Chennai Court August 1933 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Thakoor Ramachander Lalji Firm Carrid on by Trustees Dr. A.S. Pai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.564
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. I see no reason why the court should refuse restitution. The decree was admittedly a nullity, the suit having been instituted against a dead man. The Civil Procedure rules are not applicable against dead persons as remarked in Debi Bakhsh Singh v. Habib Shah 19 Ind. Cas. 526 : 35 A. 331 : 17 C.W.N. 829. 11 A.L.J. 625 : 18 C.L.J. 9 : 15 Bom. L.R. 640 : 14 M.L.T. 33 : (1913) M.W.N. 566 : 25 M.L.J. 118 : 16 O.C. 194 : 40 I.A. 150 . The court having levied execution when there was no decree has inherent power to rectify its own mistake under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide also remarks in Sudalalmuthu Pillai v. Sudalaimuthu Pillai : AIR1925Mad365 . I do not propose to go into the academic question whether the petitioners can get a decree, which is a nullity, set aside or not because the only real question is whether he can get restitution of money paid to execution of what was not a decree. I have no doubt that he can.2. The order will be that the mone...
S.M. Arumugha Chetty Vs. Ranganatham Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad847; (1933)65MLJ741
Reilly, J.1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, his grandson, are the only coparceners in a Hindu joint family. The Plaintiff sues for a declaration that a written instrument, Ex. A, dated 25th January, 1930 and admittedly signed by him, is void, and for partition of the family property. His case in regard to Ex. A appears to be twofold, first, that he can claim a declaration that it is voidable on account of fraud and misrepresentation and secondly, that he can ignore it as void for want of consideration and for another reason, which I will mention shortly, and that it is therefore no bar to the partition which he claims. Wallace, J., who heard the suit, dismissed it; and against that decision the Plaintiff appeals.2. The Plaintiff's story in his plaint is that after the death of his only son in August, 1929, he was not satisfied with the Behaviour of his grandson, the Defendant, a young man then of about 18 years, and that he therefore wished for a partition on the following lines: fir...
Sree Chand Sowcar by Agent Roopchand Sowcar Vs. T. Kasi Chetty Alias N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad885; 147Ind.Cas.383; (1934)66MLJ170
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant) for the recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due on a mortgage bond executed by the 1st defendant for Rs. 1,000 on 15th November, 1924. The 2nd defendant is a subsequent purchaser of the mortgaged property from the 1st defendant. Various contentions were raised by these defendants in respect of which issues were also framed, but the learned Judge in the Court below wanted to dispose of the suit on what he calls two preliminary points, one of which he decided definitely against the plaintiff. On the strength of that finding, the suit was dismissed. Hence this appeal.2. The mortgaged property belonged to the 1st defendant's grandfather Srinivasa Chettiar. The 1st defendant's right to that property is derived from the will, Ex. I, executed by the said Srinivasa Chettiar in 1904. The contention of the 2nd defendant is that according to the terms of that will it should be taken that the mor...
Janaki Ammal Vs. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad45; (1934)66MLJ40
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The appellant was the petitioner who filed E.P. No. 787 of 1927 in O.S. No. 267 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kumbakonam, for the execution of the mortgage-decree by the sale of the mortgaged property. This petition was presented on 16th November, 1927. In order to show that it was not barred by limitation, a payment of Rs. 50 on 20th November, 1924, by the 2nd defendant's guardian towards the subsequent interest of the said decree and costs was set up in the petition. The 2nd defendant simply denied the fact of payment. In the inquiry held by the District Munsif, he found the alleged payment to be true and held that the execution petition was not barred. ' On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge without expressly stating that he disbelieved the fact of payment, came to the conclusion, that it was not proved that the payment was made towards interest. In this view, he dismissed the petition as barred by time.2. The question is whether the in...
Karuppiah Pillai Vs. Ponnuchami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad768; 145Ind.Cas.972; (1933)65MLJ532
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff held the office of Karnam, and when he was granted leave the defendant was appointed to act for him. The plaintiff subsequently resigned his post in favour of his minor son, and upon his recommendation the defendant was appointed Karnam gumastha during the minority. As consideration for making that recommendation, the plaintiff obtained from the defendant an agreement for the payment of a sum of Rs. 3 per mensem during the period, 1st May, 1926 to 24th June, 1929. The Small Cause suit out of which this petition arises was to enforce that agreement, and the defence was set up that the consideration was unlawful, being opposed to public policy.The learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the claim, disallowing the objection on the ground that the arrangement only amounted to a division of the emoluments between the deputy and the mirasi-holder, i.e., the minor son. This argument does not convince me of the lawful nature of the agreement. The appointment of the ...
K. Raman Vs. A. Parvathi and Her Five Minor Children
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad794; 145Ind.Cas.970; (1933)65MLJ629
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The order for maintenance in favour of the 1st respondent is obviously illegal as independently of any legislative enactment, the law of Malabar does not recognise marriage as a legal institution, the relation being in truth not marriage but a state of concubinage into which the woman enters of her own choice and is at liberty to change when and as often as she pleases and as pointed out in Chantan v. Mathu I.L.R. (1915) 39 Mad. 957 and In re Bharata Iyer (1923) 46 M.L.J. 324 the offspring of such a connection Would be entitled to an order for maintenance against the father only If and when the mother tavazhi or tarwad is unable to maintain them. The Lower Court does, not find nor was it specifically alleged in the petition that the tavazhi or tarwad is unable to maintain the children and the order for maintenance cannot be upheld. The revision petition is therefore allowed and the order for maintenance is set aside....
Gurusami Naidu Vs. Govindappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad762; (1933)65MLJ592
Sundram Chetty, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the 3rd defendant against the order of the District Munsif of Ranipet in C.M.P. No. 605 of 1931 in O.S. No. 12 of 1920 extending the time for payment of a sum of money which according to the terms of the decree was to be paid by plaintiffs within 6 months before recovering possession of the suit properties from the defendants. The District Munsif construed the decree to be one substantially in the nature of a redemption decree, and in the exercise of his discretion under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order 34, Civil Procedure Code, granted an extension of time. The amount has also been paid into Court. The correctness of this order is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition.2. It is urged that the Lower Court is wrong in construing the decree as in the nature of a redemption decree, and that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time fixed in the decree for payment. It is further argued by Mr. Rajah Aiyar for the petitioner th...
A.M. Ramasami Chettiar Vs. Rengan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ693
Curgenven, J.1. The 1st plaintiff is the Zamindar of Naduvasal. He succeeded his father, who died on the 18th August, 1923. On the 22nd November, 1920, the father and son joined in executing a sale deed of the suit property for a sura of Rs. 30,000. After the 1st plaintiff had succeeded to the estate, on the 14th August, 1926, he mortgaged the same property to the 2nd plaintiff. Both plaintiffs then brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale deed of the 22nd November, 1920, was invalid and inoperative beyond the father's lifetime, under the terms of the Impartible Estates Act. The defendants, whe were the vendees, filed their written statements and the suit was posted for settlement of issues when the 1st plaintiff applied to withdraw from the suit. This was objected to by the 2nd plaintiff, the mortgagee, but was eventually allowed. We have been unable to find any order upon the application to withdraw itself, but the result is so stated in the learned District Judge's j...
A.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. Rengan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad824; 147Ind.Cas.203
1. The 1st plaintiff is the zamindar of Naduvasal. He succeeded his father, who died on August 18, 1923. On November 22, 1920, the father and son joined in executing a sale deed of the suit property for a sum of Rs. 30,000. After the 1st plaintiff had succeeded to the estate, on August 14, 1926, he mortgaged the same property to the 2nd plaintiff. Both plaintiffs then brought the present suit for a declaration that the sale deed of November 22, 1920, was invalid and inoperative beyond the father's life-time, under the terms of the Impartible Estates Act. The defendants, who were the vendees, filed their written statements and the suit was posted for settlement of issues when the 1st plaintiff applied to withdraw from the suit. This was objected to by the 2nd plaintiff, the mortgagee, but was eventually allowed. We have been unable to find any order upon the application to withdraw itself, but the result is so staled in the learned District Judge's judgment. Having thus allowed the 1st ...
Guruswami Naidu Vs. Govindappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.927
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the 3rd defend ant against the order of the District Munsif of Ranipet in C. M. P. 605 of 1931 in O.S. No. 12 of 1920, extending the time for payment of a sum of money, which according to the terms of the decree was to be paid, by plaintiffs within six months before recovering possession of the suit properties from the defendants. The District Munsif construed the decree to be one substantially in the nature of a redemption decree, and in the exercise of his discretion under sub-Rule (2) of Rule 7 of Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code, granted an extension of time. The amount has also been paid into court. The correctness of this order is questioned in this Civil Revision Petition. It is urged that the lower Court is wrong in construing (he decree as in 1 he nature of a redemption decree, and that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time fixed in the decree for payment. It is further argued by Mr. Rajah Ayyar for the petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »