Chennai Court August 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.
Pl.Pl. Palaniyappa Chettiar Vs. N.S.P. Chockalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad334; (1920)39MLJ692
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that according to Section 23 of the Contract Act, the agreement on which the suit is based as contained in Ex. A is illegal and that therefore the plaintiff cannot recover the money which the defendant had collected under certain decrees. The plaintiff himself is the judgment-debtor under those decrees and he apparently asked the defendant to take an assignment of the decree on his behalf and to execute the decree against the other judgment-debtors and the defendant realized in execution certain assets. By Ex. A, it is provided that the defendant will submit accounts to the plaintiff of the amount spent in collecting the money and of the amount realized and after deducting commission of 20 per cent, to pay over the balance to the plaintiff.2. Order 21 Rule 16 says that 'where a decree for the payment of money againsttwo or more persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others...
Polepeddi Venkata Sivayya Minor by Next Friend and Maternal Uncle Kond ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad380; (1921)ILR44Mad218
1. We think the Subordinate Judge wan right in holding that this suit was barred under Article 118 of the Indian Limitation Act, IX of 1908. It is now settled by the Full Bench decision in Varamma v. Gopaladasayya (1) that a suit for a declaration that an adoption is invalid is a representative suit which the nearest reversioner is entitled to bring on behalf of the whole body of reversioners, born and unborn, within the period prescribed in the article.2. Time begins to run from the time the adoption becomes known to the plaintiff, and here the adoption came to the knowledge of the next reversioners as soon as it took place in 1902. Time, therefore, began to run against the whole body of reversioners from that date, and the present suit not haying been brought within six years, is barred. It is said that the nearest reversioner did not bring the suit because he had been bribed to give his consent to the adoption. That might have been a good reason for allowing another reversioner to s...
Palaniyappa Chettiar Vs. Chockalingam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad334
Abdur Rahim, J.1. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed on the ground that, according to Section 23 of the Contract Act, the agreement on which the suit is based as contained in Exhibit A is illegal and that therefore the plaintiff cannot recover the money which the defendant had collected under certain decrees. The plaintiff himself is the judgment-debtor under the decree and he apparently asked the defendant to take an assignment of the decree on his behalf and to execute the decree against the other judgment-debtors and the defendant realized in execution certain assets. By Exhibit A it is provided that the defendant will submit accounts to the plaintiff of the amount spent in collecting the money, and of the amount realized, and after deducting a commission of 20 per cent pay over the balance to the plaintiff.2. Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, says that:Where a decree for the payment of money against two or more persons has been transferred to one of them it shall not b...
Santhanarama Mudaliar Vs. Sami Karuppundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad455; 61Ind.Cas.537
Odgers, J.1. This is a small cause suit in which defendant has been decreed to pay the balance of a sum due on a contract with the plaintiff for the lease of certain trees for toddy-tapping. Various defenses are raised and the questions involved were argued before me at length.2. For the defendant it was urged, (1) that the District Munsif's Court of Mannargudi had no jurisdiction to try this case agreement according to plaintiffs evidence) took place at Kilasayam in the jurisdiction of the Tiruvaloor Court, though in the plaint the contract in question is said to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Mannargudi Court. It is not clear that any issue was raised as to this or that it was urged upon the Court below in argument. The judgment does not refer to it. It caught, of course, to have been raised at the earliest opportunity, I do not think it can be relied on in revision before me.3. Secondly, it WAS argued that the defendant was not a surety, as found in the alternative by th...
Devulapalli Venkata Subba Row Vs. Kolluri Satyanarayanamurti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Mad86; 60Ind.Cas.27; (1921)40MLJ31
Ayling, J.1. No point of law arises in this appeal except in connection with items 1-19 and 25 of plaint schedule A.2. These were originally karnam service inam lands and were enfranchised in 1906 in the name of 1st defendant who was then holding' the office of karnam. Second plaintiff and first defendant belong to what was originally the same joint family in which the post of karnam vested. According to the plaint partition never took place; but it is found as a fact that a partition did take place about 1874 and that 2nd plaintiff'sbrisance and 1st defendant's branch then became divided and have been living separately since. It is however contended that this does not affect plaintiff's claim to a share of the service inam lands on enfranchisement.3. As it is expressed in paragraph 13 of the plaint, 'The enfranchisement of the properties converts them into family property and enures for the benefit of all the members of the service holder's family existing at the time of enfranchiseme...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›