Chennai Court December 1919 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.
S.R.M.S. Chokkalingam Chetty Vs. N.L.N. Lakshumanan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ224
1. The first point taken is that no review can be granted on grounds falling within Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a party's remedy in such a case is confined to that rule, and as time had admittedly expired in the present case for an application to set aside the ex parte decree under that rule when the review application was filed, it should have been dismissed. We are unable to uphold this contention. If a party can bring his application within the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the fact that he could also have applied under Order IX Rule 13 cannot be treated as a bar to it. See Lal Chet Narain Sahi v. Rampal Manjhi (1911) 16 C.W.N. 643 following Raj Narain Purkait v. Ananga Mohan Bhandari I.L.R. (1899) Cal. 598. We follow these rulings in spite of the dissent of Mr. Justice Roe in Deodip Singh v. Gopal Singh (1916) 1 P.L.J. 547 In Virupakshi Gowd v. Bandappa : (1919)37MLJ59 the view of that learned Judge was not accepted by this Co...
Kolangereth Raman Nair and Three ors. Vs. Kolimatamullathil Mariyomma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad480
Seshagiri Ayyar, J.1. The first question in this case is whether there is a denial of title, and if so, does the denial cover all the items in the suit or only some. The second question is, supposing there is a denial, whether, having regard to the nature of the tenure, forfeiture is incurred. On the first question the Subordinate Judge has made some obvious mistakes which have confused the issue. He is clearly wrong in saying that the denials in Exhibits II, III and IV are only repetitions of the denial in Exhibit D. Exhibit D relates to item No. 1. Exhibits II, III and IV relate to items 2 and 3, and the nature of the denials in these two sets of documents is altogether different. Exhibit D will be considered later on. As regards the other documents we may first deal with Exhibit II, as observations with regard to one of them would apply to the others as well. Exhibit II is a sub-lease executed to the defendants. In that, the sub-lessee uses the expression with reference to the prope...
Mazumdar Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Mazumdar Balakrishna Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad476
Oldfield, J.1. The lower Court's conclusion as to items 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 is based on petitioner's admission in evidence, and we have been shown no reason for dissent. The appeal on this point fails.2. The remaining argument is as to Exhibit I, and the question is whether it constitutes an adjustment and the Court can take notice of it, if it was never certified to it, as required by Order XXI, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. It was a sale by petitioner to the other decree-holder, respondent, of part of the property, which was to be divided; and we have no doubt that the transfer was an adjustment of the decree. On the question whether Exhibit I should have been certified to the Court, several decisions have been quoted regarding the application of Order XXI, Rule 2, to decrees, which, like the case before us, include provision for payment of money as well as for other relief. Of the two cases referred to by the lower Court, it is not clear that the decree in Krishna Hande v. Padmanabha Hand...
S.A. Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. Douglas and Grant, Limited, Kircaldy Scotl ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.62
Oldfield, J.1. The first question we have to decide is as to the nature of the relation between the parties. Had plaintiff, when the rupture between them took place, become the owner of the machinery, which is the subject of the dispute, or was he still merely hiring it from the defendant firm, as the latter contends, and was its removal by the firm from plaintiff's possession justified by Clause 9 of the agreement, Exhibit II ?.2. There is no doubt that there was also between the parties another agreement, Exhibit I, to which some reference is made in the appeal grounds here and has been made in argument. But the trial Judge has explained the difficulties in the way of treating it as proved, and, as no reference according to Mr. Chamier, who appeared in the lower Appellate Court, was made to it there in argument or is made in the judgment under appeal, I restrict consideration to Exhibit II. That document is, as the lower Appellate Court opined, badly drawn up and defective. But it is...
Mazumdar Ramakrishna Rao Panthulu Vs. Mazumdar Balakrishna Rao Panthul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.289
Oldfield, J.1. The lower Court's conclusion as to items Nos. 2, 3, 7,8, 9 is based on petitioner's admission in evidence and we have been shown no reason for dissent. The appeal on this point fails.2. The remaining argument it as to Exhibit I and the question whether it constitutes an adjustment and the Court can take notice of it, if it was never certified to it, as Order X XI, rule '2 Civil Procedure Code, requires. It was a sale by petitioner to the. other decree-holder, respondent, of part of the property, which was to be divided; and we have no doubt that the transfer was an adjustment of the decree. On the question whether Exhibit I should have been certified to the Court, several decisions have been quoted regarding the application of Order XXI, rule 2, to decrees, which, like the case before us, include provision for payment of money as well as for other relief. Of the two cases referred to by the lower Court, it is not clear that the decree in Krittna Hande v. Padmanabha Hande...
Kolangereth Raman Nair and ors. Vs. Kolimatamullathil Mariyomma and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.13
1. The first question in this case is whether there is a denial of title and if so, does the denial cover all the items in the suit or only some. The 2nd question is, supposing there is a denial, whether, having regard to the nature of the tenure, no. forfeiture is incurred. On the first question the Subordinate Judge had made some obvious mistakes which have confused the issue. He is clearly wrong in saying that the denials in Exhibits IF, III, and IV are only repetitions of the denial in Exhibit D. Exhibit D relates to item I. Exhibits II, III and IV relate to items 2 and 3, and the nature of the denials in these two sets of documents is altogether different. Exhibit D will be considered later on. As regards the other documents we may first deal with Exhibit II, as observations with regard to one of them would apply to the others as well. Exhibit II is a sub lease executed to the defendants. In that, the sub lessee uses the expression with reference to the property demised 'belonging...
Sangayya Tevan Vs. Pethamall
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.513a
1. A preliminary objection has been taken that, the Judge's order of the 6th December 1918 appointing a guardian not having been appealed against, the present appeal against the order of 3rd May 1919 is out of time and incompetent. The latter order is itself an indication that no final appointment was made before that date as it ends with the words ' the final order will now issue,' by which was evidently meant an order in Form No. 94 of the Civil Rules of Practice under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, There are also indications in the earlier orders on the 6th December 1918, 10th and 24th April 1919 that the proceedings of those dates were only preliminary and conditional upon the furnishing of security. In such a case the order does not take effect till the security is furnished [see Subba Naik v. Rama Aiyar 37 Ind. Cas. 892 : 40 M.k 773 : 5 L.W. 261 : (1917) M.W.N. 426 We overrule the preliminary objection On the merits we are of opinion that there is no substance in the a...
The Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company Limited Vs. Matti Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ360
Oldfield, J.1. The decision of the Second Additional District Munsif of Rajamundry comes before us under Section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, Act IX of ]887. He has held the defendant Railway Company liable on a risk note in respect of one out of a consignment of bales of gunny bags, of which plaintiff was consignee. The risk note, Exhibit B is in form B and is a contract by the consignor in consideration of the lower charge he has paid to hold the company 'harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of, or damage to the consignment from any cause whatever except for the loss of a complete consignment or of one or more complete packages forming part of a consignment due either to the wilful neglect of a Railway Administration, or to theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants, transport agent or carriers employed by them before, during and after transit over the said Railway or other Railway lines working in connection therewith ...
The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Limited Vs. Mattai Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad617
Oldfield, J.1. The decision of the second Additional District Munsif, Rajahmundry, comes before us under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, IX of 1887. He has held the defendant; Railway Company liable on a risk note in respect of one out of a consignment; of bales of gunny bags, of which plaintiff was consignee. The risk note, Exhibit B, is in form B and is a contract by the consignor in consideration of the lower charge he has paid to hold the company.2. Harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of, or damage to the consignment from any cause whatever except for the loss of a complete consignment or of one or more complete packages forming part of a consignment due either to the wilful neglect of a Railway administration, or to theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants, transport agents or carriers employed by them before, during and after transit over the said Railway or other Railway lines working in connexion therewit...
The Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company, Limited Vs. Mattai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.754
Oldfield, J.1. The decision of the Second Additional District Munsif, Rajahmundry, comes before us under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, Act IX of 1887. He has held the defendant Railway Company liable on a risk note in respect of one out of a consignment of bales of gunny bags, of which plaintiff was consignee. The risk note, Exhibit B, is in form B and is a contract by the consignor in consideration of the lower charge he has paid to hold the company 'harmless and free from all responsibility for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of, or damage to the consignment from any cause whatever except for the loss of a complete consignment or of one or more complete packages forming part of a consignment due either to the wilful neglect of a Railway administration or to theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants, transport agents or carriers employed by them before, during and after transit over the said Railway or other Railway lines working in connection therewit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »