Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Karuppana Thevar vs Angammal And Ors. on 25 January, 1926

B.N. Ananthachary And Anr. vs Mohan Ram And Ors. on 10 August, 1978

5. We may at once state that though no issue was framed on this material question which arose for consideration, the learned Judge thought such a bare suit would lie. The question argued before us is whether such a suit with the only relief for the appointment of a Receiver over the suit property lies under the provisions of the civil law and under the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge thought that the decision reported in Karuppanna Thevar v. Angammal 23 L.W. 581 : (1926) 51 M.L.J. 67 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 678 was a useful guide in coming to the conclusion that a suit for a bare appointment of a Receiver would lie. We shall presently consider this decision.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mt. Chhatarpali And Ors. vs Mt. Kalap Dei And Ors. on 17 July, 1931

6. The appellants rely strongly upon the ruling of a single Judge of the Madras High Court in Karuppana Tevar v. Angammal A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 678. This ruling relates to a suit by a reversioner for a declaration that an alienation by a Hindu widow is not binding on him, and for the appointment of a receiver to manage the property during the widow's lifetime. In that case it was held that the claim for the appointment of a receiver could not be held to be a consequential "relief as there was no connexion between the two reliefs. It was pointed out that the Court might refuse to grant the declaration and nevertheless might appoint a receiver. Conversely the Court might grant the declaration, and yet refuse to appoint a receiver. I think this ruling can be distinguished upon the facts. Reliefs (b) and (c) in the present suit are declarations that certain alienations made by the widow are not binding upon the reversioners. Relief (d), the appointment of a receiver, might be held to be quite separate and independent of those reliefs. Relief (a) however is a declaration of the plaintiffs' title as next reversioners, I think we may take it as certain that, unless the plaintiffs are able to establish their title as next reversioners, the Court will not grant the prayer for the appointment of a receiver. In hat sense therefore the appointment of a receiver may beheld to be a relief consequential," upon the granting of the declaration of the plaintiffs' title.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rani Kulandai Pandichi Alias ... vs Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan (Late ... on 4 November, 1927

In Karuppanna Thevar v. Angammal (1926) 51 M.L.J. 67 the suit was by a reversioner for a declaration that a particular alienation by the widow was not binding and for a receiver, and the question was what was the court-fee payable? A revision petition was filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge and a preliminary objection was taken as to whether a revision lay. Venkatasubba Rao, J., following the decisions in Dodda.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

A. Muhamad Ellaiyas vs Rahima Bee, Late A Minor By Her Husband ... on 22 October, 1928

2. It is hardly necessary to state that I do not base my judgment on the ground that interlocutory orders made in a suit are not liable to be revised by the High Court. As a matter of fact, in the case of various kinds of interlocutory orders the High Court exercises its powers of revision. Where in regard to the Court-fee payable, the decision of the Lower Court is unfavourable to the plaintiff, it has been held that the High Court can in revision interfere with that decision. This is the view I took in Karuppanna Thevar v. Angammal (1926) 51 M.L.J. 67 and in Venkataramani Aiyar v. Narayanaswami Aiyar (1924) 48 M.L.J. 688.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Karuppayee Ammal And Ors. vs Periasami Goundan on 1 March, 1949

2. The question therefore is whether the injunction prayed for by the plaintiff can be treated as a consequential relief within the meaning of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. It is difficult to lay down a general rule to find out when a relief can be said to be consequential on another relief. But Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Kamppanna Thevar v. Angammal (1926) 51 M.L.J. 67 suggested a test which appears to us to be useful. The learned Judge said:
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1