Chennai Court May 1933 Judgments
Krishnaswami Pillai Vs. Janakalaxmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad189; (1934)66MLJ308
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. 1st defendant is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The suit was one for contribution against Defendants 1 and 2. Three properties which we may call A, B and C were owned by one Sundara Reddi who, on 28th November, 1918, mortgaged them to one Visvanatha Reddi. Sundara Reddi sold property B on 1st December, 1919 and Plaintiff ultimately purchased it.2. Sundara Reddi was adjudged insolvent and 1st defendant purchased property A from the Official Receiver. Subsequent to the purchase of property A by 1st defendant a suit was filed on 4th December, 1923, by the legal representatives of the mortgagee. In that suit Plaintiff was 5th defendant and the present appellant was 2nd defendant.3. A preliminary decree was obtained which fell to the share of one of the mortgagee's legal representatives. He got a final decree and brought all the mortgaged properties to sale. The properties were sold and Plaintiff paid off the entire mortgage amount and got the sale set aside. This...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Chettiar and anr. Vs. Jayarama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad778
Walsh, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The question is whether the suit is time-barred, having regard to Section 14, Lim. Act. The persons, Aiyaswami and Venkatachala Chetti were carrying on a grocery business jointly. Aiyaswami died leaving a widow, defendant 2. Venkatachela Chetti left a son Lakshminarayana and between this son and defendant 2 there was a partition suit, O.S. No. 37 of 1919 in the Mayavaram Sub-Court. Before it was launched a creditor of Venkatachala Chetti brought a suit, O.S. No. 397 of 1918, in the Tiruvarur District Munsif's Court, got a decree and in execution of it attached some of the goods in the grocery shop. The Amin who took charge of the attached properties left them in the hands of the plaintiff who executed a surety bond that he would be responsible for the value of the goods. The decree was satisfied between October and December 1919. In the partition suit between the widow, (defendant 2) and Lakshminarayana the grocery goods went to the widow ...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Sahoob Levvai Sayabu Vs. Mayamad Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad789; (1933)65MLJ582
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant, against the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition brought by the plaintiff who is not a party to this appeal. The parties are Muhammadans and partition was decreed to plaintiff 3-16ths, to 1st defendant (appellant) 10-16ths and the 2nd defendant (respondent) 3-16ths. The preliminary decree was passed on the 2nd October, 1924, declaring these shares and directing a commissioner to make a partition by metes and bounds of the properties among the parties according to their shares. The commissioner did so and the final decree was passed on the 14th November, 1924, providing inter alia 'that the several properties mentioned in Schedule II hereto be assigned to and they are hereby vested in the several parties under whose names the said properties are respectively set out absolutely, for and in full satisfaction of their respective shares and interests' in the suit property. According to the plan prepared by the commissioner the...
Tag this Judgment!Vempati Mangamma Vs. Dyta Narayanappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad785; 145Ind.Cas.930; (1933)65MLJ747
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question is whether the appellant's (decree-holder's) execution petition, dated 9th June, 1928, is barred by limitation. He obtained his decree for money on 20th April, 1922. The judgment-debtor (respondent) on 3rd May, 1924, put in a petition stating that he had discharged the debt and to enter up satisfaction which was ordered on 23rd December, 1924. Thus the decree was declared incapable of execution as it was discharged about 4 months before the expiry of the first period of 3 years from the date of the decree. The decree-holder appealed from this decision and the appellate Court on 26th February, 1926, reversed it and held that the decree was unsatisfied. The decree-holder's first execution petition was the one dated 9th June, 1928, which both the Lower Courts have held to be barred by limitation under Article 182 of the Limitation Act.2. It is clear that if the starting point is calculated from the date mentioned in Article 182(1) and if that date is t...
Tag this Judgment!Muhamad Sahoob Levai Sayabu Vs. Mayamad Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.968
1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant, against the 2nd defendant in a suit for partition brought by the plaintiff who is not a party to this appeal. The parties are Muhammadans and partition was decreed to plaintiff 3-16ths, to 1st 'defendant (appellant) 10-16ths and the 2nd defendant (respondent) 3-16ths. The preliminary decree was passed on October 2, 1921, declaring these shares and directing a Commissioner to make a partition by metes and bounds of the properties among the parties according to their shares. The Commissioner did so and the final decree, was passed on November 14, 1924, providing inter aliathat the several properties mentioned in Schedule II hereto be assigned to and they are hereby vested in the several parties under whose name the said properties are respectively set out absolutely, for and in full satisfaction of their respective shares and interests,in the suit property. According to the plan prepared by the Commissioner the plaintiff was entitled to the plot...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver of Ramnad Vs. K.R. Muthu A.R. Arunachalam Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.707; (1933)65MLJ420
Ramesam, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal does not lie to this Court. For the purpose of deciding the objection we have to see what the nature of the suit is. The suit was for a declaration that the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit do not belong to the 2nd defendant but belong to the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 and that the 1st defendant had no power to bring them to sale as the properties of the 2nd defendant and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from selling them. Under the Court-Fees Act, Section 7(4) the plaintiff has got to value the injunction and pay Court-fees ad valorem on it. Prior to the amendment of the Court-Fees Act in 1922 the plaintiff might have given any valuation he liked. But the amendment prescribes a minimum valuation which is half the value of the land. Here the value of the suit properties is Rs. 8,000 and therefore the plaintiff had to value the relief at not less than Rs. 4,000....
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Narayana Ayyar Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad294; 150Ind.Cas.339
Pandalai, J.1. This appeal arises from one out of five petitions filed by the respondent, the Official Receiver of South Malabar, in the Insolvency of a firm of timber merchants to set aside under Sections 4, 53 and 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, five mortgages executed by the insolvents to various creditors before the Insolvency. Two of these petitions were settled in the first Court. Of the alienees in the other three petitions only two appealed to the District Judge who dismissed the appeals. Of these the present appeal concerns only the appellant's mortgage for Rs. 31,000 dated 13th March 1924, the subject matter of O.P. No. 16 of 1925. Prom Section 54 being one of those quoted in the petition and from the grounds stated and the principal prayer therein it would appear that the case against the appellant in both the lower Courts was that his mortgage is invalid as a fraudulent preference.2. The first Court accepted this. But the learned District Judge held that the appellant's mort...
Tag this Judgment!Peria Appuswami Naidu Vs. N. Krishnaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad24; 147Ind.Cas.333; (1933)65MLJ793
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This appeal raises a question of not very common occurrence, and it is whether, when a surety under Order 38, Rule 2 has given a bond to produce the defendant when called upon to produce him, he is under a legal liability to see that the defendant is so to say in an attachable condition, in other words, whether it is a breach of the bond if the defendant has previously applied for being adjudicated an insolvent and has obtained exemption from arrest from that Court. Both the Lower Courts have answered this question in the negative. The decree-holder, who is the appellant in this appeal, objects that he has authority in his favour and relies upon A. Subratnania Iyer v. Abdul Rahman A.I.R. 1923 Rang. 98. The facts there were very similar because the surety did produce the defendant in that case but he had a protection order against being arrested. The learned Judge of the Rangoon High Court held that this was a breach of the surety's bond. He took the view that th...
Tag this Judgment!Saranatha Aiyangar Vs. Muthiah Mooppanar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.1045; (1933)65MLJ844
Ramesam, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents in this revision petition that this petition cannot be heard now. To understand the nature of the objection the facts have got to be stated. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 236 of 1930 in the District Munsif's Court of Valangiman I for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to the office of Adyapakam in the shrine of Sri Saranadaperumal in the Tanjore District and other reliefs. Pending the disposal of the suit the plaintiff applied for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his exercise of this office and enjoyment of the honours and emoluments attached to it and similar other reliefs. The District Munsif granted the injunction. There was an appeal to the District Court of West Tanjore. The learned District Judge reversed the order of the District Munsif and dismissed the application for injunction. Against the order of the District Judge the present revision petition wa...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Madras and anr. Vs. Sampath Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad795; 145Ind.Cas.965; (1933)65MLJ588
Bardswell, J.1. The suit under appeal is one for a declaration that two mortgage deeds, executed on the 18th March, 1914 and 17th November, 1920, respectively, in favour of the predecessors of defendants 1 and 2, as well as a decree obtained thereon, are void and inoperative in law to the extent to which these defendants seek to exercise their rights over the suit property. The plaintiff has been granted a decree as prayed for and the defendants are appealing.2. The suit properties belonged originally to G. Section Venkatakrishnama Chetti who had three daughters. These daughters succeeded to his estate on his death, and the last of them died in October, 1926. On her death B. Venkatakrishnama Chetti, the son of another of the three sisters, succeeded to the estate. The suit mortgages were executed by this B. Venkatakrishnama Chetti when he had only a spes successions. After the death of Narasammal, the last survivor of the three sisters, he sold the suit properties on 6th December, 1926...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »