Chennai Court February 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.
Abdul Azim Sahib and ors. Vs. Chokkan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ821
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this reference to a Full Bench arises may be shortly stated. The respondent in the High Court obtained a decree in O.S. No. 128 of 1921 and in execution of the decree brought certain properties of the judgment-debtors to sale and purchased the properties. The sale was confirmed in his favour on the 14th March, 1924, after the dismissal of an application by the judgment-debtors to set aside the sale.2. There was an appeal and also a revision to the High Court. The revision petition was dismissed on the 12th October 1927. It is conceded by all the parties that 12thOctober, 1927, may be taken to be the date when the sale became absolute. Within three years of the High Court's order, that is, 1st September 1930, the decree-holder by M.P. No. 561 of 1930 applied for delivery of possession of the properties purchased. The properties purchased comprised a house and certain lands. The house was item 2 of the application. When the amin proceeded to deliver p...
S.M. Narayana Aiyangar Vs. S.P.R.M. Subramanian Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1935
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ233
V. Ramesam, J.1. This batch of second appeals arises out of a number of suits for rent for different faslis under Section 77 of the Estates Land Act. There are two holdings under the tenants one holding under patta No. 38 and another holding under patta No. 54. Rent is claimed for portions of the suit holdings at a rate higher than the dry rate on the ground that there are cocoanut gardens in these holdings. In a former litigation between the same parties which culminated in S.A. Nos. 433, etc., of 1924, the same claim was made. The defendant ryot resisted the claim at the higher rate on the ground that a cocoanut plantation was an improvement within the meaning of Section 3(4)(f) of the Estates Land Act and that he is not liable to pay the higher rate and is liable to pay only the dry rate. It was held by Devadoss and Wallace, JJ., that the planting of a cocoanut garden was not an improvement under the Act and that the plaintiff was entitled to the enhanced rate. The same holdings are...
Kamakshi Chettiar Vs. Thangamuthu Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad424
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dated 6th February 1933 in A.S. No. 37 of.1933, which was an appeal from the order made in execution' of the decree in 0 Section No. 298 of 1932 by the Districc Munsif of Peria Julam. The first judgment-debtor therein pleaded under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil P.C. that the-decree had been adjusted by the decree-holder accepting a Bum of Rs. 500 from him in full settlement of the decree and? he prayed the Court to record this-adjustment under Order 21, Rule 2. This petition was dismissed by the District. Munsif on the preliminary ground that the judgment-debtor could not be permitted to prove the alleged adjustment in view of the provisions of Section 92, Evidence Act. On appeal, the Subordinate' Judge found that the District Munsif's view was wrong and that the judgment-debtor was entitled to prove the adjustment by oral evidence and remanded! the petition to the District Munsif for-disposal on the me...
Abdul Aziz Sahib and ors. Vs. Chokkan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad803; 159Ind.Cas.279
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this reference of Full Bench arises may be shortly staled. The respondent in the High Court obtained a decree in O.S. No 128 of 1921 and in execution of the decree brought certain properties of the judgment-debtors to sale and purchased the properties. The sale was confirmed in his favour on March 11, 1924, after the dismissal of an application by the judgment-debtors to set aside the sale. There was an appeal and also a revision to the High Court. The revision petition was dismissed on October 12, 1927. It is conceded by all the parties that October 12, 1927, may be taken to be the date when the sale became absolute. Within three years of the High Court's order, i.e., September 1, 1930, the decree-holder by M.P. No. 561 of 1930 applied for delivery of possession of the properties purchased. The properties purchased comprised a house and certain lands. The house was item No. 2 of the application. When the Amin proceeded to deliver possession of the ...
S.M. Narayana Ayyangar Vs. S.P.R.M. Subramanian Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1935
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.24
Ramesam, J.1. This batch of second appeals arises out of a number of suits for rent for different Faslis under Sections 77, Estates Land Act. There are two holdings under the tenant: one holding tinder Patta No. 38 and another holding under Patta No. 54. Rent is claimed for portions of the suit holdings at a rate higher than the dry rate on the ground that there are cocoanut gardens in these holdings. In a former litigation between the same parties which culminated in S.A. No. 433, etc., of 1924 the same claim was made. The defendant ryot resisted the claim at the higher rate on the ground that a cocoanut plantation was an improvement within the meaning of Sections 3(4)(f), Estates Land Act, and that he is not liable to pay the higher rate and is liable to pay only the dry rate. It was held by Devadoss and Wallace, JJ. in Vellaypppa Chetti v. Subramanian Chettiar 50 M 482 : 99 Ind. Cas. 559 : A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 137 : 51 M.L.J. 880 : 24 L.W. 803 : (1926) M.W.N. 978, that the planting of a...
R. Rajagopalachariar, Official Receiver Vs. A. Krishna Mudaliar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad429; 157Ind.Cas.414; (1935)68MLJ593
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal relates to the execution of a mortgage decree now held by the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly, who is the appellant before us. The decree provides that certain items of property in the possession of the third and fourth defendants, who were parties to the mortgage, should be sold first and that then if there was a further sum to be realised the items in the possession of the fifth and sixth defendants, who were purchasers of the equity of redemption of those items, should be brought to sale. There were several execution petitions but we need only refer in the first place to E.P. No. 18 of 1923 where an order for sale in accordance with the decree of the third and fourth defendants' properties was made. This sale was stayed under an order passed by Wallace, J., in C.M.P. No. 3947 of 1923 which runs as follows:Properties in the hands of defendants five and six will be sold first. If they do not realise the full decree amount, properties in the hands of appella...
The Official Receiver, Kistna Vs. Gogineni Kodandaramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad651; (1935)68MLJ681
Pandrang Row, J.1. These arise out of the order in appeal of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, dated 12th April, 1933. There were two appeals to the Subordinate Judge from one and the same order passed by the District Munsiff of Bezwada in two applications made to him under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Two different decree-holders had attached certain properties in execution of decrees obtained by them against two persons, father and son. Before the properties were actually brought to sale, the father filed an insolvency petition, and in that petition the Official Receiver, Kistna was appointed receiver of his properties. Thereupon the Official Receiver presented two applications under Section 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act praying that the sale of the properties may be stopped. The District Munsiff after enquiry held that the properties brought to sale were the self-acquisitions of the father Bapayya and accordingly stopped the sales and directed the de...
Bhudhavarapu Suryanarayana Vs. Pyda Suryanarayanamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad453
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge dated 16th November 1932 in appeal from the order of the District Munsif of Ramachandrapuram dated 12fch July 1932 in a petition by the prior mortgagee (6fch defendant in O.S. No. 127 of 1928), praying that the properties to be sold in execution of the decree therein may be sold free of his prior mortgages, under the provisions of Order 34, Rules 12 and 13. The District Munsif was apparently of opinion that the word 'sale' used in Rule 12,Order 34 cannot moan a sale in execution but can only refer to a sale 'embodied in the decree itself.' He therefore held that Rule 12 did not apply and that the prior mortgagee had no right to apply to the Court under that rule. The petition was therefore dismissed. On appeal however the Subordinate Judge found that Rule 12, Order 34, did apply, and that the prayer of the prior mortgagee should have been allowed by the lower Court. The appeal was accordingly allow...
Periyanan Servai and ors. Vs. Mahadevan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad679; 158Ind.Cas.375
Ramesam, J.1. The suit is to establish plaintiffs' right to two dignities in connexion with a temple. They were to be observed during a car festival before the dragging of the car. They consist in the receipt of a cocoanut and breaking it near the idol on each occasion and were described as Natter cocoanut and Ambalam cocoanut. In themselves they are not of a substantial value. Unless they are attached to some office, the suit is not maintainable. The Subordinate Judge finds that the office now mentioned in the plaint as the offices to which the dignities are attached never existed. The defendants say that the dignities are attached to the office of decking the car. This is disbelieved by the Subordinate Judge. Neither side mentions any offices in the pleadings in the former suit, O.S. No. 150 of 1903 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Sivaganga, in which the positions of the parties were reversed (Exs. 8and 8-C; see also Ex. P). We agree with the findings of the Subord...
Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. K.M. Parimala Kandar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad697; 157Ind.Cas.379
Beasley, C.J.1. These were application's in the lower Court by the judgment-debtor and by the receiver over the properties sold in execution to have the sale set aside upon various grounds. We are here only concerned with two of them which are technical objections. The sale of the properties had been ordered by the Sub-Court, Salem. The same Court in another suit appointed the receiver over the properties which were being brought to sale in pursuance of the orders of the Court. After his appointment the receiver put in an application to the same Court for permission to pay Rs. 1,000 towards the decree debt.2. In this application he described himself as the receiver and he asked that the sale might be stayed for the purpose of enabling him to make that payment towards the decree debt. That application was granted and, we are told that there was subsequently an adjournment of the sale for one week. The sale then took place and, after it, the applications, the orders on which are the subj...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »