Chennai Court November 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.
Kosalai Rama Pillai and ors. Vs. Pulosthiam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad330; 72Ind.Cas.774
Wallace, J.1. I am quite clear that in these cases before the Village Munsif there was no contract on which a suit could He. The plaints only allege that according to a village custom subscriptions are raised from persons of the caste of plaintiff and defendants for conducting a festival. It is not alleged that it was in consequence of any prior agreement by the defendants, plaintiff incurred the obligations, nor, so far as appears from the records, is there any proof therefor. The principle quoted by respondents in Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gone Mahomed 14 C. 64 : has, therefore, no application. All that is relied upon is a subsequent promise by petitioners to subscribe for the expenses already incurred by plaintiff and it 13, also neither alleged nor proved that there was any promise by petitioners to compensate plaintiff for something which plaintiff had already voluntarily done for the petitioners, hence Section 25(2) of the? Indian Contract Act will not avail.2. So far as appears ...
The British India Steam Navigation Co. Vs. H.M. Sharafally Merchant by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad435; (1923)44MLJ100
Spencer, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115, C.P.C. to revise the order of two Judges of the Presidency Small Cause Court rejecting as being out of time an application for retrial of a Small Cause Suit tried by a single Judge of that Court.2. A preliminary objection is raised that the High Court has no power of revision over an erroneous decision of a Small Cause Court on a question of limitation, It was held by a single Judge of this Court in Kuppuswami Iyengar v. Narayana Iyengar (1913) 16 M.L.T. 438 that an alleged erroneous decision of a Small Cause Court on a question of limitation was not liable to be revised under Section 115, C.P.C. and in Letters Patent Appeal Kuppu-swamy Iyengar v. Narayana Iyengar (1916) 19 M.L.T. 24 this view was upheld. In the present case, however, the result of the two Judges' decision on the question of limitation has been that if they were wrong in so deciding, there was a failure on their part to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them and this ...
A.S. Krishna Aiyar Vs. N. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ386
1. In this case the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes has held that he has a discretion under Section 47 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act as to whether or not to stay a suit in the Small Cause Court pending a suit in the High Court when the occupant is prepared to bind himself with sureties to institute a suit for compensation for trespass. He says that the application is not bona fide, and he bases his decision on the acts of the occupant, that he has already delayed proceedings in the Small Cause Court under Section 41 and in a manner which quite properly did not commend itself to the Judge of the Small Cause Court: and he also puts his decision on another ground, namely, that the application was not supported by an affidavit. The case here is also argued on a further ground, namely, that, in Section 47, the words 'whenever on an application being made under Section 41 'mean at some early stage in the proceedings on that application, it is suggested, either at the fi...
Perianavagi Ammal Vs. A. Ratnavelu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1922
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.1042
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that she is entitled to the possession and enjoyment of house and grount No. 65, Kilava Chetti Street, Caintadnpet,Madras, jointly with the second defendant as daughter and heiress of her deceasea father Saunmaga Madaliar; for directing the first defendant to deliver possession of the said premises and to pay the plsinaJ Rs. 378 for past mesne pr fits ana future mesne profits at Rs. 10-8-0 a month for a division of the house between the plaintiff ana the second defendant; for costs and other reliefs.2. The case for the plaintiff is that Shunmuga Madaliar, her father, died in December 1912, leaving a Will, dated the 11th of November 1911, whereby be be queathet to his daughter, Logambal Ammal, wife of the first defendant, the house specified in the plaint, to be enjoyed by her ouring her life and to devolve on her children at her death; that the Will does not contain any gift over in the case of Logambal Ammal ...
D. Subramania Aiyar Vs. Chokkalinga Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad317; (1923)44MLJ206
Phillips, J.1. The facts of this case are as follows: One Chokalinga Mudali (called the first defendant) received a sum of Rs. 3,000 from one Kumaraswami Pillai. The latter died on the 29th June, 1917. The first defendant executed a promissory note for the Rs. 3,000 to Kumaraswami Pillai's son Sadasiva Pillai. There were many creditors of Sadasiva Pillai and suits were brought against him and several orders were passed in respect of this promissory note. Subramania Ayyar (called the plaintiff) is the receiver in one of those suits in which a decree was obtained against Sadasivam. In that suit an order was passed on the 31st July, 1917 attaching this promissory note. On the 20th August, 1917, a similar attachment was taken out by Kuppuswami Ayyangar (called the second defendant). There were various other attachments also, and, on the 18th March, 1918, the promissory note was endorsed by Sadasivam to Kuppuswami Ayyangar. The plaintiff now brings the suit to recover Rs. 3,000 from the mak...
Aiyaparaju Alias Ayyappa Vs. Veeva Venkatakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ303
Spencer, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of adjudication under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The insolvency petition, from which originated the District Judge's proceedings, was one presented by a creditor under Section 6(4) of Act III of 1907.2. It was first presented on June 28th, 1919 to the District Munsif of Razole who had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Having been returned by that Court on September 22nd, 1919 it was represented to the District Court on October 1st, 1919 which had jurisdiction under Section 3. One of the pre-requisites for the valid presentation of a creditor's petition is that contained in sub clause (c) to Clause 4 of Section 6, namely that the act of insolvency which forms the ground of the application should have occurred within 3 months of the date of presentation of the petition. The act of of insolvency put forward in this case as the basis of the petition was a transaction of sale, of the debtor's property on March 31st, 1919 alleged to have be...
A. Rarichan Vs. Elambilakad Vachayil Damayanti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad440; (1923)44MLJ363
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the small cause suit out of which this revision petition arises may be briefly stated as follows: . Certain properties were mortgaged jointly to Chandan (the 1st defendant) and Bapputi (now represented by the 3rd defndant). Chandan submortgaged his interest to Damayanti (the plaintiff) and Bapputi, his interest to Rarichan (the 2nd defendant). The jenmi (Ayyappan) brought a suit to redeem the mortgage in O.S. No. 145 of 1916. In that suit Damayanti was not a party; but Rarichan was impleaded as 4th defendant and claimed compensation for a shop on the footing that it was in the portion submortgaged to him by Bapputi, and in appeal this question was decided in his favour (A.S. No. 138 of 1917 of the Temporary Subordinate Court of Palghat).2. Damayanti filed the present suit on the ground that the shop was in the portion submortgaged to her and not in the portion submortgaged to Rarichan, that O.S. No. 145 of 1916 was wrongly decided on account of the collusion ...
Aiyapuraju Alias Ayyappa Vs. Veeva Venkatakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad462; 72Ind.Cas.488
Spencer, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of adjudication under the Provincial Insolvency Act. The insolvency petition, from which originated the District Judge's proceedings, was one presented by a creditor under Section 6(4) of Act III of 1907.2. It was first presented on June 28th, 1919, to the District Munsif of Razole who had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Having been returned by that Court on September 22nd, 1919, it was re-presented to the District Court on October 1st, 1919, which had jurisdiction under Section 3. One of the pre-requisites for the valid presentation of a creditor's petition is that contained in sub-Clause (c) to Clause (4) of Section 6, namely, that the act of insolvency which forms the ground of the application should have occurred within three months of the date of presentation of the petition. The act of insolvency put forward in this case as the basis of the petition was a transaction of sale of the debtor's property on March 31st, 1919, alleged to...
Meethale Chalil Parkum Thirumangalath Kelu Kurup Vs. Kandiyil Parkum P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.275
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by a melchartdar, holding under a melchart granted by the 7th defendant, who is the stani of a stanom in Malabar, to redeem a kanom, Exhibit A of 1882. The defence to the suit raised by the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 at the trial was that the properties in suit were not held under the kanom, Exhibit A, but under a saswatham grant, Exhibit I, of 1852. The District Munsif held that this saswatham document was a forgery and he gave the plaintiff a decree for the redemption of the kanom. On appeal, the District Judge held that the saswath am deed, Exhibit I, was genuine, and that the kanom, Exhibit. A, was void, as it was not for the benefit of the Tavazhi on behalf of whom Chiruthayi, the mother of defendants Nos. 1 to 6, executed it.2. In second appeal the question was raised whether the saswatham demise, assuming it to be a genuine document, was binding on the stanom after the lifetime of the d nor. This question has been raised in thy pleadings but has b...
V.S. Natesa Chettiar Vs. V.E.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar by His Authorised ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.213
1. We do not agree with the opinion of the learned District Judge that the omission to take objection to the assignment of the decree being recognized and to its transmission to the Tiruvalur Court for execution, precluded the judgment-debtor from raising the question in the Executing Court that the decree was not then executable in the manner proposed by the decree-holder. The Small Cause Court at Madras did not adjudicate on the executability of the decree when it ordered it to be transmitted for execution.2. The other distinction attempted to be made is between creditors who are en the Schedule and those who are, not.3. At the time of an insolvent's discharge, Section 45(2) of Act 111 of 1907 gives a release to the insolvent from debts entered in the schedule. But after adjudication and before discharge, Section 16 treats all creditors alike as to their remedy against the person and property of an insolvent during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings. This Section in Clause 2(...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »