Chennai Court January 1923 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.
Kishtappa Chetty Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad578; (1923)44MLJ431
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the City Civil Court in a suit in which the plaintiff sought to recover certain jewels or their value, and an order was made for their return or for their value, Rs. 1000.2. The facts of the case are that the jewels in question being in the possession of the plaintiff were handed by her to the defendant on terms that he might pledge them for a short time for his own benefit and should then redeem them and return them to the plaintift. While the jewellery was still in his possession or in the possession of the pledgee with whom he had pledged them, the plaintiff and the defendant and other members of the same family, the plaintiff being the widow of a brother of the defendant, entered into an agreement, Ex. A. By that agreement the jewels in question were settled on the terms of Ex. A which was to the effect that they should be enjoyed by the plaintiff during her life without power of alienation and upon her death they should be ...
C. Sarvothama Rao Vs. the Chairman, Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad475; 73Ind.Cas.619; (1923)45MLJ23
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. These are Civil Revision Petitions in three suits all arising out of the Municipal Elections for Saidapet. The first Civil Revision Petition No. 705 is in a suit which asks for a declaration that a nomination paper put in on behalf of the plaintiff as a candidate for election as a Municipal Councillor was wrongly rejected by the Chairman of the Council, the defendant, and for an injunction to restrain him from holding an election without the plaintiff as a duly nominated candidate, and also to compel him to hold an election with the plaintiff as a candidate.2. The other two Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 758 and 828 are in suits by two persons, whose nomination papers were also rejected, against two other candidates who being the only other candidates for the wards in question were by the rules deemed to have been elected when these nomination papers were rejected. The claim in the suits is for an injunction to restrain these persons from acting as cou...
M. Runganayaki Ammal Vs. Virupakshee Rao Naidu Minor by Guardian M. Ru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ100
Coutts Trotter, J.1. The learned Judge in this case, which is a claim by a grandson against his grandmother, was asked to take into consideration a document which purports to be a deed of compromise dated the 28th December 1918. In that document there is a statement that house No. 27 in Tatha Muthiyappan Street belonging to the said Ranganayakamma, that is the grandmother, and another house, with which nobody in this case is concerned, which are in possession and enjoyment of said Ranganayakamma from the date of purchase, shall be enjoyed by the said Ranganayakamma with power to make gift and sell away. The learned Vakils have argued this case with great preciseness and Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar for the appellant does not ask us to say that there is any magic about this document because it is in the nature of a nominal settlement which would excuse it from registration. It has been held by the learned trial Judge on the argument of the respondent that it does require registration and to t...
M. Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. M. Virupakshee Rao Naidu, Minor by Guardian M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad621; 72Ind.Cas.456
1. The learned Trial Judge in this case, which is a claim by a grandson against his grandmother, was asked to take into consideration a document which purports to be a deed of compromise dated 28th December 1918. In that document, there is a statement that House No. 27 in Thatha Muthiappan Street belonging to the said Ranganayakamma, that is the grandmother, and another house with which nobody in this case is concerned, which are in possession and enjoyment of the said Ranganayakamma from the date of the purchase, shall be enjoyed by the said Ranganayakamma with power to make gift and sell away. The learned Vakils have argued this case with great preciseness and^ Mr. Krishnasami Iyer for the appellant does not ask us to say that there is any magic about this document because it is in the nature of a nominal settlement which would excuse it from registration. It has been held by the learned Trial Judge on the argument of the respondent that it does require registration and to test that,...
Srimath Deivasikhamani Nataraja Desikar (Died) and anr. Vs. Rao Bhadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)44MLJ318
1. There is absolutely no evidence worthy the name of the alleged custom or implied contract that the Devasthanam, the Melvaramdar, was responsible for collecting the melvaram from the sub tenants, and the Kudivaramdar, i.e., the Mutt, was not liable in any way. Failing proof of such a custom, the Mutt as Kudivaramdar, is bound to pay the mel-varam to the Devasthanam. This melvaram has only been paid in part, as shown by the accounts kept by defendant himself, and consequently the balance is due from the Mutt. It does not lie with the defendant to question the quantum of. arrears shown in his own accounts.2. The only other point with which it is necessary to deal is the question of limitation. Defendant as trustee of the temple and of the Mutt united in himself the function of landlord and of tenant, and consequently could not bring a suit for rent against himself, on the principle that when the hand that receives and the hand that pays is the same, no suit will lie for payment. It is ...
Babasah Vs. Hajee Mahomed Akbar Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ157
Wallace, J.1. The substantive point for decision in C.C.C.A. No. 29 of 1921 is, whether on the date of his purchase under Ex. IV appellant (4th defendant) had notice of the prior agreement by 1st defendant to sell the same property to the plaintiff. Plaintiff owns the superstructure on the land bought by appellant under Ex. IV from defendants 2 and 3, who in their turn had bought under Ex. III from 1st defendant. It is not disputed that plaintiff held an agreement prior to both Exs. III and IV from 1st defendant to sell the land to him.2. Appellant admitted in evidence that at the time of his purchase he learnt from Ex. III that the superstructure belonged to plaintiff, and that he made no enquiry of plaintiff under what right he occupied the land. It appears that he made no enquiries, whatever, either from his vendors, (e.g. whether they were receiving the ground rent from anyone), or from 1st defendant their vendor, or from plaintiff, or from the sub-tenants actually in occupation of...
Palancheri Govinda Menon Vs. Pookote Kunhi Krishna Mannadiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad649; (1923)45MLJ71
Spencer, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of orders passed in execution of the decree in a suit for redemption of a mortgage of a number of items of property in Malabar. The decree of the original Court was passed on 24-2-1913, and there was a final decree of that Court on 22-4-1913. Meanwhile an appeal was brought against the preliminary decree, and that appeal was decided on 27-12-13. The present application is one made by the mortgagor to sell items 1 to 120. There was a previous application to sell items 1 to 10 upon which an order for sale was passed on 23-7-1915. The present application was made on 20-1-1919.2. Two questions arise for our decision. The first is whether the present application is barred by limitation as more than 3 years have elapsed from the date of the appellate Court's decree.3. The second question is whether this application for sale is valid when no final decree has been passed, since the appellate Court's decree varied the first Court's preliminary decree ...
P. Baba Sah and anr. Vs. Hajee Mohamed Akbar Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad563; 73Ind.Cas.297
1. The substantive point for decision in City Civil Court Appeal No. 29 of 1921 is, whether on the date of his purchase under Exhibit IV appellant (4th defendant) had notice of the prior agreement by first defendant to sell the same property to the plaintiff. Plaintiff owns the superstructure on the land bought by appellant under Exhibit IV from defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who in their turn had bought under Exhibit III from first defendant. It is not disputed that plaintiff held an agreement prior to both Exhibits? III and IV from first defendant to sell the land to him.2. Appellant admitted in evidence that at the time of his purchase, he learnt from Exhibit III that the superstructure belonged to plaintiff, and that he made no enquiry of plaintiff under what right he occupied the land. It appears that he made no enquiries whatever, either from his vendors, (e.g., whether they were receiving the ground rent from anyone), or from first defendant their vendor, or from plaintiff, or from th...
In Re: Cholancheri Ayammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad600; (1923)44MLJ557
1. The nine appellants in this case have been convicted of an offence under Section 121, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life. They are said to have formed part of a body of some 3,000 Moplahs who marched on Tirurangadi Cutcherry on 20th August 1921. A small body of police under two European Officers endeavoured to bring them to a stand and the two officers with two headconstables advanced, to parley with the Moplahs. They were treacherously surrounded and murdered by the vanguard of the Moplahs consisting of about 100 armed men including the present appellants and the small police force was driven to retreat. This was the encounter which inaugurated the Moplah rebellion and there can be no doubt that if the evidence is accepted all those who took part in the attack on the police were guilty of an offence under Section 121 Indian Penal Code (waging war against the King).2. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. Ethiraj on behalf of the appellants that the sanct...
Panja Ramachandra Rao and anr. Vs. Gurraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad147; 76Ind.Cas.977
Spencer, J.1. One Panjab Venkataratnam was adjudicated insolvent on the 8th September 1919, upon his own application as a debtor presented on the 15th April 1919. The properties of the insolvent were vested in the Official Receiver by an order of 19th April 1921. The Official Receiver sold on 19th August 1921, the entire family property of which the insolvent was the manager, and the properties were purchased by the first respondent, P. Gurraju. There was a second sale of the insolvent's share only on the 26th of November 1921. The order of the District Judge, now appealed against, has the effect of rescinding the Official Receiver's order refusing to confirm the first sale, and it follows, therefore, that if the District Judge's order is upheld the second sale is no longer a valid and good sale. For, if the first sale was a good one there was nothing to sell at the second sale, the whole family property having been sold at the first sale.2. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 28 of 1922 is th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›