Chennai Court October 1934 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.
(Gabu Peda) Appanna Vs. Kuligu Krishnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad134; 153Ind.Cas.332
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against a decree passed in a suit brought under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. The facts which led up to the suit were as follows: Ono Appala Ramaswami was the manager of a joint Hindu family property. The plaintiff's case was that he had been holding lands under Appala Ramaswami as a tenant from 1919 until the latter's death in 1928. After his death quarrels arose amongst the members of the family and a partition suit, O.S. No. 66 of 1928, was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam. The plaintiff alleged that Raju Naidu, son of Appala Ramaswami, leased the suit properties to him for the year 1929 by Ex. C dated 3rd February 1929. A receiver was appointed in the suit and plaintiff had therefore to get a fresh lease from the latter which he got from Telugu New Year's day, 1929 at the rate of Rs. 65. He stated that the defendant forcibly dispossessed him of the property and filed a suit on 24th September 1929. The defendant asserted ...
Swamy Kotayya Vs. Thunuguntla Venkata Rangarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.428
1. This petition raises the question whether when a debtor has been adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act, his creditor can, without the leave of the Insolvency Court file an execution application against him with a prayer for his arrest. Our decision depends upon the interpretation of Section 23(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act which runs as follows:On the making of an order of adjudication the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a Receiver as herein after provided, and shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter, except as provided by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under this Act shall during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceedings, except with the leave of the Court on such terms as the Court may impose.2. At first sight the in...
S. Ramaswamia Pillai Vs. Krishnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad230; (1935)69MLJ38
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly on I.A. No. 1267 of 1932 in O.S. No. 517 of 1932 refusing the order of the plaintiff in the suit to furnish security for costs. The plaintiff sued for a sum of Rs. 2,569-6-6 alleged to have been deposited by her husband with the defendant under the pass-book, dated 5th February, 1929. It is alleged that this sum has been gifted to the plaintiff by her husband. The plaintiff was given leave to sue in forma pauperis. The plaint appears to have been filed on 29th October, 1932, and issues were framed on 3rd November, 1932, and on that very day the petitioner (defendant) put in an application under Order 25, Rule 1(3), Civil Procedure Code, for furnishing security. It was returned on 4th November, 1932, and re-presented on 5th November, 1932. I append below the B diary with regard to this, which is important. It will be seen that the case was adjourned on several dates and that on 2nd Fe...
The Special Deputy Collector Vs. the Rajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad215; 157Ind.Cas.500; (1935)68MLJ575
King, J.1. Certain land situated in two villages and belonging to the impartible estate of the Rajah of Ramnad was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of making a road. The acquiring Officer (the Special Deputy Collector, Ramnad) deposited the compensation money in Court under Section 31 of the Act. The District Judge, holding in effect that the money should not have been deposited, ordered it to be paid to the Rajah. These are revision petitions filed by the Government against his order.2. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Rajah that as the Land Acquisition Act provided in Section 54 for an appeal, no revision petition could be heard. Realising that this contention would involve a lengthy argument of only academical interest, and realising also the importance of the point raised in the petitions, we converted the petitions into appeals and proceeded to hear them on their merits.3. The learned District Judge in a brief order has given two reasons f...
Arrepu Venkataramanayya Vs. Bili Bangarayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad107
1. The preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies in this case and reliance has been placed upon the Frill Bench decision of this Court; in Hari Rao v. Official Assignee, Madras 1926 Mad. 556, which is a decision under Section 8(2), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act and it was there held that an insolvent whose estate has vested in the Official Assignee is not entitled to appeal as an 'aggrieved person' within Section 8(2), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, against an order of a Judge rejecting his opposition to a sale of his estate by the Official Assignee which is the position here. The decision in Sakhawat v. Radha Mohan 1919 All. 284 is followed in this Full Bench decision. That was one under the same section as that here in the Provincial insolvency Act and is therefore directly in point. It is quite clear that both the Full Bench decisions of this High Court and the Allahabad decision are based upon the view taken by the English Courts with regard to whether or not an ...
Nimmagadda Satynarayana Vs. Adusumilli Anjaneyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad310; 157Ind.Cas.278
ORDERWalsh, J.1. A small cause suit was brought on a promissory note dated 22nd August 1927, executed by defend dant 1 in favour of defendant 2, and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff on 24th November 1927. Defendant 1 pleaded: (1) that the note was not sup ported by consideration, and (2) that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course. Defendant 2 said he had no notice of dishonour and hence the suit must be dismissed as against him. The lower Court found the suit note was not supported by consideration, that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course, and even if he were, he had notice of the defect in title of his transferor. The suit was therefore dismissed and this revision petition has been filed against the dismissal.2. As regards the finding that the note itself is not supported by consideration, it had to be admitted for the petitioner that there is the evidence of the writer of the note, D. W. 2, who says that nothing was paid and that the real consideration was tha...
S. Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Krishnamal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.317
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly on I.A. No. 1267 of 1932 in O.S. No. 517 of 1932 refusing to order the plaintiff in the suit to furnish security for costs. The plaintiff sued for a sum of Rs. 2,569-6-6 alleged to have been deposited by her husband with the defendant under the pass book dated February 5, 1929. It is alleged that this sum has been gifted to the plaintiff by her husband. The plaintiff was given leave to sue in forma pauperis. The plaint appears to have been tiled on October 29, 1932, and issues were framed on November 3, 1932, and on that very day the petitioner (defendant) put in an application under Order XXV, Rule 1 (3), Civil Procedure Code, for famishing security. It was returned on November 1, 1932, and represented on November 5, 1932. I append below the B. Diary with regard to this, which is important. It will be seen that the case was adjourned on several dates and that on February 2, 1933, th...
Kumaraswami Desikar Vs. Dhiraviam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad39; 153Ind.Cas.382
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The suit was laid on a promissory note said to have been exemited by the two defendants. Defendant 1 admitted execution but pleaded that he was not liable on the note. Defendant 2 denied execution and the lower Court found that his signature was forged. A decree has been granted against defendant 1 and the present revision petition is filed against that decree. The general trend of decisions in this Court is that a decree cannot be given on a document which is found to be a forgery. The earliest case here is an unreported ruling of Miller, J., in C.R.P. No. 601 of 1912, where he followed Gour Chandra Das v. Prasanna Kumara (1906) 33 Cal. 812. This case was followed in Amirtham Pillai v. Nanjah Goundan 1914 Mad. 369 by Sadasiva Ayyar, J., and Wallace,. J., in Santhu Mohideen Pillai v. jamaluddin Lebbai 1928 Mad 1092 followed these two rulings and refused to follow the ruling of Devadoss, J., in Madam Pillai v. Athinarayana Pillai 1925 Mad, 929. There is one other report...
Allada Lakshmikanta Rao Vs. Nadella Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad97
Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. The final decree in the suit was passed on 2nd December 1921. On 21st October 1925 that decree was amended. It is contended here that the final decree of 2nd December 1921 had become barred by the date of the application for the amendment of the decree and its amendment on 21sfc October 1925. On 28th March 1927 the decree-holder applied for execution. This application was dismissed on 4th May 1927. Ho again applied on 4th November 1927. His application was again dismissed on 22nd November 1927. The execution petitioner filed another petition on 20th January 1928 and objection was raised that the petition was barred by limitation as having been presented more than three years after the passing of the final decree on 2nd December 1921. The District Munsif upheld this objection. The lower appellate Court reversed the District Munsif's decision. Hence this appeal.2. It is argued here that the amendment of the decree was merely a ...
K.E.S.S. Sankaralingam Chettiar Vs. K.E.S.S. Kuppuswami Chettiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad305a
Stone, J.1. This is an appeal by the. plaintiff. The plaintiff ; by his claim prays that defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 do render true and faithful accounts of the management of the estate of the plaintiff and defendant 1 from 14th July 1915 when the plaintiff's father died till August 1925 when the plaintiff resumed charge of the estate. Then he asks for a decree for the amount from June and lie asks for ancillary reliefs. The learned Subordinate fudge has given a decree directing that defendants 2 to 4 do render accounts in respect of the respective periods of their management, namely defendant 2 (as interim guardian) from 14th July 1915 up to 1st December 1917, and defendants 3 and 4 (as guardians appointed by Court) from 1st December 1917 to 9th April 1925. He has thus obsolved defendant 5 from liability to account. A further question arises in the appeal as to the liability of defendant 8. Defendant 8 is the son of defendant 5. Defendant 5 it is said may be liable under two heads. One a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »