Chennai Court March 1921 Judgments
Korumbakkat Parkum Vengaalasheri MoidIn Kutti Vs. Thuniyilandiyil Mari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad404; (1921)41MLJ457
1. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. Defendants 4, 5 and 6 are Muhammadan brothers. The 7th defendant is their sister. The suit property belonged in jenm to their father who demised it on kanom to 1st defendant on 4th June 1903, Ex. C being the marupat. The defendants 4. and 5 granted a melcharth of the property to plaintiff by Ex. B (dated 20th February 1915) and on its footing the plaintiff 'brought a suit for redemption of the kanom (O: Section No. 616 of 1915). That suit was dismissed on the ground that Ex. B. was valid only as regards the 4/7th share of defendants 4 and 5 and was not binding on defendants 6 and 7 and the suit could not be converted into a suit for partition without the consent of the defendants. See Mamu v. Kuttu I.L.R(1882) . Mad. 61. The present suit is for partition and recovery of the 4/7th share. It may be mentioned that meanwhile the kanom in favour of 1st defendant had expired and the 1st defendant had a renewal under Ex. I from the 6th defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Korumbakkatparkum Vengalasheri Moideen Kutti Vs. Thunivilandiyal Maria ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1921
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.113
1. The facts of the case may be briefly stated,--Defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are Muhammadan brothers. The seventh defendant is their sister. The suit property belonged in jenm to their father who demised it on kanom to, first defendant, on 4th june 1903, Exhibit C being the marupat. The defendants Nos. 4 and 5 granted a melcharth of the property to plaintiff by Exhibit B (dated 20th February 1915) and on its footing the plaintiff brought a suit for redemption of the kanom (Original Suit No. 616 of 1915). That suit was dismissed on the ground that Exhibit B was valid only as regards the 4/7th share of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 and was not binding on defendants Nos. 6 and 7 and the suit could not be converted into a suit for partition without the consent of the defendants. See Marakar Akath Kondarakayil Mamu v. Punjapatath Kuttu 6 M. 61 . The present suit is for partition and recovery of the 4/7th share. It may be mentioned that, meanwhile, the kanom in favour of first defendant had expired...
Tag this Judgment!Alwar Ammal Vs. Narayana Naick
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad328; 70Ind.Cas.360
1. The order under appeal was one appointing the respondent guardian of the properties of two minors and it is attacked here by the mother of the minors who in fact applied for her own appointment as guardian in the lower Court.2. The circumstances can be stated shortly. The father of the minors died in 1917, leaving considerable property. Which descended, it is not disputed, to the minors. His adoptive father's brother-in-law, Venkataswani Naick, died on the 3rd of April 1918, he and the father had been intimate and had been living together, and Venkata swami Naick left a Will by which he gave the property to the two minors with a condition for defeasance in case of the death of both of them before majority in favour of the respondent. The respondent was also appointed executor of the Will and to the exact scope of that appointment we shall return. After the death of the father in December 1917 he and the petitioner (the widow), apparently were on good terms for some time, the widow e...
Tag this Judgment!Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Joolaganti Venkatasubba Rao Veerasam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad664; 70Ind.Cas.284
1. We hold that the suit was properly laid in the Guntur Subordinate Judge's Court. The plaintiffs who were alleged to have been appointed agents by the defendant firm in order to sell their goods in certain specified districts in this Presidency complained that in violation of the contract the defendant sold their goods in the districts in question through other agents and they also complained of illegal rescission of the contract: They claimed damages for breach of contract.2. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that a suit may be instituted in a Court where the cause of action wholly or in part arises, and the question therefore, is 'did the cause of action in this case arise, in part within the jurisdiction of the Guntur Court.' It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the facts alleged, namely, the sale by the defendants of their goods in Madras Presidency through other agents in breach of the contract with the plaintiffs is not part of the plaintiffs cause...
Tag this Judgment!Tarabchand Vs. the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad362; (1921)41MLJ205
1. The plaintiff in the reference is the consignor of goods by the Madras Railway Company to a consignee at Bangalore. The goods were not delivered and there seems to have been a certain amount of correspondence and inquiry after them by plaintiff. But it came to nothing: apparently because it is common ground that the goods had not on them his correct address and that he stated thestation, at which he booked them, incorrectly. It has further been found that in the end the goods, which we're in the Railway Company's possession, were sold in the exercise of their right under Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act. The plaintiff is now suing to recover the surplus proceeds of that sale, which in the words of the section, the Railway Company is bound to render to the person entitled.2. We are asked to decide what is the article of schedule 1 of the Limitation Act applicable to this suit. The plaintiff contends, and two learned Judges of the Small Cause Court have held, that article is No. ...
Tag this Judgment!M.A. Velappa Nadar Vs. Muna China Pena Chidembara Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad174; (1922)43MLJ277
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit is rightly constituted and that it is not bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The defendants ask the High Court to interfere with this order in revision.2. It is objected that this order is not liable to be revised by the High Court. Several cases have been cited in regard to this matter, but I shall refer only to cases of this Court as by reason of the great divergence of judicial opinion that prevails, no useful purpose will be served by a discussion of the cases decided by the other High Courts.3. In Venkatarama Rao v. Venkatalingama Nayanim Bahadurvaru (1920) 42 M.L.J. 43, an order allowing an amendment of the plaint was set aside in revision. In Sri Poosapathi Ramachandra Raju v. Sri Rajah Vachavayi Venkata Subbayamma (1915) 29 M.L.J. 53 , this Court set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge, directing the defendants to the an additional written statement to meet a case set up in the course of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Battar Vs. Sreenivasa Battar, Minor by Next Friend and Gr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1921
Reported in: AIR1922Mad341; 76Ind.Cas.881; (1922)42MLJ124
Napier, J.1. The parties to the suit belong to a family of archakas and the history of the complications giving rise to the present suit dates back to the year 19.00. It appears that, in 1900, there were alive the 2nd defendant's two uncles, the son of one of whom is the 1st defendant, the other one having died childless. At that time the family considered themselves aggrieved by the behaviour of the present 2nd defendant, and an arrangement was made by which he granted a release of all his interest in the family property by a document which is Ex. A in the case. This document, Ex. A, has been considered by this Court in its Judgment remanding the case, and its effect is described as being that 'the 2nd defendant relinquished his interest in the family property by that document.' It is common ground that the effect of this relinquishment was to remove him from the joint family which thereafter consisted of his son and the other members of the family, It is to be noted too that in Ex. A...
Tag this Judgment!Tarachand Vs. the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR44Mad823
1. The plaintiff in this reference is the consignor of goods for carriage by the Madras Railway Company to a consignee at Bangalore. The goods were not delivered and there seems to have been a certain amount of correspondence and inquiry after them by plaintiff. But it came to nothing apparently, because it is common ground that the goods had not on them his correct address and that he stated the station, at which he booked them incorrectly. It has further been found that, in the end, the goods which were in the Railway Company's possession were sold in the exercise of their right under Section 56 of the Indian Railways Act. The plaintiff is now suing to recover the surplus proceeds of that sale, which, in the words of the section, the Railway Company is bound to render to the person entitled.2. We are asked to decide what is the article of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act applicable to this suit. The plaintiff contends, and two learned Judges of the Small Cause Court have held, that t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Battar Vs. Sreenivasa Battar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1921
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.881
Napeir, J.1. The parties to the suit belong to a family of Arbhakas and the history of: the complications giving rise to the present suit dates back to the year 1906. It appears that, in 1906, there were alive the second defendant's two uncles, the son of one of whom is first defendant; the other one having died childless. At that time the family considered themselves aggrieved by the behaviour of the present second defendant, and an arrangement was made by which he granted a release of all his interests in the family property by a document which is Exhibit A in the case. This document, Exhibit A, has been considered by this Court in its judgment remanding the case, and its effect is described as being that 'the second defendant relinquished his interest in the family property by the document.' It is common ground that the effect of this relinquishment was to remove him from the joint family which thereafter consisted of his son and the other members of his family. It is to be noted to...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarama Aiyar Vs. A.P.T. Veerabadra Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Mad464; (1921)41MLJ217
Napier, J.1. In the suit from which this Second Appeal lies, the question arose as to the effect of a statement made by a witness in certain criminal proceedings, whether that statement amounted to an acknowledgment of, liability within Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The statement is as follows: - I executed the promissory-note Ex. R (suit promissory-note). The contents of the promissory-note are correct.' Ex. R (which is Ex. A in the present case) is a promissory-note acknowledging liability for Rs. 1,322-11-11 with a promise to pay with interest at 12 per cent, per annum. On that promissory-note there were, at the date that the document was shown to the witness, four endorsements of various payments in 1912. The statement made by the witness is, admittedly, within the period of limitation which has to be applied in this case. The question is whether this amounts to an acknowledgement.2. Both the appellant and the respondent have relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Munir...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »