Chennai Court July 1934 Judgments
Murugappa Chettiar Vs. S.K. Appavoo Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad257; 152Ind.Cas.763
1. It is alleged that there was a private agreement between the appellant (judgment-debtor) and the decree-holder that the property should not' be sold and that in spite of the agreement the decree-holder brought the property to sale and purchased ithimslf and that the suppression of this agreement would constitute 'fraud' within the meaning of the term fraud used in the expression fraud in conducting sale' in Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C. Assuming that the contention is well founded it is clear that the agreement was not certified by Court as required under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P. C. The present application was made about eight months after the agreement relied, on and there is nothing on record to show that the iraud relied on did not come to the notice of the appellant, more than 90'days-before the presentation of the present application. The application cannot therefore be treated as an application for certifying adjustment of the decree. The observations in Ramayyar v. Ramayya...
Tag this Judgment!G. Sundaram Chettiar Vs. P.A. Valli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad43; 152Ind.Cas.687; (1935)68MLJ16
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the defendant in C.S. No. 150 of 1934 for an order staying further proceedings in the suit whether by way of execution or otherwise pending disposal of O.S.A. No. 36 of 1934 which appeal is before us for admission.2. The following are the facts of the Case. O.S.A. No. 36 of 1934 is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Stone which itself was made on an appeal from an order of the Master. It is necessary to go back to the inception of this matter. The respondent here is a woman. She filed a suit on a promissory note against the appellant claiming Rs. 3,150, the face value of the promissory note being Rs. 4,000. She was unable to produce the promissory note and sued for the lesser amount upon the following ground, namely, that the defendant had made a part payment of Rs. 1,000. That accounts for the suit being for a lesser amount than the face value of the promissory note. As regards her inability to produce it with t...
Tag this Judgment!Sonnammal Vs. Coimbatore Maha Jana Bank, Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad690; 152Ind.Cas.132
ORDER1. In this case a petitioner who filed a petition for permission to sue as a pauper under Order 33, Civil P.C., engaged a pleader and gave him a vakalat in the usual form. The petition was allowed by the Court and was registered as a suit. The question arises whether the pleader should be given a fresh vakalat to conduct the suit or in. other words whether the vakalat already given in connexion with the pauper petition would not be sufficient for-the purposes of the suit also. The vakalat already given to the pleader though it mentions 'original petition,' the printed word 'suit' above the words having been scored out does not specifically limit the appearance to the petition for permission to sue as a pauper only. By operation of law the petition to sue as a pauper becomes converted into a suit when it is allowed by the Court. In our opinion the vakalat given in connection with the petition must when the petition becomes converted into a suit be considered to have become vakalat ...
Tag this Judgment!Kachi Kadambi Krishnamachariar Vs. T. Jagannadha Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad178; 153Ind.Cas.386
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner's application' under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious-Endowments Act, was dismissed by the District Judge without allowing the petitioner to adduce evidence as the learned Judge was of opinion that the procedure contemplated by the Act places-the obligation upon him of adducing evidence at the time of the hearing of the dispute by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, and that the petitioner was not entitled; therefore to have the matter heard practically de novo. This very question was expressly decided in the contrary by a. Bench of this Court in Iswarananda Bharathi Swami v. H.R.E. Board Madras 1932 Mad 593, the head-note of which runs as follows:An application under Section 84(2), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, is not merely in the nature of an appeal or revision petition;...the application is, so far as the Court is concerned, an application to which the ordinary procedure of the Court will apply, and on which the parties have th...
Tag this Judgment!Penumetsa Ramachandra Raju Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Cou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1934
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.765a
Judgment.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for refund of water-lax collected from him by Government for Fasli 1334. The trial Court gave him a decree which was reversed in appeal and against 1 he decree of the loner Appellate Court he prefers this Second Appeal. Plaintiff owned Re-S. No. 331 of Bhimavaram which was entitled to irrigation under the Ayacut of Nara-simhapuram channel. Admittedly an unauthorised blind was put across he Rayalam Murugu drain and from the channel so bunded up water flowed to the plaintiff's field. Admittedly also, whether the plaintiff transplanted his field before this water came on his land or after it, his crop was standing on the land simultaneously with the arrival of the water on his land from the unauthorised source. The attention of the trial Court was not drawn to the Full Bench decision in Secretary of State for India v. Mahadeva Sastrigal : (1917)32MLJ411 which governs the present case. There has been in the present case a certificate from the Collector th...
Tag this Judgment!P.C. Thirumalai Goundar Vs. Town Bank, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad709; 153Ind.Cas.630
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The judgment-debtor is the appellant. In a suit brought against him, a money decree for Rs. 6,000 was passed. In execution of that decree properties had been brought to sale. Then he filed an application under Order 41, Rule 6, Clause (2) to stay the sale in execution. The learned Judge ordered that the sale can be stopped only on the petitioner depositing into Court the decree amount, i.e., the amount that would be due on the date the amount is deposited, on or before 15th January 1934, failing which he ordered the petition will stand dismissed with costs. Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar on behalf of the appellant argued that under Order 41, Rule 6, Clause (2), the lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order staying execution making it a condition that the decree amount should be deposited. According to him the only term which the learned Judge can impose under the order is that security should be given and that he can impose no other condition. Whether this argument ca...
Tag this Judgment!(Adivi) Bapiraju and anr. Vs. Tummalapalli Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad662
Walsh, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal which arises in the following way : A decree was obtained in O.S. No. 34 of 1917 against defendant 1 who is the lather of the present appellants. An attempt was made in execution to sell the property in 1920 and an attachment petition was put in but it was dismissed for default of prosecution. In 1924 another application to attach these properties was made and the present appellants put in a claim, petition Ex. 6 on 23rd October 1924 alleging that subsequent to the decree there had been a partition between them and their father and they had been in possession of the properties that fell to their share and these properties could not be attached in execution proceedings for a decree obtained against their father. That claim was allowed the decree-holder's pleader reporting no instructions. The respondent who subsequently got an assignment of this decree put in an execution petition, E.P. 616 of 1925, to attach and br...
Tag this Judgment!(Penumetsa) Ramachandraraju Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad689
Walsh, J.1. Plaintiff filed a suit for refund of water-tax collected from him by Government for fasli 1334. The trial Court gave him a decree which was reversed in appeal and against the decree of the lower appellate Court ha prefers this second appeal. Plaintiff owned Re-S. No. 331 of Bhimavaram which was entitled to irrigation under the Ayacut of Narasimhapuram channel. Admittedly an unauthorised bund was put across the Rayalam Murugu drain and from the channel so bounded up water flowed to the plaintiff's field. Admittedly also, whether the plaintiff transplanted his field before this water came on his land or after it, his crop was standing on the lands simultaneously with the arrival of the water on his land from the unauthorised source. The attention of the trial Court was not drawn to the Full Bench decision in Secretary of State v. Mahadeva Sastrigal 1918 Mad. 969, which governs the present case. There has been in the present case a certificate from the Collector that the irrig...
Tag this Judgment!Adivi Bapiraju and anr. Vs. Tummalapalli Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.459
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal which arises in the following way. A. decree was obtained in O.S. No. 34 of 1917, against the first defendant who is the father of the present appellants. An attempt was made in execution to sell the property in 1920 and an attachment petition was put in but it was dismissed for default of prosecution. In 1924 another application to attach these properties was made and the present appellants put in a claim petition Ex. VI on October 23, 1921, alleging that subsequent to the decree there had been a partition between them and their father and they had been in possession of the properties that fall to their snare and these properties could not be attached in execution proceedings for a decree obtained against their father. That claim was allowed the decree-holder's pleader reporting no instructions. The respondent who subsequently got an assignment of this decree put in an execution petition E. P. No...
Tag this Judgment!Kadir Moideen Rowther and ors. Vs. Asiaru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad702; 152Ind.Cas.641
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this second appeal. He brought the suit as endorsee of a pro-note Ex. A purported to be executed on 4th September 1924, by the defendant in favour of one Fatima Bi for a cash consideration of Rs. 900. It was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff on 3rd June 1925. The defence was a denial of the execution. Three issues were framed in trial of the suit: '(1) Is the suit pro-note genuine?; (2) to what relief is the plaintiff entitled? and (3) whether the plaintiff is a bona fide holder in due course?' (An ex parte decree had been already passed but et aside at the request of the defendant). The plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 2 and stated that Ex. A was assigned to him under Ex. A-1. P.W. 3, Batcha Rowther is an attestor of Ex. A and P.W. 4 is an attestor of Ex. A-1. The trial Court found the note to be genuine and gave the plaintiff a decree. On appeal by the defendant the suit was remanded for a' finding on the following issue: ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »