Chennai Court February 1920 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.
V.M. Assan Mahomed Sahib Vs. M.E. Rahiman Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.977; (1920)38MLJ539
Wallis, C.J.1. The corresponding provision in the earlier Act XI of 1865 was enacted as a proviso to Section 21, which, after enacting that all decrees and orders of the Court should be final and making provision for setting aside ex parte decrees and also for granting new trials in other cases, expressly provided that no such new trial should be granted to a defendant 'unless he shall with his notice of application deposit in Court the amount' etc. Under this section there was clearly no jurisdiction to grant a new trial unless the proviso had been complied with in terms. Under that Act the procedure in these Courts was governed by rules made by the High Court under Section 46, but by Section 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 the sections of the Code set out in the second schedule were applied to Small Cause Courts, so far as applicable. The sections so applied included the sections dealing with applications to set aside ex parte decrees and applications for review, and it was ...
Udipi Seshagiri Vs. Seshamma Shettati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.658; (1920)39MLJ128
John Wallis, Kt., C.J.1. In 1876 the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title granted a mulgeni lease containing a covenant against alienation to the predecessors of defendants 4 and 5 who in 1907 in breach of their covenant alienated the holding to defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff having obtained a decree for rent against defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. No. 490 of 1916, attached the holding in execution of the decree, when defendants 1 to 3 put in a claim petition and succeeded in getting the attachment raised. The plaintiff then filed this suit to establish his right which was dismissed by both the Lower Courts. In second Appeal Bakewell and Phillips, JJ. differed and this is an appeal from the prevailing Judgment of Bakewell, J. dismissing the suit. It is well settled in England that an assignment by a lessee in breach of his covenant not to assign is perfectly valid to pass the term; and we have been asked to apply the same rule here as it was applied by Sargent, C.J. in Tamayya v. Timappa Gan...
Muthu K.R.V. Alagappa Chetty Vs. S.A. Krishnasami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad119; 61Ind.Cas.753
1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coutts-Trotter in a Bait brought by the Receiver appointed by the Negapatam Subordinate Judge's Court in execution of a decree obtained by one Tuljaram Rao against one Swaminath Sastry, now deceased. In execution of that decree the Negapatam Court appointed a Receiver of Swaminatha Sastry's estate to tome here and prosecute a cause of action which Swaminatha Sastry is alleged to have had against the present defendant, Alagappa Chetty.2. The first question which has been strenuously argued before us by Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar for the appellant is, that the Negapatam Court had no jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver in execution to some and sue here. We are not in this case dealing with the propriety of appointing a Receiver in a case like this. All we are dealing with is the question whether the Court had jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver in the execution of its decree and we are unable to say that the appointment was without jurisdic...
In Re: Yeluchuri Venkatachennaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)38MLJ370
Wallis, C.J.1. I agree with the opinion of Ayling and Coutts-Trotter, JJ., which I have had the advantage of reading, as to the effect of the proviso to Section 350 read with Section 117, and will only add that in my opinion trial generally means the determination of the issues arising in the particular case. As pointed out in The History of English Law by Pollock and Maitland, Vol. II, page 598, the word trial comes from the French trier, Latin tritare, and was first used of the testing or trial of challenges to jurors. Triers of challenges are still appointed when necessary in English criminal trials. Though we talk of the trial of persons what are really tried both in Civil and Criminal cases are issues. An ordinary criminal trial in England is, in the language of the common law, a trial of the general issue joined between the Crown and the accused on the latter's plea of 'not guilty' of the charge preferred against him. See Archbold Criminal Pleading, Ch. 4, Section 5. 'The general...
Elachuri Venkatachinnayya and Three ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad511
Wallis, C.J.1. I agree with the opinion of Ayling and Coutts Trotter, JJ., which I have had the advantage of reading, as to the effect of the proviso to Section 350 read with Section 117, and will only add that in my opinion trial generally means the determination of the issues arising in the particular case. As pointed out in History of English Law, Pollock and Maitland, Vol. II, page 598, the word trial comes from the French trier, Latin tritare, and was first used of the testing or trial of challenges to jurors. Triers of challenges are still appointed when necessary in English criminal trials. Though we talk of the trial of persons, what are really tried, both in civil and criminal cases, are issues An ordinary criminal trial in England is, in the language of the common law, a trial of the general issue joined between the Crown and the accused on the latter's plea of 'not guilty' of the charge preferred against him. See Archbold Criminal Pleadings, Chapter 4, Section 5. 'The Genera...
Peria Manicka Mudaliar Vs. Ramathai Vadivelu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad643
Viscount Cave, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Madras reversing two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, and giving judgment in both suits for the plaintiffs. The following statement of the facts is founded upon the findings of the High Court, which, for reasons which will hereafter appear, their Lordships accept as correct:2. One Sundarammal was the owner of certain lands in the village of Kovur and elsewhere in the Chingleput district, subject to a first mortgage for Rs. 25,000 and interest and to a second mortgage for Rs. 9,500 and interest, and had incurred other debts. In the year 1902, the second mortgagees brought a suit to enforce their mortgage, obtained a decree for the sale of the mortgaged property, and themselves purchased it at the auction at a low price. Thereupon Sundarammal, in order to get this sale set aside under Section 310-A of the Civil Procedure Code and to provide for her other debts, entered in...
Yeluchuri Venkatachennaya and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.50
John Wallis, C.J.1. I agree with (he opinion of Ayling and Coutts Trotter, JJ., which I have had the advantage of reading, as to the effect of the proviso to Section 350 read with Section 117, and will only add that in my opinion trial generally means the determination of the issues arising in the particular case. As pointed out in History of English Law, Pollock and Maitland, Volume II, page 598, the word trial comes from the French trier, Latin tritare, and was first used of the testing or trial of challenges to jurors. Triers of challenges are still appointed when necessary in English criminal trials. Though we talk of the trial of persons what are really tried both in civil and criminal cases are issues. An ordinary criminal trial in England is, in the language of the common law, a trial of the general issue joined between the Crown and the accused on the latter's plea of 'not guilty' of the charge preferred against him. See Archbold's Criminal Pleading, clause 4, Section 5, 'The g...
Kumarasawmy Pillai and anr., Vs. S. Pasupathia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.605
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. These are appeals against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam appointing a Receiver for the lands belonging to Pasupatheswara Swami temple near Kumbakonam. The plaintiff and the defendants NOs. 1 to 3 are the four hereditary trustees of the temple. The defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have each executed a separate registered rent-deed in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly; each of the former has thus become the sole lessee of one set of lands belonging to the temple. The plaintiff alleges in his plaint that these leases were really taken for the benefit of the defendants Nos, 1, 2 and 3 respectively by their creatures defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6; that ha did not consent to accept the rent-deeds which stand in his name also ; that defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are persons of no status or property, and that the leases should be avoided as they were given by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in breach of trust. The leases provided for payment o...
Venkatachalam Chetti Vs. Pichai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1920
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.742
1. Before finally disposing of the case, we must ask the District Judge to return a finding on the 2nd issue which was decided in favour of the defendant by the District Munsif and on which the District Judge expresses no opinion, Finding must be on the evidence on record and must be submitted within six weeks; and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura submitted the following.FINDING1. In this appeal the High Court has called for a finding on the following issues: 'Whether the foreign judgment was obtained by plaintiff through collusion and fraud.'2. The defendant was served with summons in this suit on 11th February 1917, but did not file his written statement for the next two hearings which were fixed for the 15th and 22nd March respectively. The District Munsif, therefore, examined him on the 22nd Marsh and in the deposition then given by him, he made no allegation of frau...
Gulam Ghouse Khan Sahib Vs. Jannia Alias Gulam Ghouse Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ492
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who brought the suit for a declaration that he is the mutawalli of a mosque and is entitled to draw the Yeomiah allowance received by the defendant, a rival claimant in 1914. It is conceded that, so far as the declaration that he is the mutawalli is concerned the suit is not barred, but it is alleged that that part of the action which relates to the Yeomiah allowance and which the learned Judge has held to be barred is not in fact barred because it is said that Article 131 of the Limitation Act which relates to suits relating to periodical recurring rights covers this case. It appears to us that article is not applicable at all. What the plaintiff claims apart altogether from the claim for a declaration that he is the mutawalli and that he is perpetually entitled to receive all the yeomiah allowances that ever accrued. It seems to us that is not a periodical recurring right but a perpetual right. The mere fact that sums of money are paid periodical...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »