Chennai Court March 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.
Rangasami Pillai Vs. Banker Sankaralingam Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ377
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the Judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. I desire only to add that it is probably impossible and for the purpose of the present case is unnecessary to give an exhaustive definition of the terms 'bank' or 'banker' ; and that in agreeing with my learned brother's observations I do not desire to commit myself to any.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. The 1st Defendant in O.S. No. 52 of 1916 is a contractor under the District Board of Trichinopoly. The Plaintiff obtained a decree against him. He attached a certain amount of money in the hands of the District Board Engineer on the allegation that the money belonged to the 1st Defendant. Thereupon the 2nd Defendant put in a claim petition on the 16th October, 1914. His claim was allowed. On the 17th October, 1914, the plaintiff brought the present suit (O.S. No. 52 of 1916) for a declaration that he is entitled to attach the money as belonging to the 1st Defendant. He obtained an injunction on the 20th Octobe...
Rangaswami Pillai Vs. Sankaralingam Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad816
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. I desire only to add that it is probably impossible, and for the purpose of the present case is unnecessary, to give an exhaustive definition of the term 'bank' or 'banker', and that in agreeing with my learned brother's observations I do not desire to commit myself to any.Seshagiri Ayyar, J.2. The first defendant in Original Suit No. 52 of 1916 was a contractor under the District Board of Trichinopoly. The plaintiff obtained a decree against him. He attached a certain sum of money in the hands of the District Board Engineer on the allegation that the money belonged to the first, defendant. Thereupon, the second defendant put in a claim petition on 16th October 1914. His claim was allowed. On 17th October 1914, the plaintiff brought the present suit Original Suit No. 52 of 1916) for a declaration that he is entitled to attach the money as belonging to the first defendant. He obtained an injunction on...
Ve. Rm. V. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Muthukumaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.849
1. This is an appeal preferred by the 2nd plaintiff, who is also the legal representative of the 1st plaintiff, against the decree of the Subordinate Judge in a suit on a mortgage. The Subordinate Judge has given a simple money-decree holding that the hypothecation-bond was not duly registered and, therefore, was invalid in law. The 1st and fourth defendants executed the mortgage. The 2nd defendant is the undivided son of the 1st defendant, the 3rd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant's brother. But it is found that he was divided and, therefore, the mortgage will not bind him, and Mr. Venkatachariar, the learned Vakil for the appellant, has now sought to impeach that finding. Therefore, so far as that defendant is concerned, the decree will not bind him and his share in the property. The lower Court found that the consideration for the mortgage had been satisfactorily proved, although that appears to have been questioned as the main defence in the suit, and no argument has been a...
Rangasawmi Pillai Vs. Banker Sankaralingam Aiyer and S.D. Sankaralinga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.893
Oldfield, J.1. I agree with the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. I desire only to add that it is probably impossible and, for the purpose of the present case, is unnecessary to give an exhaustive definition of the terms 'bank' or 'banker' and that, in agreeing with my learned brother's observations, I do not desire to commit myself to any.Seshagiri Aiyar, J.2. The 1st defendant in Original Suit No. 52 of 1916 is a contractor under the District Board of Trichinopoly. The plaintiff obtained a decree against him. He attached a certain amount of money in the bands of the District Board Engineer on the allegation that the money belonged to the 1st defendant. Thereupon the 2nd defendant pat in a claim petition on 4he 16th October 1914. His claim was allowed. On the 17th October 1914, the plaintiff brought the present suit (Original Suit No. 52 of 1916) for a declaration that he is entitled to attach the money as belonging to the 1st defendant. He obtained an injunction ...
J.C.H. Fowler, Resquire, Trustee Under Trust Deed Executed by the Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad363; 61Ind.Cas.852
William Ayling, J.1. This suit and appeal arise cut of a conflict as to the ownership of the Eastern portion (247.28 sorts) of a Lanka in the Godavari river which is claimed by the Raja of Vizianaga ram (plaintiff and appellant) on the one hand and by Government (defendant and respondent) on the other. Plaintiff claims it both by right of accretion to his undisputed Perugu Lanka which lies higher up stream, and as a reformation on the site of a former Lanka belonging to him known as Pedda Lanka of his village of Kotipalli. Government also claim it both as a reformation on the site of a former Lanka belonging to the Government village of Sanapalli, the property of Government, and also as a subsequent accretion to the small portion of the same which alone was not submerged. The disputed Lanka admittedly began to be formed shortly after 1890; and by 1894 a portion of it was occupied under lease by one B. Nagayya, as lessee from plaintiff. Claims began to be put forward to it by the Govern...
Ayya Mudali Velan Vs. Veerayee
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.498; (1920)39MLJ218
Oldfield, J.1. This appeal is appeal against the decision of the Lower Appellate Court that no appeal lay to it against the District Munsif's order refusing to implead the appellant as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff.2. The Lower Appellate Court's main ground of decision is that the appeal should be against the order of abatement or dismissal of the suit. It is not possible understand how appellant could appeal against an order, to which he would not be a party and on this ground, without deciding whether under he present Code an order of abatement is in any respect equivalent to or appealable as a decree dismissing the suit and without expressing any opinion as to the propriety of some portions of the language used in the Judgments in Suppu Nayakan v. Perumal Chetty (1916) 80 M.L.J. 486, I must reject this ground of decision.3. The correct view of the law is in my opinion that indicated in Rama Rao v. Rajah of Pittapur I.L.R. (1919) Mad. 219. The Order appealed against ...
Arumugam Pillai Vs. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ222
Oldfield, J.1. On the question whether effect has been wrongly refused to the arrangement made before decree, I observe that Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiar I.L.R. (1916) Mad. 233 dealt with an arrangement to postpone execution not with one, such as is pleaded here, for the decree being treated as in part inexecutable. An arrangement of the latter description has received effect in this Court so far as appears from its authorised reports, only in one case, Rama Aiyar v. Srinivasa Pattar I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 230 the decision of a single Judge ; and I do not think that the decision in Chidambaram Chettiar v. KrishnaVathiar I.L.R. (1916) Mad. 233. obliges us to extend the principle to the extent required by appellant's contention.2. The other objection to the sale is that it was obtained and carried through by a person having no authority from the decree-holder in the matter. This objection is pressed here in the shape of a contention that the whole proceedings from and including th...
Arumugam Pillai Vs. Krishnasami Naidu and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad725
Oldfield, J.1. On the question whether effect has been wrongly refused to the arrangement made before decree, I observe that Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar I.L.R., (1917) Mad., 233 , dealt with an arrangement to postpone execution, not with one, such as is pleaded here, for the decree being treated as in part inexecutable. An arrangement of the latter description has received effect in this Court, so far as appears from the authorized Reports only in one case Rama Ayyan v. Sreenivasa Pattar I.L.R., 19(1896) Mad., 230, the decision of a single Judge; and I do not think that Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar I.L.R., (1917) Mad., 233 , obliges us to extend the principle to the extent required by appellants' contention.2. The other objection to the sale is that it was obtained and carried through by a person having no authority from the decree-holder in the matter. This objection is pressed here in the shape of a contention that the whole proceedings from and including the...
Arumuga Chettiar Vs. Ramanadan, Minor by Guardian thenukodi Athal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.898
Moore, J.1. The point for determination is, whether the letter, Exhibit B., sent by the defendant's Pleader to the plaintiff's Pleader constituted a sufficient acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, to save the suit from being barred.2. The following sentences are relied on by the respondent as containing the acknowledgment of liability:In case the account is compared now, and if any amount is found due, my client is prepared to pay it. The amount mentioned in your notice is not due as per your account.As my client is not aware of certain amounts contained in the kaichitas given to the aforesaid person it is not possible to set right the account of my client. I am, therefore, instructed by my client that your client should be made to give forthwith the kaichitas and accounts and on getting them compared should receive the amount found to be due.3. The question is, I think, covered by the Privy Council ruling in Maniram Seth v. Seth Rupchand 33 C. 101...
Arumugam Pillay Vs. Krishnasawami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1920
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.976
Oldfield, J.1. On the question whether, effect has been wrongly refused to the arrangement made before decree, I observe that Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar 37 Ind. Cas. 836 : 32 M.L.J. 13 dealt with an arrangement to postpone execution, not with one, such as is pleaded here, for the decree being treated as in part inexecutable. An arrangement of the latter description has received effect in this Court, as far as appears from authorised reports, only in one case, Rama Ayyan v. Sreenivasa Pattar 19 M. 230 , the decision of a single Judge; and I do not think that the decision in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiyar 37 Ind. Cas. 836 obliges us to extend the principle to the extent required by appellant's contention.2. The other objection to the sale is that it was obtained and carried through by a person having no authority from the decree holder in the matter. The objection is pressed here in the shape of a contention that the whole proceedings from and in-eluding the final...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »