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.
Pujari Bhimajji, Minor by Next Friend Pujari Nagappa Vs. Rajabhai Huss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ239
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff represented by his certificated guardian (appointed by the District Court) is the appellant before us. He sued to set aside the decree passed against him in a suit brought by the present 1st defendant as plaintiff on a mortgage bond executed by the plaintiff's mother. The short question for decision is whether the plaintiff was properly and legally represented in that suit. An officer of the court was appointed in that suit at the instance of the then plaintiff (present 1st defendant) as guardian (for the suit) of the minor defendant (present plaintiff). If there was no proper representation, if the representation by that officer was not merely irregular but also illegal, there can be no doubt that this suit to set aside the decree and the other proceedings in the former suit is sustainable. The lower courts held that because the court and the present 1st defendant (the then plaintiff) were not aware that a guardian had been appointed by the District ...
Minor Venkata Reddi and ors. Vs. Muthu Pambulu Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)43MLJ463
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs 1, 4 and 5 are the appellants mentioned in the memorandum of Second Appeal preferred to this Court. As it appeared that the 3rd plaintiff's name was left out by an oversight of the appellants' learned vakil, we allowed the memorandum of Second Appeal to be amended by adding the 3rd plaintiff's name also as an appellant.2. The suit was brought upon a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant in August 1912. Four items of property were hypothecated out of which item 2 was afterwards sold by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant then hypothecated it to the 3rd defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte both in the court of first instance and in the lower appellate court. The 1st defendant in his written statement described the plaint bond as 'the suit mortgage debt bond.' The plaintiffs in their plaint claimed a charge on the properties and sued for sale on the basis of that charge. If the 1st defendant had intended to pl...
Pujari Bhimaji Minor by Next Friend Pujari Nagappa Vs. Rajabhai HussaI ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad808
Sadasiva Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff represented by his certificated guardian (appointed by the District Court) is the appellant before us. He sued to set aside the decree passed against him in a suit brought by the present first defendant as plaintiff, on a mortgage bond executed by the plaintiff's mother. The short question for decision is whether the plaintiff was properly and legally represented in that suit. An officer of the Court was appointed in that suit at the instance of the then plaintiff (present first defendant) as guardian (for the suit) of the minor defendant (present plaintiff). If there was no proper representation, if the representation by that officer was not merely irregular but also illegal, there can be no doubt that this suit to set aside the decree and the other proceedings in the former suit is sustainable. The lower Courts held that because the Court and the present first defendant (the then plaintiff) were not -aware that a guardian had been appointed by the D...
Venkita Reddi, Minor and ors. Vs. Muthulu Pambulu Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: 58Ind.Cas.801
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are the appellants mentioned in the memorandum of second appeal preferred to this Court. As it appeared that the 3rd plaintiff's name was left out by an oversight of the appellant's learned Vakil, we allowed the memorandum of Second appeal to be amended by adding the 3rd plaintiff's name also as an appellant.2. The suit was brought upon a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant in August 1912. Four items of property were hypothecated out of which item No. 2 was afterwards sold by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant then hypothecated it to the 3rd defendant. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 remained ex parte both in the Court of 1st instance and in the lower Appellate Court. The 1st defendant in his written statement described the plaint bond as 'the suit mortgage debt bond'. The plaintiffs in their plaint claimed a charge on the properties and sued for sale on the basis of that charge. If the 1st defendant had in...
Pujari Bhimaji, Minor, by Next Friend Pujari Nagappa Vs. Rajabhat Huss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.842
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff, represented by his certificated guardian (appointed by the District Court), is the appellant before us. He sued to set aside the decree passed against him in a suit brought by the present 1st defendant as plaintiff on a mortgage-bond executed by the plaintiff's mother. The short question for decision is, whether the plaintiff was properly and legally represented in that suit. An officer of the Court was appointed in that suit at the instance of the then plaintiff (present 1st defendant) as guardian (for the suit) of the minor defendant (present plaintiff). If there was no proper representation, if the representation by that officer was not merely irregular but also illegal, there can be no doubt that this suit to set aside the decree and the other proceedings in the former suit is sustainable. The lower Courts held that, because the Court and the present 1st defendant (the then plaintiff) were not aware that a guardian had been appointed by the Distr...
Gurusami Pandiyan Vs. Sendatti Kalai Pandia Chinnathambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.242; (1920)39MLJ529
John Wallis, C.J.1. This in an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in two suits which were tried together. In the first suit the plaintiff sued to recover the impartible estate of Sivagiri from the mother of the late zemindar who died unmarried in 1914, while in (he second suit the plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was entitled to succeed as nearest reversioner on the death of the late zemindar's mother. She died in 1916 while the suit was pending, and he was then brought on as the second defendant in the first suit and will be so referred to. The tisimrar or grantee of the permanent sunnad died in 1819 and was succeeded by his daughter Virammal who died in 1835. She left two sons Periadorai, who succeeded her and was the grandfather of the late zemindar, and Chinnadorai, who had two sons, the elder commonly known as Periaswami who was the father of the plaintiff, and the younger, commonly known as Chinnaswamy who was the father of the 2nd defendant. C...
Gurusami Pandiyan Vs. Sendattikalai Pandia Chinna Thambiar and Four or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad340; (1921)ILR44Mad1
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in two suits which were tried together. In the first suit the plaintiff sued to recover the impartible estate of Sivagiri from the mother of the late zamindar who died unmarried in 1914, while in the second suit the plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was entitled to succeed as nearest reversioner on the death of the late zamindar's mother. She died in 1918 while the suit was pending, and he was then brought on as the second defendant in the first suit and will be so referred to. The istimrar or grantee of the permanent sanad died in 1819, and was succeeded by his daughter Virammal who died in 1835. She left two sons, Peria Dorai who succeeded her and was the grandfather of the late zamindar, and Chinna Dorai who had two sons, the elder commonly known as Periaswami who was the father of the plaintiff, and the younger, commonly known as Chinnaswami, who was the father of the second defenda...
M. Rajagopala Nayagar Vs. Spencer and Co., Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.218
John Wallis, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned City Civil Judge dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiff against Messrs. Spencer & Co., and Mr. Bovill, the Manager of Messrs. Spencer & Co., for damages for malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, on a charge of stealing certain articles which Messrs, Spencer & Co., kept not for purposes of sale but for distribution among possible customers and which they also were in the habit of distributing to some extent among their own subordinates.2. The facts which gave rise to this case were, that two burgalaries were committed on Messrs. Spencer & Co.'s premises and the Police were advised of the facts. The Police came to Messrs. Spencer & Co., and proposed to arrest the plaintiff and another on suspicion. They were arrested and search warrants were granted and their premises were searched. Mr. Bovill had nothing to do with this so far. When the premises of the plaintiff and the other man were searched certain articles ...
The Superintending Engineer Vs. Chituri Ramakrishna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: (1920)39MLJ151
Sadasiva Aivar, J.1. The defendant who is described in the plaint as a Government Officer, (namely, the Superintending Engineer, II Circle, D. P.W., residing at Bezwada) is the appellant before us.2. This suit for injunction (among other reliefs) was brought against him because (according to the plaint) the defendant in his official capacity attempted to remove a dilapidated Ganapathi image which had been placed on a site which has been found by the Lower Appellate Court to belong to the Government. The image itself also has been found by that Court to belong 1o the Goverment. The Court however found (see paragraph 13 of its judgment) (1) that some sort of worship was being done to the said idol for a long time even when the idol lay half buried in the ground, it having been raised up and placed on a platform only in 1915 ; (2) that to establish a customary right, it was not necessary that there should be enjoyment for over 20 years or the like--(The lower Court further said 'even supp...
Kandula Venkiah Alias Padmanabhudu Vs. Donga Pallaya and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR43Mad589
Wallis, C.J.1. This reference raises two questions, (1) whether Exhibit A is an anomalous mortgage within the meaning of Section 98 of the Transfer of Property Act and (2) if it is, whether effect is to be given to the stipulation for the execution of a sale-deed by the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee on default of payment within the stipulated time, although this stipulation amounts to a clog on the statutory right of redemption conferred by Section 60 of the Act. As regards the first question, there are four classes of mortgages defined In Section 58: (1) simple mortgage, (2) mortgage by conditional sale, (3) usufructuary mortgage, and (4) English mortgage. Section 98 also recognizes two further classes of mortgages, viz., a combination of (1) and (3), a simple mortgage and a usufructuary mortgage, or a combination of (2) and (3), a mortgage by conditional sale and a usufructuary mortgage; and it is only to mortgages which do not come within any of these six classes that the pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »