Chennai Court December 1939 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.
Katta Virayya and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad611; (1940)1MLJ574
Horwill, J.1. This suit has been brought by three creditors to set aside a sale of the insolvents' property on the grounds of fraud and collusion, material irregularity, want of proclamation, and the knocking down of the property for a grossly inadequate sum. Both the Courts below have found that there was no fraud or collusion or material irregularity and have therefore dismissed the suit.2. It is argued here that even though the findings of the Courts below as to the absence of fraud and material irregularity are true; yet the insufficiency of consideration is in itself a sufficient ground to warrant the Court in setting aside the sale; for the Insolvency Court is not limited to the same considerations as a Civil Court under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. M.T.T.K.M.M.N. Venkatachelan Chettiar v. M.T.T.K.M.M.S.M.A.R. Murugesan I.L.R.(1931) 9 Rang. 231 has been quoted as an authority for this position. It was there held that the Insolvency Court has always full control over t...
R. Sami Naidu Vs. Katha Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad522; (1940)1MLJ337
Horwill, J.1. One Chinna Budha Goundan brought a suit purporting to be on behalf of his minor nephew Katha Goundan to set aside the decree of the Chinnasamudram Panchayat Court in Suit No. 14 of 1931 against the plaintiff and another on the grounds of fraud and that he was a minor at the time of the plaint, as well as for other reasons, the plaintiff's uncle even saying that he had no knowledge of the suit at all. No less than nine issues were framed, and the District Munsif of Tirupattur found that there were no grounds at all for setting aside the decree and that the plaintiff was a major at the time of the passing of the decree. He accordingly dismissed the suit. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Vellore held that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the filing of the suit and that even if the finding of the District Munsif had been correct he ought to have given the nephew Katha Goundan an opportunity of continuing the suit in his own name.2. On the question of minority, the ...
Pandita Viswanadha Yegneswara Sastri Vs. the Secretary of State for In ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad592; (1940)1MLJ704
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff's contention seems to be that the area of his land has been wrongly estimated by the Revenue authorities and that they therefore arrived at a wrong figure in regard to the assessment due by him/ The trial Court dismissed his suit on the ground that a Civil Court was prohibited by Section 58 of the Revenue Recovery Act from considering the question raised by the plaintiff and that decision was upheld in appeal.2. There is no doubt in my mind that the lower Courts were right. In disputing the area of his land the plaintiff is disputing the amount of the assessment; for the assessment is calculated on the basis of the areas of wet and dry lands. It is realised by the learned advocate for the appellant that to some extent Section 58 acts as a bar; but the plaintiff is now willing to forego his claim to a refund of what he alleges to be an excess assessment and is prepared to confine his appeal to his right to a declaration that the area of his land is 25-35 acre...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›