Chennai Court March 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.
Adam Haji Peer Mohamed Ishack Vs. Sakavath HussaIn Akbari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1922
Reported in: (1922)43MLJ199
Walter Salis Schwabe K.C., C.J.1. This appeal is from the judgment of the City Civil Court in favour of the plaintiff for the return of Rs. 1000 deposited on a contract for sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of sugar and for Rs. 800 damages for breach of that contract. So far as the facts are concerned, the learned Judge has accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and disbelieved the evidence given on behalf of the defendant. If the determination of this case turned on a question of fact, I should want to hear further arguments on the facts for, as at present advised, I am not inclined to agree with some of the findings of fact of the learned Judge. In all cases where there is an appeal on questions of fact, it has been found that it is a good working rule that the appellate tribunal will not lightly interfere with the findings of fact of the court below and this rule applies most strongly where there has been a conflict of oral testimony and the judge has had the advantage of seein...
In Re: Subba Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad329; 71Ind.Cas.511; (1922)43MLJ87
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case the complainant charged the accused with theft of two bullocks and in the first court they were convicted and fined Rs. 20 in default to suffer imprisonment for a week. The bulls were ordered to be handed over to the prosecution witness No. 1 who was the complainant. This case went on appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Sivakasi. The Magistrate held that the witnesses who spoke to the theft were interested, that their evidence could not be relied on and also that there had been long delay in the investigation of the case. He therefore acquitted the accused on appeal. He did not say anything about the possession of the bulls. Sometime afterwards the accused who had been successful in the appeal against their conviction for theft moved the successor of the 1st Class Magistrate (who in the meantime had beer, transferred) for an order that the bulls should be restored to them, the appellants. The defence version of the occurrence was that the bulls had...
K.M.P.R. Firm Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras, and as Such the Ass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Mad17; (1922)43MLJ142
Coutts Trotter, J.1. This is a curious and interesting case and has been argued with ability on both sides. It arises in this way, A firm called A.T. Chetty and Co. sold to K.M.P.R. Firm 70 bales of grey mulls at Rs. 15 a piece, each bale to contain 100 pieces. That was on the 7th September 1918 just before the looting. On the same day K.M.P.R. firm entered into an exactly similar contract with K. Ponniah Chetty an insolvent. The insolvent entered into a contract with other people with which we are not concerned. In due course of time, the goods were delivered to K.M.P.R. firm and delivered by K.M.P.R. firm to the insolvent Ponniah Chetti who delivered them to somebody else. Nearly two years later, on July the 20th, it was discovered that one bale contained 20 pieces in excess, another 5 and a third a shortage of 11 pieces so that there had been a delivery under the various contracts of 14 pieces in excess.2. Now it does not matter for the purposes of the case whether it was a sale of ...
Natarajulu Naicker Vs. Subrahmanian Chettiar and Nine ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad181; (1922)43MLJ695
1. The decrees from which the second defendant's legal representative appeals, the second defendant having since died, were passed in suits brought by three plaintiffs to enforce by the sale of mortgaged properties two hypothecation bonds executed by first defendant, the elder brother of second defendant in a joint Hindu family managed by the younger brother, second defendant.2. The principal of the hypothecation deed concerned in appeal No. 331 is Rs. 1,250 and the principal of the hypothecation deed concerned in Appeal No. 183 is Rs. 7,500.3. The first defendant after sowing his wild oats and hopelessly encumbering his half share of the ancestral estate in doing so, proceeded to convey his interest in the family properties to his brother for Rs. 35,000 by means of an unregistered sale-deed in consideration of second defendant's undertaking to discharge the first defendant's debts; but as he neglected to complete it, second defendant had to compel specific performance of his contract ...
K.M.P.R. Firm Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.751
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This is a curious and interesting case and has been argued with ability on both sides. It arises in this way. A Firm called A.T. Chetty and Co., sold to K.M.P.R. Firm 70 bales of grey mulls at Rs. 15 a piece, each bale to contain 100 pieces. That was on the 7th September 1918 just before the looting. On the same day K.M.P.R. Firm entered into an exactly similar contract with K. Ponniah Chetty, an insolvent. The insolvent entered into a contract with other people with which we are not concerned. In due course of time, the goods were delivered to K.M.P.R. Firm and delivered by K.M.P.R. Firm to the insolvent Ponniah Chetty who delivered them to somebody else. Nearly two years later, in July 1920, it was discovered that one bale contained 20 pieces in excess another 5 and a third a shortage of 11 pieces so that there had been a delivery under the various contracts of 14 pieces in excess.2. Now, it does not matter for the purposes of the case whether it was a sale of th...
Sr. Potti Nayakar Vs. Suppammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.874
Oldfield, J.1. The first question this case is whether any of the conditions specified in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for the exercise of our revisional powers are established. We can of course proceed only on the facts as found by the lower Court; and shortly the decision on the facts found is that a trespasser, who enters on possession of property sold in court sale, before the sale took place ' holds an interest in that property by virtue of a title acquired before the sale,' and is entitled to apply under Order XXI, Rule 89. If, as petitioner contends, the lower Court has used the powers conferred by the rule on the application of a person, who has not the legal character specified therein, such use of powers would be the exercise of a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The present case in fact closely resembles in this respect Sundaram v. Mausa Mavuthar 63 Ind. Cas. 937 ; 44 M. 554 : 40 M.L.J. 497 : 13 L.W. 498 : 29 M.L.T. 269 : (1921) M.W.N. 272 Following that auth...
Si Potti Nayaker Vs. Suppammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Mad723
Oldfield, J.1. The first question in this case is whether any of the conditions specified in Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the exercise of our revisional powers, are established. We can, of course, proceed only on the facts, as found by the lower Court; and shortly the decision, on the facts found, is that a trespasser, who enters on possession of property, sold in Court sale, before the sale took place, 'holds an interest in that property, by virtue of a title acquired before the sale 'and is entitled to apply under Order 21 Rule 89. If, as petitioner contends, the lower Court has used the powers conferred by the Rule on the application of a person, who has not the legal character specified therein such use of powers would be the exercise of a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The present case in fact closely resembles in this respect Sundaram v. Mausa Mavuthar [1921] 44 Mad. 554. Following that authority, I hold that petitioner's contention, if established, will ju...
C. Ganapathi Mudaliar Vs. N. Krishnamachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad417; (1922)43MLJ184
1. The question is whether the orders of the Lower Court dismissing these two petitions by the appellants as out of time are correct. Of those petitions C.M.P. No. 90 of 1920 was by the appellant for the setting aside of a court sale held on 19-9-1887 in execution of a mortgage decree and for a fresh sale on an amended proclamation. He also asked for an amendment of the execution petition of his opponent, the decree holder, by bringing it into conformity with the decree under execution. In C.M.P. No. 91 of 1920 he asked leave to amplify this prayer by asking the court to 'order, if, necessary a fresh proclamation of sale, giving correct information as to the interests of the various defendants with a full description of the nature and value of the properties.' There was also a prayer for leave to withdraw the portion of paragraph 20 in C.M.P. No. 90, in which he declined to proceed against 5th to 14th defendants, transferees of the decree holders, purchasers. This last prayer has been ...
Secretary of State for India Represented by the Collector of Guntur Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Mad232; 70Ind.Cas.165
1. Of the authorities quoted the observation relied on in Devaguptapu Bhaskarudu v. Pamarthy Subarayudu 21 Ind. Cas. 840 was made merely tentatively, Sankaran Nair, J. expressing no final opinion. The reference in Secretary of State for India v. Itlakkal Assutt 32 Ind. Cas. 755 is merely to what passed during the argument between the learned Judges and Counsel; and it is, therefore, inconclusive Mamshah Thaika v. Secretary of State for India 49 Ind. Cas. 404 and Tirumala Rao v. Kadekar Durgi Shettethi 22 Ind. Cas. 883 deal with suits in which a declaration and injunction were in question. On the limitation applicable to such suits we express no opinion, because no question as to it ar ses in the present case. Here the only rel ef asked for is the recovery of the penal assessment imposed by Government under Section 5 of Act III of 1905 in one Fasli and it is urged that the lower Appellate Court should have held that the suit was barred because the plaintiff acquiesced in the levy of sim...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›