Chennai Court February 1933 Judgments
Arumuga Irungalar Vs. Packiri Vellala thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad13; 145Ind.Cas.285
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit against defendant 1 for recovery of possession of certain property and for mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit they tiled a petition for the appointment of a receiver to harvest the crops on the land. Respondents 7 and 8 gave security to the extent of a maximum of Rs. 550 with regard to these crops. The suit was dismissed but in appeal was decreed. The petitioner (appellant) put in a petition to execute the security bond. The sureties contended: (1) that the bond was only intended to cover any decree that might be passed by the trial Court; (2) that even if it is operative the appellate decree is not capable of execution. The Court of first instance found both points in the petititioner's favour. The lower appellate Court found both points against the petitioner and he prefers this second appeal.2. Point No. 1. - The material portion of the security bond runs as follows:On the petition presented by the plaintiff in this suit for the ap...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Ganapathy Iyer Vs. K.P. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad516
Walsh, J.1. The appellant is the judgment-debtor in this case and the matter arises in the execution of a compromise decree. Plaintiff 1 and defendant 1 are brothers and in a suit for partition a decree was drawn up in accordance with the compromise between them. The suit turns upon the construction of para. 3 of this compromise decree relating to the properties in Kottekkad. The paragraph has been translated as follows:It has been settled that out of the abovementioned properties the house at Kumarapuram gramom should be taken for the share No. 1 out of us, that the properties in Kollengode and Mangalam areas should be partitioned by both the persons equally, and that the revenue and michavaroms in respect of the said properties should be borne equally; and since the obsequies of our grandmother deceased Subbammal Ammal were conducted by No. 2, No. 1 has of his own free will, agreed and settled that in respect of the Sradhams (death anniversaries), etc., of the said grandmother and of...
Tag this Judgment!Settipalli Narasayya Vs. Chintalapudi Ramagovindam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad753
Walsh, J.1. The decree-holder in this case having obtained a decree brought one item of the judgment-debtor's property to sale and himself purchased the property. The defendant owned two pieces of land bearing different survey numbers and in executing his decree the plaintiff purported to attach one of these pieces but in describing that piece mentioned the survey number and the extent of one of the two pieces and the boundaries of the other piece. Under these conditions the sale was confirmed and a sale certificate issued under the same erroneous description. The decree-holder applied for delivery of possession of the property comprised within the boundaries stated in the execution petition saying that the survey number and the extent had been wrongly given. That application was dismissed as the number given was wrong, Then the decree-holder filed an application to amend the sale certificate by substituting the right number and the extent of the land comprised within the boundaries. T...
Tag this Judgment!Gomathi Ammal Vs. Avu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ355
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The suit out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises was upon a promissory note executed by the defendant's deceased husband and dated the 17th August, 1923. The suit was filed in 1928. On the 16th August, 1924, the defendant's husband made a payment of Rs. 5 in respect of the promissory note. This had the effect of extending the period of limitation to the 16th August, 1927. The suit having been filed in 1928, the plaintiff's claim would be barred by limitation but it was claimed that the debt had been kept alive by an acknowledgment of it made by the defendant. This acknowledgment is, it is alleged on behalf of the plaintiff, to be found in an admission made by her in a petition which she put in to get herself appointed guardian of her husband who had then become insane. The petition is O.P. No. 38 of 1926. The petition was made under the Indian Lunacy Act to have her husband declared to be insane and for the appointment of herself as gua...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesha Kamthi Vs. Vitla Bhakta and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad455; (1933)64MLJ605
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The only point for consideration here is whether a decree-holder who had before decree attached the judgment-debtor's property or some of it comes within Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. It is conceded that the decree-holder was not the decree-holder in the suit in which the property was brought to sale nor was he a person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of the assets because he had not put in an execution application. But the question is whether he is a person whose interests are affected by the sale. If his interests are affected by the sale, he may apply to the Court to set aside the sale. That is what the 1st respondent did in this case. He got an attachment before judgment and subsequently got a decree in his favour. The passing of the decree confirmed his attachment. At the time when he made the application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, the property had been attached and he had a decree in his favour. ...
Tag this Judgment!Sait Punnamchand Chatraban, Firm of Marwadi Bankers, Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad804; 145Ind.Cas.975; (1933)65MLJ569
Bardswell, J.1. The respondent to these BardswellJ. appeals obtained a decree in O.S. No. 67 of 1920 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Vizagapatam. The decree was transmitted to the District Court of East Godavari for execution. The respondent filed an Execution Petition No. 45 of 1925 in that Court and was given permission, on an application on that behalf, to bid at the execution sale and to set off the amount of his bid, if successful, against the amount due to him under his decree. The actual expression in the order was not 'set off' but 'credit' but it is perfectly clear and is not disputed that the effect of the order was to give permission to set off. The sale began on 7th January, 1927 and was concluded on 12th January, 1927, on which date the property was knocked down to the respondent. There has been no objection to the sale on any ground. On the evening on which the sale was concluded, but just after its conclusion, the appellants in these appeals, each of whom held a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narappa Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad202; 145Ind.Cas.306
ORDERBurn, J.1. The direction of the learned Sessions Judge, remanding the case for a de novo trial, is without jurisdiction. The counter.petitioners have not been convicted so that Section 423(1)(b), Criminal P.C., does not apply. This is a case of an appeal from an order other than an order of acquittal or conviction, and therefore under Section 423(1)(c) the learned Sessions Judge could alter or reverse such order and under Section 423(1)(d) he could make any consequential order that might be just or proper. He could not order a de novo inquiry.2. The learned Sessions Judge's reversal of the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is correct for the reasons given by him. The consequential order that should be made is that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate should, after hearing both sides, write a proper judgment in the light of the observations of the learned Sessions Judge. That order I now make. The order for de novo inquiry is set aside as being without jurisdiction....
Tag this Judgment!Krishnalal Jankiprasad Vs. Hyathkhan Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad608
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The insolvency petition was grounded on the sale by the debtor in favour of his wife though it was alleged to be a nominal and collusive transaction intended to delay and defeat the creditors, and what is prayed for is leave to insert a paragraph in the petition that even if the Court should hold that the debts referred to in the sale-deed are true, the transfer would nevertheless be a fraudulent preference which is void as against the receiver. Such an amendment is permissible: vide In re Phillips Baston Ex parte (1900) 2 QB 329 and Mahomed Ayyub Sahib v. J.P. Gunnis & Co. (1913) 37 Mad 555; and as pointed out in Charan Das v. Amir Khan AIR 1921 PC 50 in appropriate cases leave to amend can be granted even though the amendment is asked for after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for the main proceeding. Under the circumstances leave to amend the petition was rightly granted in this case by the Subordinate Judge and the order of the District Judge ca...
Tag this Judgment!Kondepati Ayyanna Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad646; 145Ind.Cas.594; (1933)65MLJ179
Bardswell, J.1. The suits under appeal have had a long history. The plaintiffs who are ryots in the Gundepalli Zamindary, brought them for a declaration that defendant 1, who is the Secretary of State represented by the Collector of Kistna, is not entitled to levy water tax on the lands cultivated by them, for a refund of such tax already collected for three faslis and for other reliefs. The trial Court and the first appellate Court found in their favour but on second appeal Oldfield and Seshagiri Aiyar, JJ., held that the suits had not been properly dealt with and remanded them for fresh disposal on issues that were then framed. After the remand the first two Courts again both found for the plaintiffs, but, on second appeal, Phillips, J., dismissed the suits. These Letters Patent Appeals are against his decision.2. The lands of the plaintiffs are situated in the village of Chodavaram, a zamindari village. That village adjoins the Government village Ananthapalli, the lands of which are...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasubramania thevar Vs. Dewan Bahadur T.N.S. theerthapathi, Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad451; (1933)64MLJ676
Curgenven, J.1. The suit out of which these appeals arise was brought by the Zamindar of Singampatti and three other plaintiffs in the following circumstances. With the object of leasing certain home-farm lands within the Zamindari for a term of seven years (faslis 1331 to 1337) an auction was held in March, 1921, the lease to go to the competitor who bid the highest lease amount. The 1st defendant (hereafter to be called the defendant) secured it for a sum of Rs. 9,000. Towards this amount he deposited Rs. 500 on 14th March, and the balance was to be paid in five yearly instalments of Rs. 1,500 and a final instalment of Rs. 1,000. By March, 1924, he had paid Rs. 6,500. The defendant was let into possession of the lands as from the 1st July, 1921, i.e., the commencement of fasli 1331, and continued in uninterrupted possession until, as a result of proceedings taken by him in 1924, under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a receiver was appointed to harvest the crops and realis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »