Chennai Court February 1937 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.
Paddisetti Rangayya Setti Vs. Guduru Venkata Subba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad605
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the judgment-debtor in a suit, S.C. No. 563 of 1933. The decree-holder in that suit was judgment-debtor of the present petitioner in another suit, Section C. No. 1112 of 1923. The decree-holder in the first of these suits transferred his decree to the present respondent on 5th July 1933. But on 17th August 1933 the petitioner and the decree-holder, apparently without the knowledge or consent of the transferee, made an adjustment of the decrees which they had obtained against one another. This adjustment was duly certified to the Court. An agreement was drawn up between the petitioner and the transferor which recited that the decree in Section C. No. 563 of 1933 had been transferred, and that as this transfer had not been recognized, the transferor 'should file full satisfaction memo for the present'. When, one year later, the transferee applied under Order 21, Rule 16 for execution of the decree in S.C. No. 563 of 193...
N. Adinarayana Chetty and anr. Vs. A. Chengiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad918; 173Ind.Cas.659
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this civil revision petition is whether it is open to a party who has been impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased mortgagor defendant to resist the passing of a final decree on the ground that the mortgaged property being an Acharyapurusha service inam is inalienable and the sale of such property would be illegal on grounds of public policy. The lower Court took the view that it can and raised an issue for determination as to whether the property mortgaged is Acharyapurusha service inam and adjourned the matter for the taking of necessary evidence. Mr. Sampath Aiyangar for the mortgagee petitioner contends that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to go into the said question. He urged two points in support of his contention: (i) The lower Court is bound to pass a final decree in accordance with Order 34, Rule 5, Civil P.C., if it is found that payment as directed was not made; and (ii) assuming it can go behind the prel...
Bommi Reddi Muni Reddi Vs. Perur Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.406; (1937)1MLJ635
Mockett, J.1. The only question here is -whether, under Section 75, Sub-section (4) of the. Indian Registration Act, an order of the Registrar made under that section can be executed by a District Munsif. The District Registrar of Cuddapah held an enquiry under Section 74 and made an award of Rs. 329-14-0 as costs against the respondent, which he sent to the District Munsif 's Court of Prodattur for execution. The District Munsif held that he had no power to execute it and that order was reversed. On appeal by the learned District Judge, Cuddapah, against whose order this appeal has been filed.2. Section 75, Sub-section (4) is as follows:The Registrar may for the purpose of any enquiry under Section 74, summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and compel them to give evidence, as if he were a Civil Court, and he may also direct by whom the whole or any part of the costs of any such enquiry shall be recoverable as if they had been awarded in a suit under the Civil Procedure Code, ...
Peddisetti Rangayya Setti Vs. Guduru Venkatasubba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1937
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.704
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition is the judgment-debtor in a suit S.C. No. 563 of 1933. The decree-holder in that suit was judgment-debtor of the present petitioner in another suit S.C. No. 1112 of 1933. The decree-holder in the first of these suits transferred his decree to the present respondent on July 5 : 1933. But on August 17, 1933, the petitioner and the decree-holder apparently without the knowledge or consent of the transferee, made an adjustment of the decrees which they had obtained against one another. The adjustment was duly certified to the Court. An agreement was drawn up between the petitioner and the transferor which recited that the decree in 8. G. No. 563 of 1933 had been transferred, and that as this transfer had not been recognised, the transferor 'should file full satisfaction, memo for the present'. When one year later the transferee applied under O, XXI, Rule 16, for execution of the decree in S.C. No. 563 of 1933, he was met with the...
In Re: Kaliyappa Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad492; (1937)1MLJ613
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner and several others were accused of being in possession of billets of illicit sandalwood suspected to have been removed from a certain reserve forest and they were charged with an offence punishable under Section 21(f) of the Madras Forest Act.2. Apparently in the course of the enquiry there was an attempt made to convert the charge into one of theft or dishonest detention of stolen property. In the course of the enquiry the first accused moved the Court for the production of certain statements recorded by the Forest Range Officer in the course of his investigation in the present case from accused 2 and 3 and others. Summons for the production of these records appears to have been issued and they appear to have been actually produced in Court. Privilege was claimed under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Magistrate thought that such privilege could not be claimed and even addressed the District Forest Officer on the subject expre...
S.M. Moosa Sahib Vs. Darisa Subbamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad563; (1937)1MLJ672
Horwill, J.1. The second defendant, the son of the plaintiff, was a servant or agent of the first defendant. The second defendant used a sum of money belonging to his mother for the purpose of the business of the first defendant; and the plaintiff brought this suit against her son and his principal to recover this sum. It appeared from the accounts of the first defendant kept with the second defendant that the account of the second defendant with the first defendant was credited with this amount. That first defendant objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was really a matter between himself and the second defendant and that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff. On the 10th August, 1934, the plaintiff put in a petition for the appointment of a Commissioner to settle the accounts of defendants 1 and 2, as she was willing to take whatever was found due on accounting. Both the defendants endorsed this application with a statement that th...
In Re: Kaliyappaudayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1937
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.867
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner and several others were accused of being in possession of billets of illicit sandalwood suspected to have been removed from a certain reserve forest and they were charged with an offence punishable under Section 21(f) of the Madras Forest Act.2. Apparently in the course of the enquiry there was an attempt made to convert the charge into one of theft or dishonest detention of stolen property. In the course of the enquiry the 1st accused moved the Court for the production of certain statements recorded by the Forest Range Officer in his course of his investigation in the present case from accused Nos. 2 and 3 and others. Summons for the production of these records appears to have been issued and they appear to have been actually produced in Court. Privilege was claimed under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Magistrate thought that such privilege could not be claimed and even addressed the District Forest Officer on the subject ex...
In Re: Abdur Rahiman Kutty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1937
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ498
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The only question in this Criminal Revision Case is whether an Additional District Magistrate is empowered under Section 8 of the Sarda Act (Child Marriage Restraint Act XIX of 1929) to try cases under that Act. The District Magistrate took cognisance of the case but transferred it to the Additional District Magistrate for trial; and it is contended that the District Magistrate could not do so, but was bound to try the case himself, even though the Additional District Magistrate was given under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure all the powers of a District Magistrate.2. There can be no doubt that if Section 8 of the Sarda Act makes it clear that Additional District Magistrates should not try such cases, then the mere fact that an Additional District Magistrate is empowered with all the powers of a District Magistrate under Section (10)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code would not empower him to try a case under the Sarda Act; but it is a well-known canon...
Nalam Thalupulamma and anr. Vs. Kondepudi Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad554
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner obtained a mortgage decree and in execution the respondent came forward alleging that she was a prior mortgagee and requesting the Court under Order 34, Rules 12 and 13, Civil P.C., to sell the property free of her mortgage and to apply the proceeds of the sale first in discharging her own debt. The petitioner objected to this procedure, alleging that her mortgage was nominal and collusive, not supported by consideration and invalid. The District Munsif of Ramachandrapur after a summary inquiry held that prima facie the petitioner had proved that she was a prior mortgagee and granted the petition. It is frankly conceded by Mr. Raghava Rao on behalf of the respondent that the order of the learned Munsif as it stands is wrong. Clearly the sum claimed; by the respondent or the full value of her mortgage should not be paid to her without a proper adjudication after full trial; regarding the validity of the mortgage. This money cannot be paid over to her af...
Thummalakunta Krishtappa Vs. Satrasala Adinarayanappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad584
Horwill, J.1. During the trial of the suit the respondent furnished security for the decree amount in case the plaintiff was successful. The decree was passed and so the respondent became liable for the decree amount. In execution by the decree-holder against the principal debtor the judgment-debtor appeared by a pleader and agreed to deposit Rs. 250 by 1st August 1933 and another Rs. 250 on the first of each month. This offer was accepted by the other side and so the District Judge passed an order:Mr. H. Narayana Rao agrees to deposit Rs. 250 by 1st August 1938 and to pay Rs. 250 on the first of each month. Mr. B. Krishna Sastri agrees. Ordered accordingly. No execution unless appellant defaults. No costs.2. The question is whether by giving time under this order the sureties are discharged. The District Munsif of Anantapur held that they were not; but the District Judge of Anantapur, disagreeing with him held that they were. Mr. Somasundaram does not deny that in general an agreement...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »