Chennai Court January 1922 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.
K.M. Koppa Kurup Vs. Velayichettichiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad360; (1922)42MLJ583
1. The Judgment of the Small Cause Court is in accordance with the requirements of Order 20, Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. We are unable, with respect, to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J. in Kandasami Chetty v. Ramalinga Chetty (1920) 12 L.W. 285 so far as his judgment purports to lay down as a rule of law anything different from Order 20, Rule 4(1) as to what Small Cause Court Judgments should contain.3. We think that that the learned Judge's Judgment was based on his opinion of what the practice should be in such matter rather than on what the law of procedure actually is. It seems to us that Order 20, Rule 4(1) is self-contained and does not need any expansion or explanation by Judicial rulings.4. Madras and S. M. Ry. Co. v. Matter Subba Rao 1 is an instance of interference by the High Court where a Small Cause Court's decision was reached without reference to material evidence. That is not the case here. It was open to the Small Cause Judge to discredit th...
K.M. Komappa Kurup Vs. Velayichettichiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.791
1. The judgment of the Small Cause Court is in accordance with the requirements of Order XX, Rule 4(1) of the Civil Procedure Code.2. We are unable, with respect, to follow the line taken by Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Kandasami Chetty v. Ramalinga Chetty 59 Ind. Cas. 906 : 12 L.W. 285 so far as his judgment purports to lay down as a rule of law anything different from Order XX, Rule 4(1) as to what Small Cause Court judgments should contain.3. We think that the learned Judge's judgment was based on his opinion of what the practice should be in such matters rather than oh what the law of procedure actually is. It seems to us that Order XX, Rule 4(1) is self-contained and does not need any expansion or explanation by judicial rulings.4. Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Co. v. Mattai Subba Rao 55 Ind. Cas. 754 : 43 M. 617 : 38 M.L.J. 360 : (1920) M.W.N. 198 : 11 L.W. 358 : 28 M.L.T. is ail instance of interference by the High Court where a Small Cause Court's decision was reached withou...
Yerukola Alias Pentajogulu (Dead) 2 ors. Vs. Yerukola Alias Penta Tata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ507
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt. C.J.1. The question referred to the Bench Full is, 'What are the articles of the Limitation Act of 1908 applicable to certain money and profits received by two brothers or their representatives under the following circumstances. Three brothers had been members of an undivided joint Hindu family. In 1905 they separated and appointed arbitrators to divide the ancestral property. Before division was complete disputes arose and the properties remaining undivided were left in the hands of different members of the family until in 1917 this suit was brought for partition and for account, it is found, and no doubt correctly, that the properties remaining undivided were held during the period in question under a tenancy-in-common. Money was received from debtors in respect of debts which were owned in common and rents and profits partly in money and partly in kind were received in respect of lands also owned in common. When asked to account and pay for the shares of th...
Yerukola Alias Penta Jogulu (Dead) and ors. Vs. Yerukola Alias Penta T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad150; 71Ind.Cas.177
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is 'What are the Articles of the limitation Act of 1908 applicable to certain money and profits received by two brothers or their representatives under the following circumstances?' Three brothers had been members of ail undivided joint Hindu family. In 1905 they separated and appointed arbitrators to divide the ancestral property. Before division was complete, disputes arose and the properties remaining undivided were left in the hands of different members of the family until in 1917 this suit was brought for partition and for account. It is found, and no doubt correctly, that the properties remaining undivided were held during the period, in question under a tenancy-in-common. Money was received from debtors in respect of debts which were owned in common, and rents and profits partly in money and partly in kind were received, in respect of lands also owned in common. When asked to account and pay for the shares of the oth...
Mahboob Sirfraz Vanth Sri Rajah Parthasarathy Appa Rao Savai Asva Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ486
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This case is an instance of the appallingly protracted litigation in this country which has been recently described by the Privy Council 'as a disgrace to any civilised community'. The money in dispute was left by will by a large] number of legacies, some of them of small amounts, to persons in humble positions. The plaintiff sues as assignee of some of the larger legacies. The testatrix died in in 1899 and, assuming the money in dispute to have been disposable by will by the testatrix, there was enough to pay all legatees, but up to now nothing has been paid to any of them; and those who are still alive and can be traced are now told that they will not receive anything until this case has been once more to the Privy Council, for the case has been brought before us with documents prepared in the form of a Privy Council appeal, and we have been told by the defendants that our views on the subject are only being taken in passing. I venture to hope that ...
The Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad85; 66Ind.Cas.800; (1922)42MLJ283
Ayling J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I agree in the answer proposed by him to be given.Venkatasubba Rao, J.2. The Chief Judge of Small Causes has under Rule 17 of Schedule IV to Madras Act IV of 1919 (the City Municipal Act) referred certain questions for our decision.3. Before stating the questions that have been so referred. I propose to set forth the facts that have led up to this reference.4. The Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada has its head office at Montreal, Quebec, and a branch office for India at Bombay. The Company has an agent at Madras who maintains an office and has clerks under him. This office, it is admitted, is not a branch office of the Sun Life Assurance Company, but is merely a local agency, There appears to have been a finding to this effect in a suit in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, to which the Sun Life Assurance Company was a party, a finding which was accepted by the High Court.5...
J.V. Srinivasa Rao Minor by Father and Next Friend J.V. Ranganatha Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad10; (1922)42MLJ344
Spencer, J.1. Section 150 which appeared for the first time in the Civil Procedure Code, of 1908 provides for a court to which the business of any other court is transferred having the same powers as the court from which the business is so transferred, But this useful provision is qualified by the word 'save as otherwise provided,' and the question in the case before us is whether the wording of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is such as to take away the power of a Court that has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of a suit to set aside an ex-parte decree passed by another Court that originally tried the suit.2. That rule declares that application to set aside ex-parte decrees may be made to the Court by which the decree was passed. It goes on to state that on making an order setting aside the exparte decree the court shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.3. Our attention has been drawn to reported decisions which relate to the powers of Courts...
Neti Anjaneyalu Vs. Sri Venugopal Rice Mill (Limited)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad197; (1922)42MLJ477
Walter Sales Schwabe, Kt. C.J.1. In this case an inam was granted by a Zamindar to the ancestor of the petitioner on terms that he should do Swastivachakam service in a temple and he and his family should enjoy the inam so long as they did this service. In 1860 the Inam Commissioner confirmed the grant 'to be continued so long as the service was performed'. This appears from the extract from the Inam Register produced before us. The total area of the land comprised was about ten acres, the produce or revenue from which would be not more than sufficient to provide a living for the inamdar for the time being.2. A judgment having been obtained by the respondent against the present inamdar, he applied to attach the land comprised in the inam in execution and he desires the Court to sell it to satisfy the judgment debt. On behalf of the inamdar it is contended that so long as the services are rendered the land is not saleable in execution. Now, it is clear law that the Court can only sell i...
J.V. Srinivasa Rao, Minor by Father and Next Friend J.V. Ranganatha Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.727
Spencer, J.1. Section 150, which appeared for the first time in the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, provides for a Court to which the business of any other Court is transferred having the same powers as the Court from which the business is so transferred. But this useful provision is qualified by the words 'save as otherwise provided,' and the question in the case before us is whether the wording of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is such as to take away the power of a Court that has territorial jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a suit to set aside an ex parte decree passed by another Court that originally tried the suit.2. That rule declares that applications to set aside ex parte decrees may be made to the Court by which the decree was passed. It goes on to state that on making an order setting aside the ex parte decree the Court shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.3. Our attention has been drawn to reported decisions which relate to the powers of Co...
Neti Anjaneyalu Vs. Sri Venu Gopal Rice Mill, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.466
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case an inam was granted by a Zemindar to the ancestor of the petitioner on terms that he should do Swasthivachakam service in a temple and he and his family should enjoy the inam so long as they did this service. In 1860 the Inam Commissioner confirmed the grant 'to be continued so long as the service was performed.' This appeals from the extract from the Inam Register produced before us. The total area of the land comprised was about to acres, the produce or revenue from which would be not more than sufficient to provide a living for the inamdar for the time being.2. A judgment having been obtained by the respondent against the present inamdar, he applied to attach the land comprised in the inam in execution and he desites the Court to sell it to satisfy the judgment-debt. On behalf of the inamdar it is contended that, so long as the services are rendered, the land is not saleable in execution. Now, it is clear law that the Court can only sell in execut...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »