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.
M.L.M. Mahalingam Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad587
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff decree-holder in O.S. No. 77 of 1911, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Bamnad at Madura, is the appellant. In that suit he obtained a decree against one Subramaniam Chetti and another for a sum of Rs. 46,000 odd. In O.S. No. 153 of 1910 on the file of the same Subordinate Judge the said ubramaniam Chetti, i.e. defendant 1 in O.S. No. 77 of 1911, obtained a money decree against various defendants of whom the plaintiff in O.S. No. 77 of 1911 was defendant 7. Under that decree defendant 7 had to pay the plaintiff therein a sum of Bs. 33,068-0-9 together with a sum of Rs. 1,624-4-4. for costs. In the application for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1911, out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff decree holder asked that the amount due by him under the decree in O.S. No. 153 of 1910 may be set off against the amount due to him in O.S. No. 77 of 1911, and that he may be permitted to execute the decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1911 for the balan...
Ramasesha Iyer and anr. Vs. C.V. Ramanujachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad459; 157Ind.Cas.251
1. Appellant 1 is the decree, holder in O.S. No. 59 of 1917 on the file of the Sub-Court, Trichinopoly. Appellant 2 is the auction-purchaser of the properties sold in execution of that decree. The respondent is the Official Receiver in I.P. No. 19 of 1918 on the file of the District Court of Salem. This appeal arises out of a petition under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., filed by the respondent to set aside the sale of the properties sold in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 59 of 1917 on account of various alleged irregularities. The circumstances are these. On 26th September 1917 appellant 1 obtained a decree for money in O.S. No. 59 of 1917 against defendant 1 therein, the father, and three other defendants, his sons.2. In execution of the decree he attached on 23rd November 1917 the properties belonging to the defendants. On 11th December 1919 defendant 1, the father, was adjulged insolvent in I. P. No. 19 of 1918 and his property became vested in the respondent, the Official Rec...
Lakshminarayanamoorthi Vs. Sundaram Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad261; 159Ind.Cas.862
ORDERWalsh, J.1. No authority has been quoted to me to show that Order 14, Rule 1, Clause 5, does not apply to this case, or that the first date of hearing had passed when the order sought to be revised was made. The words 'first hearing of the suit' in Order 13, Rule 1 are obviously different from the words 'the first hearing of the suit' under Order 14, Rule 1, Clause 5 because parties have not to produce their documents till issues are framed. It is not necessary here to discuss to what period in the course of the suit first hearing' in Order 14, Rule 1, Clause 5 would extend, but it would clearly extend at least up to the period of 'first hearing of the suit referred to in Order 13(1). There is no reason for cutting down the most useful direction (Order 14, Rule 1 Clause 5) nor can I see any logic in saying that the powers conferred by it only extend to the first discussion of issues and not to any subsequent ones which intervene between 'the first hearing of the suit' as meant by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›