Chennai Court February 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.
N. Ramakrishna Mudali Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR65Mad774
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The plaintiff in this case in 1904 executed a mortgage in favour of the Mylapore Benefit Fund to secure a loan of Rs. 1,500. The mortgage conferred a power upon the mortgagee to Hell the property, on failure by the mortgagor to carry out the terms as to repayment and so forth. In 1910 the Fund was pressing for repayment and the plaintiff was not able to repay. Thereupon the Fund announced its intention of selling the property. Just before the sale the plaintiff was enabled to produce one Devasikamani Chetty who stepped into the breach, paid off the Fund and took over the security. Devasikamani Chetty, further more, made a new advance of, I think, Rs. 800 over the original consideration of Rs. 1,500 to the plaintiff and secured that by a further equitable mortgage by deposit of title-deeds of the same property that was covered by the original mortgage to the Mylapore Fund. Devasikamani Chetty fared no better than the Fund, because he, in his turn, could get no repay...
P. Albuquerque and Sons by Its Managing Proprietor P.F.B. Albuquerque ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad231; (1922)43MLJ90
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The goods were consigned under risk note form H, which saves the Railway Company from liability for loss destruction or deterioration of or damages to the consignment from any cause whatever except for the loss due either to the wilful neglect of the Railway administration or to theft by or to the wilful neglect of its servants etc.2. The liability of the Railway Company is therefore not the general liability imposed on common carriers or imposed by Section 72 of the Railways Act. Under Section 72, the Company was entitled to contract themselves out of the provisions of the Act if the form of the contract was approved by the Governor-General in Council and there is nothing illegal in the consignor in consideration of the reduced rate charged agreeing to hold the company liable only on certain specified contingencies.3. In such cases the onus of proving the fact necessary to bring the company within the terms of the contract and the liability imposed by it will ...
Ebrahim Currim and Sons Vs. A.K. Abdulla Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ617
1. An application was made to the learned Judge by the plaintiffs for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from passing off an umbrella on to the market which is alleged to be a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs' umbrella. We only differ from the learned Judge, and that with very great regret on one point that goes unfortunately to the root of this case. The learned Judge says:I have examined the two umbrellas and, certainly from a mere appearance of the marks, I am not at all satisfied that even an ignorant purchaser would be deceived into taking one for the other.2. With great respect we feel unable to take that view. One has got to see whether an ignorant purchaser is going to be in the position of the Court having the two things side by side and examining them critically. The purchaser probably trusts to his recollection of one or a description of it that has been given him, or, seeing it in the shop window, goes to the person selling the infringement, who ex ...
Jagannatha Naidu Vs. the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad334; (1922)43MLJ37
Spencer, J.1. These appeals arise out of hvo suits instituted by the Secretary of State for India for the recovery of property alleged to have been dedicated for the maintenance of a water-pandal and Chatram at Ramnad for the purpose of carrying out the public trust connected therewith and for mesne profits. O.S. No. 6 of 1.918 relates to 17 shops and vacant sites in the Ramnad Town and O.S. No. 14 of 1917 relates to six pangus or shares of land in Dharmasanam Sodhukudi Village. It is alleged in the plaint that these properties were dedicated to charity under a Padhathi (a word which may be translated as a manual of instructions) written by Dhanushkodi Nayak in 1851 which contained bequests of a testamentary nature. The original Padhathi or will of Dhanushkoti Nayak which was in Tamil, is not forthcoming at the present date. The plaintiff attempted to prove the terms of it by secondary evidence consisting of a judgment of the Civil Judge of Madura in O.S. No. 3 of 1863 which contains a...
P. Sankunni Vs. C.S. Venkatramani, Minor by Next Friend C.S. Swatninat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad200; 67Ind.Cas.514; (1922)42MLJ460
Oldfield, J.1. Personal matters and allegations of ulterior motive have entered unduly into the pleadings in and conduct of this case in the lower Court. But the facts and the considerations, with which we are concerned for the purpose of this appeal, can be stated with very little reference to them. The defendant, Principal of what at the date in question was the Victoria College, but is now a Government College at Palghat appeals against a decree awarding to plaintiff, a pupil in the High School attached thereto, Rs. 150, as damages for an assault. At the trial two questions were raised, on which very little has been said here. For it is not seriously disputed that defendant had on the occasion in question the powers, ordinarily exercised by the Head master of the School, to inflict corporal punishment or that he is not proved to have done more than he himself admits, given plaintiff 'two smacks' with his hand on his cheek. We are asked to hold either that in the circumstances of the...
The Rani of Tuni Vs. the Maharajah of Jeypore (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad271; 66Ind.Cas.115; (1922)42MLJ487
ORDER1. This is a petition asking us to direct the Agent to the Governor, Vizagapatam, to review his proceedings dismissing, as inadmissible, an appeal from a decision of the Assistant Agent.2. A preliminary objection has been taken to our hearing the petition, that it does not lie, because the Agent's disposal is not a decree, into which Rule 20. Vizagapatam Agency Rules applies. The question whether the Agent's disposal is a decree is indistinguishable from the question whether the decision under appeal before him was likewise a decree. The Assistant Agent was dealing with what undoubtedly was described before him as a petition and was headed as presented under Order 21, Rule 58, C.P.C. The circumstances were that the present 1st respondent was claiming the property attached by the present petitioner in execution of her decree against the 2nd and other respondents. The Assistant Agent in dealing with the case appears to have eventually declined to decide the two issues originally fra...
Jagannatha Naidu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.107
Spencer, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the Secretary of State for India for the recovery of property alleged to have been dedicated for the maintenance of a water pandal and chatram at Ramnad for the purpose of carrying out the public trust connected therewith, and for mesne profits. Original Suit No. 6 of 1918 relates to 17 shops and vacant sites in the Ramnad Town, and Original suit No. 14 of 1917 relates to six pangus or shares of land in Dharmasanam Sodhukudi village. It is alleged in the plaint that these properties were dedicated to charity under a padhathi (a word which may be translated as a manual of instructions) written by Dhanushkodi Nayak in 1831 which contained bequests of a testamentary nature. The original padhathi or Will of Dhanushkodi Nayak, which was in Tamil, is not forthcoming, at the present date. The plaintiff attempted to prove the terms of it by secondary evidence consisting of a judgment of the Civil Judge of Madura in Original Suit ...
Soundaratharamal and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1922
Reported in: (1922)42MLJ567
Spencer, J.1. The 1st plaintiff in this suit is the widow of a native Christian named Doraiswami Pillai. She was appointed executrix of his will dated 11th October 1898 and obtained probate on the 3rd of January 1903 in the High Court. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are persons who have purchased certain properties of the testator which are included in Schedules B and C. The properties in A schedule are those which are retained in the possession of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st Plaintiff claims that, in her capacity, as executrix of the will of her deceased husband, she has unrestricted power, under Section 269 of the Indian Succession Act, to dispose of his property for meeting necessary expenses in such a manner as she may think fit. The testator died on the 15th of September 1899 leaving four sons and four daughters. The will provided that the property should neither be sold nor divided until all the sons were married and until they attained proper age and that upon this happening there should be a...
Kuppuswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. Venkataswamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.672
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision which dismissed their suit on the ground that a possessory title had been established to the property in dispute by the defendants. What is relied on by the plaintiffs is an order made by the Survey Officer under the provisions of Act IV of 1897 and the decision of the Survey Officer is this:As it appears that the Survey of the land Section No. 241 has been made in accordance with the revenue accounts and as this land is in the enjoyment of the defendants the order has been made accordingly.2. That is an order adjudicating the land to be the property of the present appellants who were defendants in the proceedings before the Survey Officer. It appears to me that J that is a finding by the Survey Officer which is based inter alia on the finding of fact that the land was in the enjoyment actually at the time of the present appellants. That finding was probably made without any adequate enquiry and was almost cert...
T. Gopala Mannadiar, Zemindar of Paranipalayam Vs. Palani Goundan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1922
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.768
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against an order of the Collector dismissing the application of the petition under Section 44 of the Madras Estates Land Act for enhancement of rent. The applicant is the zemindar of Paranipalayam and the counter-petitioner is a tenant holding lands under him. The zemindar claimed that the tenant was in possession of an excess 3-1-2 vallams and that he was liable to pay an extra rent of Rs. 11-5-8 at Rs. 3-10-9 per vallam. The tenant refused to pay the excess and the zemindar applied to Mr. Tottenhan, the Revenue Divisional Officer of Pollachi, under the Madras Estates Land Act for the determination of the rent payable by the tenant. He was called upon to furnish certain particulars and to amend the application giving the information which was required. According to him there was an excess in three Paimash Numbers 164/14, 164/1-0, 15 and 16 and 148/1 to 3, the total excess being 3=1=2 vallams. The Sub-Collector, on receipt of h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »