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.
Budhavarapu Suryanarayana Vs. Pyda Suryanarayanamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.40
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, dated November 16, 1932, in appeal from the order of the District Munsif of Rama-chandrapuram, dated July 12, 1932, in a petition by the prior mortgagee (6th 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 XXXIV, Rules 12 and 13. The District Munsif was apparently of opinion that the word 'sale' used in Rule 12, Order XXXIV, cannot mean 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 XXXIV, did apply, and that the prayer of the prior mortgagee should have been allowed by the lower Court. The appeal was acc...
The Official Receiver Vs. Gogeineni Kondaramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.826
Pandrang Row, J.1. These arise out of the order in appeal of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dated April 13, 1933. There were two appeals to the Subordinate Judge from one and the same order passed by the District Munsif 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 praying that the sale of the properties may be stopped. The District Munsif after enquiry held that the properties brought to sale were the self-acquisitions of the father Bapayya and accordingly stopped the sales and directed delivery of th...
R. Seshayee Aiyangar (Deceased) E. Veeraraghava Aiyangar Brought on Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ87
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise two important questions : (1) as to the scope of Section 78 of the Religious Endowments Act and (2) as to the applicability of Order 21, Rules 97, 98 and 99 of the Civil Procedure Code to a proceeding under that Section. A scheme was settled in September, 1927 by the Religious Endowments Board in respect of the temple in question under Section 57 of the Act. In virtue of that scheme, the petitioner became the trustee and applied to the District Court under Section 78 against the ex-trustee (who was the sole respondent to the petition) for being put into possession of the property. On the 30th March, 1929 the District Judge made an order granting the petitioner's request. In spite of that order, he was unable to obtain actual possession of either the temple or its properties, by reason of the resistence offered by two persons, Govinda Pillai and Veeraraghava Aiyangar. Thereupon he applied for delivery as against them, complaini...
K. Marudanayakam Pillai Vs. Subramanian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad425; 158Ind.Cas.216; (1935)68MLJ643
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken in O.S. No. 43 of 1930 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram. That was a suit filed by a creditor against a Hindu widow in respect of two promissory notes, Exs. A and B, executed by her in April, 1928 and April, 1929, respectively for Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,000. In due course the creditor obtained his decree and applied for execution against the estate of the widow's husband which was then in her possession. In his execution application, the second respondent was the receiver in O.S. No. 7 of 1931. That was a suit filed by the nearest reversioner against the widow for the appointment of a receiver. The Subordinate Judge held that it was open to the creditor to proceed against the estate of the debtor's husband by an order passed in March, 1932. Subsequently in about July, 1932 the widow died. There was no long therefore any necessity for the continuance of the receiver in the suit, and it is the reversioner who ...
K. Narasimha Pai and ors. Vs. Chandu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad474; 157Ind.Cas.586
Curgenven, J.1. In O.S. No. 26 of 1915 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara a scheme was settled for the Sri Venkatramana temple at Moolki. By the scheme the general control and management of the affairs of the temple is vested in the Gowd Sara-swath Brahmin community, and the executive management is entrusted to. a Council of moktessors. The scheme provides in a comprehensive manner for the ainistration of the temple and lays down a number of rules which the moktessors or trustees have to observe. Then Clause 65 runs as follows:Matters regarding misfeasance, malfeasance or non-feasance in annexion with the manageita of the temple affairs and all other matters Connected with the temple shall be settled by petition to this Court sanctioning this scheme provided however that the petition is filed by lot less than two of. the registered electors or by not less than two of the votaries or worshippers if the temple.2. This appeal, arises out of an application made under Clau...
Pulipati Subba Rao Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad427
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal and one of the revision petitions arise out of an order passed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali on 31st March 1933. The remaining revision petition arises our of the original order of the District Munsif of Tenali dated 30th July 1932 from whicn there was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge. The points to be decided in the appeal and in the revision petitions are one and the same. The facts necessary for understanding the question at issue can be stated briefly. One Subba Rao, who is the appellant in the appeal instituted a suit against one B. Guravayya and. his sons and got the family property of the defendants attached before judgment. Two of the sons were minors, and apparently owing to the difficulty of getting these minors properly represented in the suit the plaintiff therein gave up his claim against them, and a decree was passed only as against the father and three of the sons. The father became insolvent and a petition was filed for hi...
John A. David Vs. A.L.A. Alagappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad432; 158Ind.Cas.59
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura, dated March 12, 1929, in appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad, dated February 23, 1925, on an application filed by the Official Receiver and one of the creditors of the insolvents in I.P. No. 6 of 1913 for declaring as void certain deeds of transfer executed by the insolvents. The Subordinate Judge declared the transfers to be void under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, so far as the insolvents' shares in the properties were concerned. On appeal the District Judge came to the conclusion that they were not voidable and that they had not been shown to be fraudulent preferences, and that on the other hand, even assuming that Section 53 applied, they were made bona fide for valuable consideration. One preliminary objection raised to this appeal is that it is not competent as no appeal lies from the appellate order passed by the District Court under Section 75, Provincial...
R. Seshasayee Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Puna Rena Govinda Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad612; 157Ind.Cas.925
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions raise two important questions: (1) as to the scope of Section 78, Religious Endowments Act and (2) as to the applicability of Order XXI, Rules 97, 98 and 99, Civil Procedure Code, to a proceeding under that section. A scheme was settled in September 1927 by the Religious Endowments Board in respect of the temple in question under Section 57 of the Act. In virtue of that scheme, the petitioner became the trustee and applied to the District Court under Section 78 against the ex-trustee (who was the sole respondent to the petition) for being put into possession of the property. On March 30, 1929, the District Judge made an order granting the petitioner's request. In spite of that order, he was unable to obtain actual possession of either the temple or its properties, by reason of the resistance offered by two persons, Govinda Pillai and Veeraraghava Ayyanger. Thereupon he applied for delivery as against them, complaining of the obstruc...
Masseys (1930), Limited Vs. C.R. Krishnaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad603; (1935)69MLJ69
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Stone, J. The appellant-plaintiffs Messrs. Masseys, Limited sued the respondent-defendant under an agreement, dated the 30th September, 1932 claiming in pursuance of that agreement the delivery of possession of some machinery set out in the plaint schedule or in lieu of it the value of the machinery viz., Rs. 2,500, and the sum of Rs. 1,298-36. The way in which the latter sum is claimed appears from paragraph 11 of the plaint but in order to better understand what the plaintiffs' claim is, I will set out in full paragraph 9 in the plaint : That paragraph 9 reads as follows:On account of the defendant's persistent defaults in spite of requests and concessions made to him the plaintiffs have by letter, dated 3rd October, 1933 called upon the defendant to pay the arrears then accrued due and in default determined the hire purchase agreement calling upon the defendant to deliver possession of the machinery and to...
M.R. Alagarappa Reddiar Vs. K. Alagirisami Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad636; (1935)68MLJ588
Venkatasubba Rao, J1. The plaintiff purchased the property in question from the defendant in 1920. At that time there was a subsisting mortgage on the property but that fact was not disclosed to the Plaintiff. Subsequently in 1929 the mortgagee brought a suit upon his mortgage, obtained a decree and the plaintiff was in due course dispossessed in November, 1930. In the present suit filed in December of that year, the plaintiff claims compensation for the loss sustained by him.2. The two questions that arise are (i) in regard to limitation, which is the starting point - the date of the conveyance or the date of the dispossession? and (ii) what is the proper measure of damages?3. The Petitioner's Counsel refers to the principle laid down by Bramwell, B in Spoor v. Green (1874) L.R. 9 Ex 99 and confirmed in subsequent English decisions (see Turner v. Moon (1901) 2 Ch. 825 and Dart's Vendors and Purchasers 8th Edn. Vol. 2, p. 663) that in an action for damages for breach of the covenant fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »