Chennai Court December 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.
P. Ananthachari Vs. Ratnam and Sarathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad713; 75Ind.Cas.161; (1923)45MLJ83
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This is an interesting action which is brought by a gentleman called Ananthachari, who is the proprietor of a firm trading under the name of Messrs. P. Rungachariar & Co., and the defendants are, first, a firm tracing as Messrs. Ratnam & Sarathy and, secondly, an English Limited Company known as Messrs. Alfred Mumford & Co., Ltd., who are now in liquidation and are represented by their Liquidator and Official Receiver Mr. Phillips. The history of this matter, which I need only deal with very briefly, is this; that on the 5th of February 1920, Messrs. P. Rungachariar & Co., signed an indent to Messrs. Ratnam & Sarathy in the following terms: 'We authorise you to instruct Messrs... to purchase and ship the goods specified below on our risk and account and subject to the conditions overleaf,' and then follows the description of the goods and the price; and the terms of payment were Draft at 60 D-S documents against payment. In fact, Messrs. Ratnam & Sarathy were actin...
Kozhikot Patinhare Kovilagath Thambatti Thamburathi Alias Viyathen Not ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.376
1. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the arguments which we propose to consider, are that the second plaintiff, here one of the appellants, is s melcharthaar under a meleharth given by the first plaintiff, the senior lady of a Kovilagam. Third plaintiff was the senior male member of the Kovilagam. Many years back, the first plaintiff's predecessor had been removed from management under Exhibit XI. Subsequently, the first plaintiff, as she contends, was restored to management by Exhibit Frexecuted by the senior male member, who had in due course succeeded the person who took office under Exhibit XI. The suit is for redemption of a previous kanom of the Kovilagam property, and the main question raised is whether the first plaintiff had authority to give the melcharth, Exhibit B. There is a subsidiary question as to whether, if she had no authority to give Exhibit B. that was made good by the ratification of her action in doing so, constituted by the third plaintiff's pleadings....
K.P.K. Thambatti Thamburathi (Deceased) and ors. Vs. K.V.T. Taravathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad245
1. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the arguments which we propose to consider, are that the second plaintiff, here one of the appellants, is a Melcharthdar under a melcharth given by the first plaintiff, the senior lady of a Kovilagam. Third plaintiff was the senior male member of the Kovilagam. Many years back, the first plaintiff's predecessor had been removed from management under Exhibit XI, Subsequently, the first plaintiff, as she contends, was restored to management by Exhibit F executed by the senior male member, who had in due course succeeded the person who took office under Exhibit XI. The suit is for redemption of a previous kanom of the Kovilagam property, and the main question raised is whether the first plaintiff had authority to give the melcharth, Exhibit B. There is a subsidiary question as to whether, if she had no authority to give Exhibit B. that was made good by the ratification of her action in doing so, constituted by the third plaintiffs pleadings. ...
Swaminatha Mudaliar Vs. Kumaraswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad472; (1923)44MLJ282
1. This suit was instituted under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act by 3 persons acting in a representative capacity. The decree obtained in the High Court on appeal was for the recovery of a certain sum of money as damages on behalf of the temple. Two out of the three plaintiffs are still alive and there has been no devolution of their interest upon the respondents. The District Judge's order does not purport to be one made under Order 22, Rule 10 and it is therefore not necessary for us to consider the applicability The District Judge has ordered the respondents to be brought on the record as decree holders because they represent the temple in their capacity as trustees and because it is in the interests of the trust that the decree should be executed, the original decree holders having neglected to enforce it for over five years.2. It may be unusual to bring fresh plaintiffs on the record after a decree has been passed, but there is authority for doing so under Order 1, Rul...
K. Gopalasami Aiyar Vs. O.S. Ramachandra Ayyar, Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ409
Wallace, J.1. Petitioner seeks for revision of the order of the lower Court excusing the delay of 8 months by the Official Receiver, Tanjore, in bringing on record the legal representative of a deceased alienee from an insolvent in the matter of a petition by the Official Receiver to have that alienation set aside. The District Judge has excused the delay in the short ground that the Official Receiver had no means of knowing about the death of the alienee, and presumably though he does not say so that he considered that sufficient cause for the application being belated.2. The evidence before him was contained only in two affidavits, one by the Official Receiver that he did not know earlier of the death and one by the legal representative that the Official Receiver did know earlier of it from the insolvent's power of attorney agent. The District Judge had therefore before him no evidence whatever that the Official Receiver had no means of knowing earlier about the death. If he meant th...
K. Gopalaswami Iyer Vs. O.S. Ramachandra Iyer, Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad503; 72Ind.Cas.137
Wallace, J.1. Petitioner seeks for revision of the order of the lower Court excusing the delay of 8 months by the Official Receiver, Tanjore, in bringing on record the legal representative of a deceased alienee from an insolvent in the matter of a petition by the Official Receiver to have that alienation set aside. The District Judge has excused the delay on the short ground that the Official Receiver had no means of knowing about the death of the alienee, and presumably, though he does not say so, that he considered that sufficient cause for the application being belated.2. The evidence before him was contained only in two affidavits, one by the Official Receiver that he did not know earlier of the death, and one by the legal representative that the Official Receiver did know earlier of it from the insolvent's power-of-attorney agent. The District Judge had, therefore, before him no evidence whatever that the Official Receiver did not, as a matter of fact, know earlier. He has not sai...
C. Sundaram Aiyar Vs. Raja Rajeswara Muthuramalinga, Sethupathi Avergh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ279
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application to vacate an exparte order excusing the delay in re-presentation and to dismiss the second appeal with Costs.2. The Second Appeal in which the Rajah of Ramnad is the appellant was filed in time but without a copy of the decree appealed against. The papers were returned for representation with a copy of the decree. When the copy of the decree was filed, the appeal was 53 days out of time as the papers were returned on the 6th of December 1918 and the decree was filed on the 16th of January 1919. On the 18th of January 1919 the papers were again returned with the remark that the appeal became out of time when the copy of the decree appealed against was filed and that an affidavit explaining the cause of the delay should be filed. On the 20th January 1922 the papers were again presented with an affidavit and orders were obtained from me on the same day excusing the delay. The petitioner who was served with notice of the appeal on the 15...
Koonamvelli Unnara (Dead) and anr. Vs. Koyiparambath Perinkitayil Kunh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad514; (1923)44MLJ443
Wallace, J.1. The Substantive points for decision in this appeal are two both questions of res judicata. The plaintiffs (contesting respondents) are the junior members of a Marumakattayam tarwad in Malabar and they bring this suit to eject among others the appellant from the plaint property on the ground that the plaint property is the property of a Devaswom which is itself the property of their tarwad. The appellant claims under the third defendant, who was the son of one Sankaran, and claims that the plaint property was the property of Sankaran, that Sankaran followed Makkathayam law and that the third defendant therefore succeeded to the property after his father's death and passed it on to him. On this point, the plaintiffs claim that Sankaran followed Marumakkathayam Law, and therefore his successor in title to the property was not the third defendant but their own tarwad, of which, according to them, Sankaran was the Karnavan when he died. One of the main points for decision by t...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. A. Duraiswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad364; (1923)44MLJ201
Krishnan, J.1. The interpretation put by the Honorary Magistrates on the rule referred to by them and published in the Fort. St. George Gazette of 10th February, 1922 No. 189 seems to be erroneous. The first part of the rule applies to the person who pedals the bicycle and takes with him another on the same cycle; and the latter part of the rule clearly applies to the person who allows himself to be so carried, for he rides the bicycle but not on the saddle. The word 'ride' docs not necessarily imply that the person riding should propel the bicycle himself. It may be that the rule as worded covers the case of a single person riding a bicycle in the manner the 2nd accused did. He pleaded guilty and therefore he should have been convicted but as the Crown Prosecutor does not ask for a sentence it is not necessary to inflict one now. But his acquittal is set aside....
Rajaratnam Ayyar Alias Bapurajan Vs. Halasyasundaram Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad521; (1923)44MLJ322
Oldfield, J.1. The order I am asked to revise is one made in a suit by the plaintiff, here petitioner, for the recovery of possession of properties comprised in an estate, of which the last male owner was one Sundaram Aiyar. The plaintiff's father was, it is the plaintiff's case, adopted by the 1st defendant, the widow of Sundaram Aiyar. The plaintiff sues on the ground that he has been unlawfully excluded from the plaint properties by that widow on account of an invalid agreement entered into between her and the 2nd defendant. The lower Court's order is one made on the petition of the present respondents alleging that they are the nearest reversioners to Sundaram Aiyar and asking that they may be made defendants in the suit. There was in this petition an allegation of collusion between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. But in its order making the respondents parties the lower Court has not referred to any grounds for that allegation or recorded any finding in favour of it; and no s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »