Chennai Court January 1935 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.
Cheerath Veetil Karnavan and anr. Vs. E.N.A.S. Narayana Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad594; 157Ind.Cas.746
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st 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. The 1st defendant is the karnawan of the Cheerath tarwad and the 2nd defendant is the karnawan of one of its tavazhis. One Gopalan Nair of the 2nd defendant's tavazhi had taken a ticket in kuri for Rs. 34,000, and after his death his tavazhi karnawan Achuthan Nair who was also the karnawan of the tarwad, 'continued to subscribe to the kuri. He mortgaged the immovable 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 of Trichur, was instituted by the plaintiff's father for the sale of the mortgaged properties. Achuthan Nair being dead, the karnawans of the tarwad as well as of the tavazhi the present defendants Nos. 1 and 2, were partie...
Gurijala Subramanyam and ors. Vs. Damavarapu Venkatasubba Reddi and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad421; 156Ind.Cas.949
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, viz., 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 mortgage decree-holders were respondents Nos. 1 to 8 and it appears that on January 16, 1928, the 8th respondent, who was the 7th plaintiff in the suit, was appointed a Receiver of the property under Order XL, 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 not think that leave given to a decree-holder as such can be taken to give him leave to bid when he is subsequently appointed Rec...
Moturi Veerayya Vs. P.V. Sreenivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad826; 158Ind.Cas.1060
King, J.1. The following two questions have been referred to us: (1) Where the Insolvency Court annuls an adjudication under Section 43, 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 realization and distribution of the assets of such a person despite the annulment of the adjudication itself? and (2) If not what is the scope of his functions as a trustee by reason of the vesting order under Section 37. 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 Section 37...
Srila Sri Vythilinga Pandarasannadhi Avergal Vs. the Secretary of Stat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ396
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that arises is, whether the Government's claim of privilege in regard to the documents Nos. 16 and 17 can be upheld under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. That section runs thus:No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by that disclosure.2. There are two matters involved in this section : first whether a particular document for which the privilege is claimed, falls within it, that is to say, whether the document is a communication made to a public officer in official confidence. On a proper construction of the section, it is for the Court to decide that question. Secondly, should the Court decide that the document is of the nature contemplated by the section, then the public officer himself is the sole Judge as to whether by its disclosure public interests would suffer (that alone being the ground of privilege).3. This distinctio...
Murahari Reddi (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Chenraya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad624; (1935)68MLJ620
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The ninth defendant is the appellant. The facts of the case are clearly stated in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and need not be re-stated.2. The appeal relates to that part of the decree of the Subordinate Judge which directed the Receiver to hand over possession of the property to defendants 1 to 3. The ninth defendant is the purchaser of the property in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 672 of 1921 which he obtained against the present 3rd and other defendants on the foot of a mortgage. In execution of that decree he purchased the property and symbolical delivery of possession was made over to him. But before he purchased the property in execution a Receiver had been appointed in the partition suit in which the present order; which is the subject-matter of the appeal had been passed. The' Receiver had obtained possession of the property from defendants 1 to 3. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the partition suit giving a declaration that the plaintiffs...
Viswanatha Pillai Vs. A.M.V. Mutugappan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad438
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order el the Subordinate Judge of Tutioorin dated 3lst March 1934 dismissing an appeal from the order of the District Munsif of Koilpatti dated 31st December 1932 which dismissed an application by the judgment-debtors in 8. O.S. No. 686 of '1931, on the file of the Sub-Court of Madura, to set aside a sale of certain properties held in execution of that decree. A preliminary objection has been raised to the competency of this appeal, the contention being that no second appeal lies from an appellate order on an application to set aside a sale, inasmuch as only one appeal is allowed from an order on an application to set aside a sale. It has however been held in several cases that a second appeal does lie in a case of this kind where the judgment-debtor himself applies to set aside the sale, as in such a case the provisions of Section 47 apply. It is enough to refer to the cases reported in Neelu Neithiar v. Subranania Moothan 1920 Mad 481; Ra...
Kallara Kambikanom Meathale Veetil Chindan Kaimal and ors. Vs. Board o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad564; 158Ind.Cas.33
Walsh, J.1. In this case the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments declared that the suit temple satisfied the definition of 'temple' in Section 9(12) of Act 2 of 1927 and therefore that the Act applies to it. The plaintiffs, who are the karnavans of a neighbouring tarwad, contended that it was not a temple within the meaning of the Act, and they filed an application in the lower Court under Section 84(2) of the Act which was disposed of against them. Under the ruling in Rajagopala Chettiar v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras 1934 Mad 103, no appeal lies against such an order. At the same time they filed a suit under the general law for a declaration that the order of the Board was ultra vires. [This suit has been dismissed on the ground that it does not lie and against this decree the present appeal is filed. Precisely, this question arose in Iswarananda Bharathiswami v. Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments Board 1931 Mad 574, and after considering a lar...
Kanniammal Vs. Balakrishna Tharvady and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad557
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge in execution proceedings. The appellant here was the respondent in the execution petition and the partially unsuccessful defendant in a suit in the City Civil Court. The, suit was by the plaintiffs as trusties of a Devasthanam claiming several reliefs in respect of certain premises and ground, namely, No. 450, Mint Street, Madras. The reliefs claimed were : a declaration that the property belonged absolutely to the plaintiffs and an order for delivery of possession of the same from the defendant, the appellant here; a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pull down and remove the wall ZY abutting the doorway D and window W in the plan; a perpetual injunction against the defendant preventing the flow of light and air through the openings at D and W; and the right of passage to EFGH across the open space; the right to take water from a certain tap and to use the wall and latrine marked in the pla...
Nelluri Venkayya Vs. Devabhaktuni Raghavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad596; (1935)68MLJ590
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. He preferred a claim to the suit property under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code in connection with the proceedings in execution of his decree started by the second defendant against the first defendant. The plaintiff's case was that the property was given to his maternal grandmother at a partition between the sons of whom one was the first defendant and that it was bequeathed to him under a will. On the first occasion the first Court found that the partition alleged by the plaintiff was proved but that the will relied on by him was not genuine. The plaintiff's suit was therefore dismissed. On appeal the learned judge came to the conclusion that what the lower Court should have considered was the question of possession on the date of the claim proceedings and that the Munsif was wrong in having disposed of the case on the question of title. The Subordinate Judge therefore remanded the suit to the lower Court but in remandin...
Sivarama Pillai and ors. Vs. Ganesarathnam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad353; 159Ind.Cas.893
ORDERStone, J.1. In this case a purchaser sues his vendor and a tenant for possession of the subject matter of the sale. A third party applies to be made a party alleging that the vendor was not entitl to sell the whole which, according to him, is joint family property in which the defendant is entitled to one half. That third party had, before this suit, brought an action against the present plaintiff, the present defendant 1 (tenant) and the present defendant 2 (vendor) claiming half the property. It will thus be seen that in the one case all the necessary parties are before the Court and in the other case they are not. If the two cases are not tried together or not consolidated, the result will be that there will be two judgments and, owing to the differences in the matters in dispute, one judgment may go to one appellate Court and the other judgment to another appellate Court and, as a consequence, conflicting decisions might conceivably be arrived at and it might be decided in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »