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. Kanniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. K. Ramachandraiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ407
ORDER5. The parties have now come to an agreement on the basis of our preliminary Judgment of December the 14th. That agreement signed by the vakil for the appellant and by the 1st respondent with the statement of account annexed will be filed and the decree drawn up accordingly. There will be liberty to apply to the City Civil Court in respect of this matter generally....
Rajambal Ammal and ors. Vs. Shanmugha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.653
William Ayling, J.1. I agree that the appeals preferred on behalf of Shanmugha Mudaliar must be dismissed with costs. The Subordinate Judge's finding against the factum of adoption has not been questioned in the grounds of second appeal; and if it be accepted there could have been no misrepresentations of facts against him so as to give rise to an estoppel. Nor do I see how the status of joint ownership with rights of survivorship could be acquired by prescription.2. Second Appeal No. 1077 of 1920 is concluded by findings of fact which we are not justified in refusing to accept and must also be dismissed with costs.Odgers, J.3. In these second appeals the question is, what was the position of one Shanmugha Mudali, first defendant in all the suits--with regard to the property of one Parasurama Mudali. The latter was one of a co-parcenary of four brothers who became divided in 1891 and Shanmugha is the son of a deceased divided brother of Parasurama. The property in question is (subject ...
Ammakannu Ammal and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad633; 72Ind.Cas.635
1. The finding which we have called for in this case has been returned and the learned Judge finds that the joint family, of which Tholasingam was a member, acquired a title to the property in suit by prescription. That finding of fact is challenged on the ground that though this old lady had married and gone away to Royapuram and never again resided in the property in the ordinary sense, she is to be held to have kept alive her rights in it against the accrual of prescription by the fact that, occasionally, she came and stayed a few days as a guest. That seems to be so, but that will not operate to make the possession of the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 less exclusive so as not to extinguish the rights of the old lady in the property. This contention does not require discussion.2. It is next argued that the suit is not maintainable because at the time it was brought the plaintiffs were not in possession of the property and that no stranger, even after the completion of the prescri...
Mahalakshmi Vs. V. Venkan Setti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad96
Wallace, J.1. Plaintiff argues that the endorsement by the 2nd defendant binds 1st defendant the manager of the joint family because the pro-note was executed by 1st defendant for joint family trading purposes. The pronote states that the 1st defendant himself borrowed the money 'for my necessity' and says nothing about family necessity or family trade. There is no allegation in the Civil Revision Petition that plaintiff was not allowed to adduce evidence; so I must take it that the whole case is before me. Hence, as I have said, the pronote prima facie is for 1st defendant's necessity only and the mere fact that 2nd defendant is his undivided son will not suffice to make a payment by him tantamount to an acknowledgment in law on behalf of his father, for the father's private debt, or suffice to raise any presumption that 2nd defendant acted as his father's agent in making such a payment.2. Now can there be any decree against 2nd defendant as he is not a promisor under Ex. A. and is no...
Rao Bahadur K.S. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. Janab V. Hamid Sultan Maracayar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad360; (1923)44MLJ161
Spencer, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is connected with an order made by the Subordinate Judge at Negapatam in reference to an election to the Taluk Board of Negapatam under the powers possessed by him as an enquiring authority under the rules in Appendix D to the Madras Local Boards Act.2. An objection has been taken that we have no power to evise the order of the Subordinate Judge, which by Rule 12, Clause 3, of the rules for the conduct of inquiries and the decision of disputes relating to elections is declared to be final, after he has decided whether an election is void for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder. This question has been fully considered by a Bench of this Court, on which my learned brother was one of the Judges, when it was decided that the High Court could revise an order of a Subordinate Judge on an election petition, if he had acted with material irregularity or illegality (see Ramaswami Goundan v. Muthu Velappa Goundan (...
Uthuman Ammal and anr. Vs. Naina Mahomed Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad351(1); (1923)44MLJ238
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the main point taken before me is that the High Court having remanded the case for trial by the Munsif's Court of Madura Town the Court of Madura Taluk which is a different Court altogether has no jurisdiction to deal with it or pass any orders in it; and consequently the orders passed by that Court must all be set aside and the Town Court directed to dispose of the case.2. This argument seems to me to be sound. Though the judgment of the High Court indicated 'the Court of first instance 'as the Court to try the remanded case that Court had been abolished and the decree therefore specified the Town Court as the Court to try the case in quite unambiguous language. So long as that direction stands I must hold that the Town Court alone can deal with the case.3. The learned Vakil for the Respondent attempted to contend that I should apply the principle underlying Section 21 C.P.C. to this case and refuse to give effect to the objection as it was not taken at the...
Rajagopala Pandarathar Vs. K. Thirupathi Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ285
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The dispute turns upon the construction of the mortgage deed on which the suit was based. It has been conceded before us that the decree directs the sale of property described in the mortgage deed. The 1st defendant contends that his residence or the buildings constituting the palace are not included in the description contained in the decree, and cannot therefore be sold under it. On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that these buildings should not be excluded from the sale. To deal with these respective contentions it is necessary to have an accurate rendering of certain portions of the document which is in Tamil.2. In the body of the document there is the following passage:We have mortgaged to you for Rs. 15,000 the village of Kovilur which is included within the four boundaries given below and which is attached to our Zamindari and which ancestrally belongs to us and is in our enjoyment....and which is capable of yielding an annual melvaram kists of Rs. 3,...
Pasumarthi Bhagavanulu and ors. Vs. Bollam Seetharamaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ359
Spencer, J.1. The suit concerned in this Civil Revision Petition was instituted by a reversioner claiming the right as an adopted son to have his title declared to certain properties in Schedules A, B and C and to recover possession of them from the persons to whom the 1st male owner's wife and mother had alienated them. During the trial of the suit there were two references to arbitration under Shcoudle II, para. 1, C.P.C. The first was on 22nd August, 1919 by plaintiff and defendants 6 to 8 who were interested in B Schedule properties. The 2nd reference was on 27th August 1919 by plaintiff and defendants 1, 3 and 4 who were interested in A Schedule properties.2. It is now urged as the sole ground of revision by defendants 6 to 8 that the entire reference to arbitration and the arbitrator's award are invalid because defendants 2 and 5 did not join in the reference. 2nd defendant is the brother of 1st defendant and 5th defendant is the undviided son of 2nd defendant. They had no intere...
His Holiness Sri Sukratendra Thirtha Swami of Kasi Mutt Vs. M.N. Prabh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad587; (1923)45MLJ116
ORDEROldfield, J.1. I adopt the statement of facts in my learned brother's judgment, which I have had the advantage of reading, but give my own reasons for concurring in his conclusions, because the questions raised are of importance and may arise with increasing frequency in the future. They relate to the conditions of membership in associations, castes and sects, which as regards their adult members at least are concensual, but which probably have no counterpart in the West, because the obligations of membership in them are on the one hand so loose, that they have never been formulated by statute or any written constitution and on the other so strict that their breach is visited, as in the case before us, with the severest penalties. With the advantage or stability of such social conditions I am not concerned. It is sufficient that the law, which regulates the internal rights of those subject to them has been laid down clearly in The Queen v. Sankara I.L.R.(1882) M. 381 and Krishnasw...
E.E. Mack Vs. the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.750; (1923)45MLJ424
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is an action by Mr. Edmund Elmar Mack, a Member of the Indian Civil Service, against the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co., Ltd., for damages for personal injury sustained by him on the early morning of the 30th August, 1921 and alleged to be due to the negligence of the defendant Railway Company in keeping an unprotected and unlighted pit on the platform of Nellore Station. At that time Mr. Mack was stationed at Nellore and had been instructed to join a survey party at Bellary. On the-night of the 29th August he dined at the house of Mr. Bateman, Deputy Director of Survey, at Nellore, and the party consisted of Mr. Bateman and Mrs. Bateman, Miss Baxely, Mr. Lewis, District Superintendent of Police, Mr. Ramamurthi, the Acting Collector and the plaintiff. m The train by which the plaintiff was to go to Madras en route for Bellary was due to arrive at 2-15 a.m. and depart 8 minutes later. At about 1-30 Mr. Lewis, the plaintiff and the two ladies left in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »