Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad855; (1936)71MLJ415
Mockett, J.1. This is an application by the Official Assignee for an order calling upon the insolvent to show cause why he should not be directed to pay to the Official Assignee for the benefit of his creditors a portion of the Provident Fund amount payable to him by the South Indian Railway Company. The insolvent was until recently employed on a salary of Rs. 1,550 a month by the Railway. He was adjudicated in November, 1935, and his liabilities are over Rs. 40,000. They mostly consist of loans by money-lenders and the cost of some unsuccessful litigation. He states that the loans are mostly in his position as surety for another, one Mr. Danagher, who, I understand, is an insolvent. The application, though simple in its form, raises what I consider a point of very great importance. Under Section 3 on the Provident Funds Act it is clearly enacted that no deposit such as this shall be liable to attachment and neither the Official Assignee nor any Receiver appointed under the Provincial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad101; (1936)1MLJ33
K.S. Menon, J.1. The suit is to recover possession of the plaint lands with past and future mesne profits. It is alleged that that property was purchased in Court auction by one Ramaswarai Chettiar in 1923, that the said Ramaswami Chettiar was merely a benamidar for Chidambaram Chettiar, the father of the plaintiff, that on the defendants obstructing the said Ramaswami Chettiar in taking possession' of the property, the latter filed O.S. No. 88 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsiff of Tiruthuraipundi, that as he died during the pendency of the suit and no legal representative of his was brought on record the suit abated and that in spite of it the plaintiffs, being the benaficial owners, are entitled to maintain the suit. The defendants contended that the suit is barred by Order 22, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the cause of action is the same as that in O.S. No. 88 of 1925. That plea of the defendants was upheld by both the lower Courts; hence this second appeal, by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad915; 165Ind.Cas.207
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from the decrees of the District Judge of Madura, dated 22nd March 1933, in two connected appeals, C. M. A. Nos. 107 and 110 of 1932, which confirmed the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dated 9th November 1932, in M. P. Nos. 143 and 196 of 1932, which were applications by two decree-holder-purchasers in Court auction for a declaration that the Official Receiver is not entitled to sell the properties purchased by them in Court auction and for an injunction restraining him from proceeding with the sale of such properties. The properties were originally the properties of one Kandaswami Pillai who was adjudged insolvent in I. P. No. 42 of 1922. The order of adjudication was passed on 26th November 1923. The petitions were supported by a variety of allegations and sought to be supported by a variety of arguments, but the most important and vital point was not stated either in the petitions or during the course of arguments in either of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad884; 165Ind.Cas.287; (1936)71MLJ366
K.S. Menon, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition and possession of one-third share of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the properties were bequeathed to the plaintiff and her sisters, defendands 1 and 2, by their father Sankarapandiyan Pillai, and that the sale deeds, Ex. I and XII, executed by the first defendant and for herself and as guardian of the plaintiff and second defendant were not valid and binding on the plaintiff. The contesting defendants pleaded that the plaintiff was bound to get the sale deeds set aside before relief in respect of the properties comprised therein could be given to her and that, as she came of age more than three years before the suit was filed, her right to get these documents set aside was barred by limitation. The trial Court upheld the contention of the defendants and gave a decree only in respect of the remaining properties. The appellate Court reversed that decree, holding that the person who executed the sale deed on behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad907; 165Ind.Cas.466; (1936)71MLJ432
1. One E. Balasundara Mudaliar, an insolvent, was employed by the appellants, Messrs. Binny & Co., in their mills, and the insolvent having agreed to pay an allocation to the Official Assignee in order to get protection, on the 15th August 1935, an order was made by the Insolvency Court upon the appellants requiring them to withhold monthly a sum of Rs. 6 from the salary of the insolvent and immediately to remit it to the Official Assignee until further or other order of the Court. On the 24th September, 1935, the appellants took out an application before the Master in Chambers praying that the garnishee order before-mentioned should be vacated. The Master dismissed the application and from his order of dismissal the appellants appealed to the Insolvency Judge who dismissed the appeal.2. The Master on the objection of the Official Assignee held that the appellants had no locus standi to object to the order of attachment of the insolvent's earnings in their hands and also that these ear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 165Ind.Cas.292; (1936)71MLJ485
ORDERKing, J.1. This reference from the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjore raises an interesting point of law. The facts are that on the 25th September, 1935, the wife of one Samiayya Kudumburan died in the village of Avarambatti. Information was given to the Village Munsif of that village that the death had been due to beating by her husband. The Village Munsif went to the nearest Police Station and gave a report incorporating this information. The result of the police investigation was reported to the Sub-Magistrate to the effect that the complaint was not true and that the death was due to natural causes and the Sub-Magistrate passed orders treating the case in this light and directing its removal from the police file. Then Samiayya Kudumburan, the husband of the deceased woman, filed a private complaint before the Sub-Magistrate against the Village Munsif and also against his informant accusing them of having given false information to the police with a view to prosecute him on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1936)71MLJ599
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the principal Subordinate Judge of Nellore dismissing his suit. His claim in the suit was to compel the defendant to execute and register at his (the plaintiff's) cost a release deed in respect of the suit lands releasing the same from a mortgage in the defendant's favour dated 14th September, 1920. This mortgage was executed by one Kali Chetty Narayana Reddi. The lands comprised in this mortgage and other properties were sold in Court auction on 3rd December, 1924 and were purchased by the plaintiff subject to the defendant's mortgage. The plaintiff's case was that he entered into agreements of sale with third parties with respect to some of the lands to the knowledge and with the consent of the defendant who agreed that the plaintiff should pay him the prices stipulated under the agreements of sale and to release from his mortgage the lands agreed to be, sold. Accordingly amounts paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1937Mad124; 169Ind.Cas.12
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the principal Subordinate Judge of Nellore dismissing his suit. His claim in the suit was to compel the defendant to execute and register at his (the plaintiff's) cost a release deed in respect of the suit lands releasing the same from a mortgage in the defendant's favour dated September 14, 1920. This mortgage was executed by one Kali Chetty Narayana Reddy. The lands comprised in this mortgage and other properties were sold in Court auction en December 3. 1924, and were purchased by the plaintiff subject to the defendant's mortgage. The plaintiff's case was that he entered into the agreements of sale with third parties with respect of some of the lands to the knowledge and with the consent of the defendant who agreed that the plaintiff should pay him the prices stipulated under the agreements of sale and to release from his mortgage the lands agreed to be sold. Accordingly amounts paid by purchasers were duly p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad852
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The petitioner here filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court of Guntur claiming a declaration that the proceedings of the Board of Revenue cancelling the registry of the petitioner as minor karnam of Kondepadu were illegal, invalid, ultra vires, and not binding on him and a direction on defendant 1 to redeliver the office of karnamship of Kondepadu to the petitioner. The District Munsif held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. On appeal to the District Judge, the appeal was dismissed. The facts of the case are set out in the judgments of both the lower Courts; and it is, therefore, unnecessary to restate them here except to say that the petitioner had been registered as the minor karnam of Kondepadu but later the Board of Revenue cancelled that registration and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to make a fresh appointment; and eventually defendant 2 in the suit was app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad868; 165Ind.Cas.276; (1936)71MLJ658
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Guntur dated 20th October, 1934, allowing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Tenali dated 15th February, 1934, in O.S. No. 9 of 1933 and remanding the suit for disposal to the District Munsif, after recording a finding to the effect that the suit is maintainable. The suit was one for settlement of accounts in respect of the management of the plaintiff's property during her minority by the first defendant who had been appointed guardian of her property by the District Court in 1925 for the years 1925 to 1928. It was alleged in the plaint that the first defendant had not filed proper accounts in the District Court or rendered accounts to the plaintiff's mother who was appointed guardian of the plaintiff's estate in 1928 after the first defendant was removed from the guardianship by consent.2. The second defendant was impleaded as he is the minor son of the first defendant, but he is not personal...
Tag this Judgment!