Chennai Court February 1933 Judgments
S. Narayana Iyengar, Trustee of Sri Santhanagopalaswami Ranganathaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad689; 145Ind.Cas.335; (1933)65MLJ315
Horace Owen Compton Besley, Kt., C.J.1. This petition at the instance of Krishnan Pandalai, J., has been referred to a Bench although our learned brother himself felt very little doubt that the order in this case was wrong.2. The facts of the case are that under Section 78 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act the petitioner, being a trustee of a temple, appointed under the Act, obtained an order from the District Court against an obstructor directing him to deliver up the temple and its properties to the petitioner. The obstructor disobeyed that order. The petitioner then applied to the District Court to cause delivery of possession to be given to him by an officer of the Court. The learned District Judge was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order because the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have not been made applicable to the Religious Endowments Act which, in his opinion, is a self-contained Code and the order contemplated under Section 78 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamaraja Pandia Naicker Avl., Zamindar of Bodinaickanur Vs. S. Kamaraj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1933
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ735
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt. C.J.1. The preliminary objection is taken in this appeal that no appeal lies. These are execution proceedings and the appellant raised, besides other objections, two legal objections, namely, (1) that the Court had no jurisdiction to execute the decree, and (2) that the execution petition was barred by the twelve years' rule of limitation. On both these points, the learned Subordinate Judge found against the appellant. The appellant has, therefore, filed this appeal.2. The preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies from these findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. In my view, the preliminary objection must succeed. No final order has been passed in execution by the learned Subordinate Judge. He has merely dealt with the two legal objections which were raised in the course of the execution proceedings. By his order he has not stopped execution proceedings from going on. What he has done quite obviously is to make an order that they are to go ...
Tag this Judgment!Medarametla Kotayya Vs. Nidamanuru Yellamanda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad549; (1933)65MLJ54
Curgenven, J.1. In the more recent of these two petitions the question has been raised whether Section 44 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act will enable the Court to make an order in respect of services to a temple which are remunerated by a service inam. In the earlier petition this point was not specifically raised, but if it has to be answered in the negative in the one, clearly I should not be justified in interfering with the learned Judge's order on the merits in the other. The facts alleged are that the respondents, who are temple pipers having service inams, refused to perform service from the year 1922 and that the trustee, who is the petitioner, was obliged to obtain and pay for the services of other pipers, and the sums so paid he wishes to recover under Section 44. The material part of Section 44 provides that where an endowment for the performance of a service connected with a temple consists merely of a charge on property and there is failure in the due performa...
Tag this Judgment!Modali Ademma Vs. Lanka Venkatasubbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad627; (1933)65MLJ137
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The Civil Revision Petition raises an interesting question of practice. It has been put before us by our learned brother Krishnan Pandalai, J., on account of a conflict of opinion of two single Judges, one of Krishnaswami Aiyar, J., in Arimuthu Chetty v. Vayapuri Pandaram : (1911)21MLJ505 and the other of Jackson, J., in Nanjunda Chettiar v. Nallakaruppan Chettiar : (1928)55MLJ120 . Our learned brother Krishnan Pandalai, J., was inclined to agree with the earlier decision.2. The question is, when does an order of transfer of a decree take effect so as to enable the Court to which the decree is transferred to entertain applications for execution? This is a matter of some importance in some cases, and it is so in this case because, if the view in Arimuthu Chetty v. Vayapuri Pandaram : (1911)21MLJ505 is to prevail, then the petitioner's application for execution was not barred by limitation; and, in my view, the question of limitation has an import...
Tag this Judgment!Thirupuraneni Narayana Rao Vs. Soorapaneni Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad519; (1933)64MLJ433
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Burn, J., ordering the appellant to give security for the costs of his appeal. The appellant here has been given leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Burn, J., ordered the appellant to furnish security for Rs. 1000 and it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the order of Burn, J., being based merely upon the poverty of the appellant and nothing-more, is wrong. It is quite true that our learned brother Burn, J., has given no other reason for ordering the appellant to furnish security but it is quite open to us to see whether good reasons exist for such an order being made. It is contended here that security for costs can only be ordered to be given by a pauper appellant in special circumstances: Seshayyangar v. Jainulavadin I.L.R. (1880) Mad. 66, Srinivasa Sastrial v. Subramania Aiyar (1907) 17 M.L.J. 583 and Subbiah Thevar v. Balasubramania Pandia Thalavar 1931 M.W.N. 1157. I agree that ordi...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Manikkam Pillai and anr. Vs. T.S. Murugesam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad431; (1933)64MLJ576
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The question of Court-fee payable has to depend on the allegations in the plaint, and this is not the stage at which the Court should say whether these allegations are true or not. In the plaint there is no prayer for a declaration that the partition deed referred to therein should be set aside, nor is any declaration asked for in respect of it. The , trend of the plaint seems to be, that though severance in status is effected, there was no actual division by metes and bounds, but, on the other hand, the plaintiffs and defendants, are in joint possession (vide para. 22 of the plaint). So far as the partition of the immovables is concerned in view of the prior division in status, the suit is for division and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share as against other tenants-in-common. The claim will fall under Article 17-B, Seheudle II of the Court Fees Act. Vide The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Lakhannai (1932) 64 M.L.J. 24. The fixed fee of Rs. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Mudali Vs. Semalai Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad97; 147Ind.Cas.1062
Bardswell, J.1. This appeal is by the defendant in the suit. On 9th March 1917, the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and his minor son sold the lands in suit to the defendant for Rs. 2,800. On, the same day the defendant executed a counter agreement to the plaintiff by the terms of which the property was to be sold back to the plaintiff on his paying for it Rs. 2,800 of his own money. The plaintiff's case is that within the period of seven years he tendered Rs. 2,800 to the defendant and that, after the defendant had refused to receive it, he deposited the money in the Court of the District Munsif of Dharapuram on 14tb February 1924, under Section 83, T.P. Act, treating the transaction o 9th March 1917 as a mortgage by conditional sale. This deposit was well within the seven years period. His petition under Section 83 was dismissed on the ground that it was not a case of mortgage by conditional sale, but that it was one of out and out sale to which that section did not apply. The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!M.K.R.M. Muthuraman Chettiar Vs. Subramanian Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad612
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who appeals, is a money-lender and sued upon a hypothecation bond which purports to have been executed to him for a sum of Rs. 4,000 on 29th November 1918 by one Palaniappa Chetty. The property hypothecated consisted of an undivided one-third share in the family house, the other two shares being owned by other branches. Palaniappa Chetty died in 1923 and the suit was brought against his two sons, defendants 1 and 2, and his natural brother defendant 3, who had been adopted to his uncle. The plaintiff was put to the proof that Palaniappa Chetty had executed the document, and the further defences were raised that the bond was not supported by consideration and was not binding upon the shares of the sons. The learned Subordinate Judge found against the plaintiff upon all these points and dismissed the suit.2. So far as proof of execution is concerned the lower Court found that one of the attestors was alive and had not been examined by the plaintiff. Accordi...
Tag this Judgment!Degapudi Pulla Reddi Vs. Rabala Pattabhirama Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad626; 145Ind.Cas.388; (1933)65MLJ139
Horce Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows. The judgment-debtor is the appellant and a decree in O.S. No. 22 of 1924, which was a suit upon a promissory note, was passed against him. His property was brought to sale in execution of the decree and was purchased by the 3rd respondent in the sale held on 11th July, 1927. It is alleged that this purchase by the 3rd respondent was benami for respondents 1 and 2, the decree-holders. On the 13th August, 1927, the sale was confirmed and then on the 9th July, 1928, the appellant under. Order 21, Rule 90 and Sections 47 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, put in an application to set aside the confirmation of that sale. This application had to be made within 30 days and clearly, but for Section 18 of the Limitation Act, if it is to be applicable to this case, was barred. The appellant alleged that his application was not barred by reason of the fact that he only discovered the fraud within the 30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Appavoo Nainar Vs. Lakshmana Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad745; 145Ind.Cas.397; (1933)65MLJ305
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The respondent is a judgment-creditor who purchased in Court sale certain properties which he had brought to sale under his decree. His sale was confirmed on 30th August, 1921 and he got possession of some of the properties. On a delivery petition filed by him on 22nd September, 1921. Item 6, however, a house, was not delivered. On 23rd September, 1924, he put in another delivery petition stating that the house in question and the garden attached thereto could not be delivered to him in the previous delivery order as the said house was locked and the house and garden were in the possession of the judgment-debtors. The order passed on this was 'Deliver 9-12-1924' and is dated 13th November, 1924.2. On 11th March, 1926, he put in another petition wherein he stated that even though order for delivery was sent, he could not get possession from the defendants as the said house was under lock and key and was still under lock and key. This execution petition was dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »