Chennai Court March 1933 Judgments
A. Swaminatha Odayar Vs. Kalyanarama Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad694; 145Ind.Cas.855; (1933)65MLJ359
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this case, the only question for determination is whether the petitioner had locus standi to put in an application tinder Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, for setting aside a sale in execution of a decree against him. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner could not maintain this application, because he was adjudged an insolvent and his estate must be deemed to have vested in the Official Receiver. If before the auction sale in question, the petitioner was adjudged an insolvent, I fail to understand why the decree-holder did not bring in the Official Receiver as a party to the execution proceedings. It is obvious that any sale held in execution of that decree subsequent to the adjudication of the judgment-debtor would not bind the Official Receiver, unless he was impleaded in the execution proceedings prior to the auction sale. On this simple ground, it would be open to the Official Receiver to have this auction sale set aside. But that is ...
Tag this Judgment!T.K. Abdul Razak Rowther Vs. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad715; (1933)65MLJ390
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff (1st respondent) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,710-6-9 which is made up of three different sums payable by defendants 1 to 3 respectively, which the plaintiff seeks to recover from them personally and also by the sale of the properties mentioned in Schedules I to III, as they are subject to a charge in plaintiff's favour for the recovery of the aforesaid sums. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: - The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of the late Seeni Rowther who died on 4th January, 1922. Subsequent to his death, a partition was effected among the four brothers with the intervention of mediators and a registered partition deed, Ex. B, was also executed on 1st August, 1923. Even during the lifetime of Seeni Rowther, there was a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 105 of 1914 on the file of the Madura Sub-Court in favour of Appavu Rowther, under which a sum of Rs. 36,000 was due on the date ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hari Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.379; (1933)65MLJ478
ORDERBurn, J.1. The sole ground on which this petition was admitted was that statements recorded by the Police under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, had been used by the Lower Courts as substantive evidence. But the Police when investigating a case under the preventive sections of the Criminal Procedure Code are not acting under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover the inquiry before the learned Joint Magistrate under Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code was not an inquiry into an 'offence' and therefore Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be used to shut out statements given to the Police by persons who are afterwards called as witnesses. This point therefore fails. On the merits I will only say that the evidence, in so far as it has been accepted by the learned Joint Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, was quite sufficient to support the finding that the petitioner was a person to whom Section 110(f), Criminal Procedure Code, was properly applic...
Tag this Judgment!Kanuparthi Hanumantha Rao Vs. Kottapalli Venkatakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad817; (1933)65MLJ609
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The appellant got a decree on the 1st March, 1917, which was modified in appeal on the 8th November, 1917. The decree was against three defendants. Appellant applied for the arrest of the 1st and 3rd defendants in that suit. The 1st defendant was arrested and brought before the Court. He said he was going to file an insolvency petition and on this one Kothapalli Venkata Subbayya, the father of the present respondents, executed a surety bond on the 23rd April, 1919, which was accepted by the Court. The 1st defendant in that suit was released from arrest. No insolvency petition was filed by the judgment-debtor within the time allowed, one month. The appellant filed E.P. No. 656 of 1919 against the surety on the 29th July, 1919, and the surety produced the judgment-debtor in Court and that execution petition was dismissed. Later the decree-holder filed E.P. No. 20 of 1920 on the 3rd January, 1920, against the surety. The latter contended that the bond was only for the...
Tag this Judgment!N.R.M. Govindarajulu Naidu Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad649; (1933)65MLJ317
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. An abkari contractor committed default in payment of the monthly rental due to the Government. The Government sustained loss on re-sale of the shop and they therefore put up the house of the defaulter for sale. The defendant bid for Rs. 1,805 at the auction and the property was knocked down to him. He did not however deposit the necessary amount within the time mentioned in the conditions of sale or afterwards. The Government therefore re-sold the house. At the re-sale held on the 18th August, 1924, the sale price was only Rs. 20. The Government therefore brought this suit to recover from the defendant the loss caused by the re-sale, namely, Rs. 1,805 - Rs. 20 or Rs. 1,785 with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from the date of the re-sale. The defendant admitted having bid for Rs. 1,805 but pleaded that the sale was vitiated by non-disclosure of material facts amounting to fraud; that while the property was heavily encumbered the selling officer told him that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Kalasipudi Subba Rao (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Palakurthi Bhimalingam (D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad913; (1933)65MLJ761
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiffs suit was for the redemption of the mortgage over the lands in A and B schedules of the plaint and for possession of the same. A schedule lands are Mazumdari service inam and the B schedule lands are quit-rent inam. These lands were originally held by the members of Kasiraja family. In 1885 the holders executed a usufructuary mortgage over both the A schedule and B schedule lands in favour of the predecessor-in-title of defendants 1 to 5 for Rs. 6,000. In 1886 a simple mortgage of these lands was executed in favour of one Putta Audenna for Rs. 1,500. In the same year a third mortgage which was also a simple mortgage was executed in favour of two persons, K. Latchayya and M. Venkata Rao, Latchayya having a 2/3rd share in the mortgage and Venkata Rao a one-third share. This mortgage was for Rs. 1,200. The second mortgagee transferred his mortgage to the first mortgagee. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 27 of 1887 the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Daso Polai Vs. Narayana Patro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad879; (1933)65MLJ819
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for Rs. 21,000 due on a registered mortgage bond, dated 1st August, 1913. The sum secured by the mortgage was Rs. 5,000 and the debt was repayable in 7 years. The mortgagors are defendants 1 to 4.2. The circumstances relating to the suit are these. In O.S. No. 59 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore one Bennu Nahko, the late father of defendants 5 and 6 and the grandfather of defendants 7 and 8, obtained a money decree against the plaintiff's mortgagors, defendants 1 to 4, on 18th October, 1919. In E.P. No. 150 of 1919 the decree-holder asked for attachment and sale of the suit property. In Ex. A, the schedule attached to this Execution Petition, the decree-holder gave a list of five encumbrances said to be existing on the property. There is a note at the end of Ex. A which runs as follows:These properties ought to be sold after issue of sal...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Chetti Vs. Mahalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad659; 145Ind.Cas.300
Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from a decree of the learned District Judge of South Arcot confirming a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dismissing a suit for the recovery from the respondents of three items of property, a house, a shop and a godown the subject-matter of a settlement dated 9th June 1904, by one Muthuswamy Chetty, who died in 1916, in favour of his son by the first wife Somasundara Chetty who died in 1922, whereby the father Muthuswami Chetti settled the said properties on Somasundara Chetti, the son, according to the terms of that deed Ex. B. The appellant is Muthuswami Chetti's son by the second wife. Defendant 1 is a concubine who had been kept by Somasundara Chetti and defendants 4 to 7 are the song of Somasundara by defendant l,and defendants 3 and 8 to 11 are his daughters by the same person. Defendant 2 is the eldest son of defendant 1 who was born in the lifetime of her married husband and defendant 12 is her mother. The appellant's c...
Tag this Judgment!Manicka Chetti Vs. Narayanasami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ277
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner who applied for leave to sue as a pauper has brought a suit to redeem a mortgage for Rs. 6,000. The mortgage is stated to be a mortgage by conditional sale, and the petitioner is not in possession. In his plaint he alleges that the mortgaged property is worth at least Rs. 12,000. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the application in the following words:The petitioner cannot redeem except on payment of Rs. 6,000 according to him. If he can find that amount after the decree is passed he can find it now and file the suit after paying Court-fee.2. The petitioner in order to bring himself within the explanation of 'pauper' in Order 33, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, must show that he is not entitled to property worth Rs. 100 other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit. He has at least the equity of redemption which he admits to be worth considerably more than Rs. 100. In Kapil Deo Singh v. Ram Rikha Singh I.L.R.(1910) 33 A. 237 it...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Sheriff Sahib Vs. Sayyed Kasim Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad635; 145Ind.Cas.230
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this second appeal, the only question arising is whether the mortgagee is estopped from denying the right of the mortgagor to the mortgaged properties on the date of the mortgage. The lower appellate Court held in favour of such an estoppel. This can be supported on the analogy of Section 65, Clause (a), T.P. Act. However Mr. T.L. Venkatarama Ayyar, the learned Advocate for the appellant, urges that his plea must be construed to be a plea, whereby he wants to show that the mortgagor who executed the mortgage deed was only a benamidar for one Virappa Mudaliar, the real owner. He says, that the appellant (the mortgagee's son) is not estopped from setting up such a plea. The decision in Kuppukonan v. Thirugnasambandam Pillai (1908) 31 Mad 461 is in support of this contention, if what is stated therein as regards lessor and lessee is extended to a mortgagor and mortgagee. Now, assuming that he is not estopped from making out this plea, and also granting that such a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »