Chennai Court January 1935 Judgments
Sadaya Padayachi and anr. Vs. Chinnaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad609; 157Ind.Cas.1012; (1935)69MLJ99
Curgenven, J.1. We think that the preliminary objection taken by the respondent that no appeal will lie in this case must prevail. An ex parte decree was passed against the appellants and they applied under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to have it set aside. This application was dismissed for their default. They then applied to have that order set aside and their application restored and this has been dismissed upon the merits. It is from this Order that the appeal is preferred, and it is urged that it will lie under Order 43, Rule (1)(c), Civil Procedure Code, by force of the application of Section 141 of the Code. That section provides that:The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction.2. And it has been invoked as sufficient warrant for the view held in two Madras cases, Venkatanarasimha Rao v. Suryanaryana A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 325 and Salar Beg Saheb v. Karuma...
Tag this Judgment!Pichai Pillai and ors. Vs. Balasundara Mudaly and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad442; 157Ind.Cas.24; (1935)68MLJ608
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. These five Criminal Revision Petitions relate to prosecutions instituted against Police officers for offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty, and they raise the general question whether the previous sanction of the Local Government should have been obtained under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We have to decide what is the correct construction to be placed upon the words ' any public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of a Local Government or some higher authority.'2. In Sheik Abdul Kadir Saheb v. Emperor (1916) 1 M.W.N. 384, Coutts Trotter, J. (after Chief Justice) had to deal with this point in a case in which the Chairman of a Union Panchayat was prosecuted for the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. The learned Judge found thatThe power of removal was vested in the Local Government by Section 126 of the Madras Local Boards Act and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Majeti Venkatasurya Subbarayudu Sowcar, Being Minor by Mother and Next ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad565; (1935)68MLJ615
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam refusing, on the appellant's application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside a previous order dismissing the suit and to restore the suit to the file. The appellant is the plaintiff's next friend and the plaintiff is the son of the first defendant. There are a large number of defendants most of them alienees of property from the first defendant, the father of the plaintiff. The suit was filed in 1925; and various reliefs were claimed in it, one relief of course being to set aside the alienations as not binding on the joint family. The other matters in the suit as between the father and the plaintiff, his son, were compromised in 1927 and the matters remaining, namely, the questions relating to these alienations, stood over, and the suit did not come up for final hearing until the 21st January, 1931 nearly 4 years after the compro...
Tag this Judgment!Moturi Veerayya Vs. Rao Bahadur P.V. Srinivasa Rao, the Official Recei ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ364
King, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us:(1)(i) Where the Insolvency Court annuls an adjudication under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920 and chooses to pass an order under Section 37 vesting the properties of the quondam insolvent in an appointee (Official Receiver or any other person), is the administration in insolvency to continue for the realisation and distribution of the assets of such a person despite the annulment of the adjudication itself? and(ii) if not, what is the scope of his functions as a trustee by reason of the vesting order under Section 37?2. The two sections referred to in these questions run as follows:Section 43 (1) : If the debtor does not appear on the day fixed for hearing his application for discharge or on such subsequent day as the Court may direct, or if the debtor does not apply for an order of discharge within the period specified by the Court, the order of adjudication shall be annulled, and the provisions of ...
Tag this Judgment!Cheerath Veettil Karnavan and Manager Madhavan Nair (Died) Cheerath Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ539
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover the money spent by his deceased father as 'receiver' in the following circumstances.2. The first defendant is the Karnavan of the Cheerath tarwad and the second defendant is the karnavan of one of its tavazhis. One Gopalan Nair of the second defendant's tavazhi had taken a ticket in a kuri for Rs. 34,000 and after his death his tavazhi karnavan Achuthan Nair, who was also-the karnavan of the tarwad, continued to subscribe to the kuri. He mortgaged the immoveable properties belonging to the tarwad lying in. the Cochin State and this kuri right to the plaintiff's father for a sum of Rs. 10,000. O.S. No. 79 of 1095 on the file of the District Court, Trichur was instituted by the plaintiff's father for the sale of the mortgaged properties. Achuthan Nair being dead, the karnavans of the tarwad as well as of the tavazhi, the present defendants 1 and 2, were ...
Tag this Judgment!Thathammal Vs. V. Parankusam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad418; (1935)68MLJ461
King, J.1. These appeals arise from a somewhat unusual situation which has arisen between a husband and wife. In O.S. No. 289 of 1927 the wife sued her husband for the return of jewels or their value and in due course in December, 1928, obtained a decree against him. Meanwhile early in 1928 the husband sued his wife for restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree ordering such restitution on the 7th March, 1928. In 1930, both parties filed execution petitions. The wife's execution petition is 609 of 1930 filed on the 7th August and the husband's 627 of 1930 filed on the 10th September. Both these execution petitions were disposed of on the 17th September. The prayer of the husband that the wife's decree should be attached was allowed and the prayer of the wife that execution should proceed against the person of her husband to recover the money due to her was dismissed apparently on the ground that the decree was under attachment in execution of the husband's decree. Against bo...
Tag this Judgment!R. Venkatesa Aiyangar Vs. P.R.Y. Manikkavachakam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad660; (1935)68MLJ738
King, J.1. These are connected appeals concerned with p property which has been subject to five successive mortgages. The first was a usufructuary mortgage executed in January, 1910, for Rs. 4,000; the second was a simple mortgage executed in July, 1912 for Rs. 500; the third was a simple mortgage executed in August, 1917 for Rs. 10,000; the fourth was a simple mortgage executed also in August, 1917 for Rs. 691-12-0 and the fifth was a simple mortgage executed on the 27th February, 1920 for Rs. 4,500. The fifth mortgage was executed in favour of the appellant in these appeals and of the sum of Rs. 4,500 secured by that mortgage, Rs. 4,000 was devoted to the discharge of the first usufructuary mortgage of 1910 on the same day.2. In 1923 the second mortgagee filed a suit (O.S. No. 799 of 1923) to enforce his mortgage in which the appellant was impleaded as the fifth defendant. The appellant there claimed that he was entitled to priority in respect of the Rs. 4,000 which he had paid to re...
Tag this Judgment!Gurjala Subramanyam (Died) Gurjala Srinivasaiah, Minor Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ597
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal is against an order dismissing a petition to set aside a sale in execution preferred by some of the judgment-debtors against whom the respondents obtained a mortgage decree. Various grounds were adduced before the lower Court in support of the application but only one of them has been pressed before us vis., that the purchaser of certain items had been appointed a receiver in respect of them and had not obtained permission to bid at the auction in that capacity. The mortgagee decree-holders were respondents 1 to 8 and it appears that on the 16th January, 1928 the 8th respondent, who was the 7th plaintiff in the suit, was appointed a receiver of the property under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. Prior to this in August, 1927 he had obtained leave to bid as one of the decree-holders, but he had obtained no such leave as receiver and we do notthink that leave given to a decree-holder as such can be taken to give him leave to bid when he is subsequently ...
Tag this Judgment!Ry. Pratapasimha Raja Saheb and anr. Vs. T.Rm.T.S.P.Pl. Palaniappa Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad607; 157Ind.Cas.982
Cornish, J.1. The appellant, the judgment-debtor, represented by the Official Receiver of West Tanjore, unsucessfully applied under Order 21, Rule 90 to have a sale of property set aside alleging material irregularities in the publishing and the conducting of the sale. In appeal two grounds have been urged before us by his learned advocate for impeaching the sale. Tirst, it is contended that there was material irregularity in the conduct of the sale of a property sold as lot 5, the allegation being that the Court wrongfully rejected the offer of one of the bidders at the sale before the sale had been closed. The second ground of objection is that there was an irregularity in the publication in that, although the decree-holder, judgment-debtor and encumbrancer, had agreed to the property being sold free of encumbrances, and an order by consent had been made by the Insolvency Court to that effect, the proclamation announcing that the sale would be subject to encumbrances was allowed to s...
Tag this Judgment!Somarajupalli Mahadevudu and anr. Vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad585; 157Ind.Cas.985
Beasley, C.J.1. The facts relating to the order in C.M.A. No. 166 of 1932, and in the other appeal in C.M.A. No. 167 of 1932 are similar and set out in the earlier part of the lower Court's order. The respondent in these appeals is the President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. The lower Court passed orders dated 31st March 1931 allowing execution. Although the respondents in the petitions had notice of the execution petition they did not appear. The orders were therefore passed in their absence. The arguments of the appellants in these appeals in the lower Court were that the proceedings in which the execution applications were made were not execution proceedings properly so called being in respect of orders passed by the respondent Board assessing certain amounts as contributions payable by the appellants and the respondent Board sought to recover by way of execution under Section 70, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (2 of 1927), and that the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »