's lien. It is quite true that without such a document one of the incidents of a transfer of property is to pass with it to the transferee all such rights as the transferor possesses. This of course refers to an assignment of these rights. What was it that the vendor in this case had? His rights are set out in S...
Tag this Judgment!D. Yellamanda Vs. Nappuraju Raghaviah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad314; (1934)66MLJ428
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Stone, J. during vacation of 1932. The appellant here was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 653 of 1929 in the District Munsif's Court of Bapatla. In execution of that decree he brought the respondent's property to sale, the sale being fixed for the 13th June, 1932. Before the sale could take place, however, an application was presented to this High Court during the vacation to receive an insolvency petition against the judgment-debtor presented by the respondent and asking at the same time for a stay of the sale. An interim order was made by Stone, J. on the 11th June, 1932, as follows:Sale stayed. O.R. Guntur interim Receiver. Notice for 21-6-1932.2. On 21st June, 1932, that order was made final, the papers being transmitted to the Sub-Court of Tenali for disposal after the re-opening of that Court. The application was presented in this High Court because at that time the Sub-Court of Tenali, which was the p...
Tag this Judgment!Aravamudhu Ayyangar Vs. Zamindarini Srimath Abiramavalli Ayah by Power ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad353; 150Ind.Cas.930; (1934)66MLJ566
Madhavan Nair, J.1. 3rd defendant is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 8,140 being the balance due on a registered mortgage bond, Exhibit A, dated 28th July, 1915, executed by the late Anantharatnam Iyer, father of defendants 1 and 2, in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 5,000 payable with interest. The plaintiff has been given a decree.2. In A.S. No. 111 of 1912 on the file of the High Court of Madras, K. V. Rangaswami Iyengar and K. V. Srinivasa Iyengar obtained a decree against Anantharatnam Iyer for Rs. 30,000 together with interest. Under this decree a charge in their favour was created over the suit properties and the amount was made payable within five years from the date of the decree. It was also stated in the decree that if payment was not made in accordance with the decree the appellants will be at liberty to realise the amount by executing the decree. This decree is Exhibit I and it is dated 22nd July, 1914. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Panjam V. Thirumala Reddi Vs. C.K. Anavema Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad306; (1934)66MLJ687
Madhavan Nair, J.1. I entirely agree with the judgment which ray learned brother, Jackson, J., will presently deliver and I have nothing useful to add to it.Jackson, J.2. The 9th respondent takes a preliminary objection that this appeal is out of time. The date of the decree and judgment of the Lower Court is 24th February, 1927. On 1st March, 1927, the plaintiff applied for copy and obtained it after 34 days had been occupied by the copying department. He has since died, and it is not known what he did with that copy.3. He applied again for copy on 20th April, 1927, and since the recess intervened, the time occupied by the department was 82 days. The appeal was filed on 13th August, and if this 82 days be reckoned as the time requisite for obtaining copy, the appeal is within time. But on behalf of 9th respondent it is argued that the appellant himself has demonstrated the time requisite to be only 34 days, and if that figure be taken the appeal is time-barred. 4. The time requisite f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kovummal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad199
Jackson, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff. When his suit was called in the Munsif's Court his vakil pleaded no instructions, and the Munsif dismissed the suit for default acting under Order 17, Rule 2 and Order 9, Rule 8, Civil P.C. The learned District Judge has held that no appeal lies from that order and hence the present appeal. It is argued that the Munsif should have acted under Order 17, Rule 3. But although the plaintiff was physically present it is quite well settled by now that where counsel is employed that is no legal presence. Rules 2 and 3, Order 17, are mutually exclusive, and where the vakil pleads no instructions and the iparfcy is not prepared to go on Rule 2 applies : Authimoolam Pillai v. Secy. of State (1928) 108 IC 897.2. The appellant relies upon Sukkhu Koeri v. Bam Lotan Koeri AIR 1919 All 252, where it is held that when the plaintiff produces no vakil and declines to proceed with the case himself, Order 17, Rule 3 applies. It can only be said that this is no...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Raja Gounder Vs. S.K. Senniappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad313
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. These applications arise out of a petition filed by respondent 1 in C.M.P. No. 4314 of 1933 to set aside the election of the petitioner therein as the president of the Taluk Board of Erode and declare himself to be the validly elected president, and the unquestionable facts are that the election was held in accordance with the rules for the election of Presidents of Local Boards, at a meeting of the Board specially convened for the purpose. The petitioner and respondent 1 were the only candidates and 21 votes were recorded. The petitioner obtained 12 votes as against 9 secured by respondent 1 but 11 of the former and 1 of the latter were marked by the president of the meeting according to the open directions of the concerned members who professed to be unable to make the mark and applied for his assistance. The president of the meeting had no option in the matter as Clause (3), Rule 5 requires him to mark the voting paper if the voter declares himself to be unable t...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Raja Gaounder Vs. S.K. Senniappa Gounder and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.848
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Stone, J., during vacation of 1932. The appellant here was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 653 of 1929 in the District Munsifs Court of Bapatla. In execution of that decree he brought the, respondent's property to sale, the sale being fixed for June 13,1932. Before the sale could take place, however, an application was presented to this High Court during the vacation to receive an insolvency petition against the judgment-debtor presented by the respondent and asking at the same time for a stay of the sale. An interim order was made by Stone, J., on June 11, 1932, as follows:Sale stayed. O.R. Guntur interim Receiver. Notice for June 21 1932.2. On June 21,1.932, that order was made final, the papers being transmitted to the Sub-Court of Tenali for disposal after the reopening of that Court. The application was presented in this High Court because at that time the Sub-Court of Tenali, which was the proper Court to deal with the mat...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »