Chennai Court November 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.
C. Adimoola Mudaliar Vs. N.C. Manicka Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ329
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. These petitions arise out of applications filed before the Deputy Collector under Section 131 of the Estates Land Act for setting aside the sales for arrears of rent. The sales were on the 13th of March, 1922. On the 6th of April an application was put in for the purpose of setting aside the sale on the ground of irregularity. The Deputy Collector, probably being under the impression that no application would lie to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity, advised that the petition may, if so inclined, apply to set aside the sale under Section 131 of the Estates Land Act which corresponds to Order 21, Rule 89, C.P.C. An application was put in for that purpose and a sum of Rs. 150 was deposited at the time. The petitioner was asked to come on the 10th of April for the purpose of ascertaining the balance to be deposited. On the 10th of April, it appears from the record, that the petitioner appeared and wanted to know how much he was to pay. The Deputy Co...
In Re: Chinniah Alias Krishnaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ309
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The offence with which the accused is charged is that of keeping a common gaming house, punishable under Section 6 of Madras Act III of 1889. A common gaming house is defined thus in 15 Halsbury 217: 'It is one in which a large number of persons are invited habitually to congregate for the purpose of gaming.' In Jenkins v. Turpin (1882) LR 13 QBD 505, Hawkins, J., says: ' Neither do I think it makes any difference that the use of the house and the gaming therein was limited to the subscribers and members of the club, and that it was not open to all persons who might be desirous of using the same. If this could be set up as a defence to an indictment, any indictment for keeping a common gaming house might be defeated. ' I am willing to accept this statement of the law and I do not think that this is at variance with that contained in Srinivasathari and Ors. v. Rex 1 Weir 917, where the learned Judges, Sir Arthur Collins, C. J. and Parker, J. observe: 'In the ...
Veerasami Mudali Vs. Palaniyappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1923
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.799; (1924)46MLJ515
1. We are unable to understand the reasoning of the learned District Judge in arriving at his finding, and we are therefore unable to accept it even though it is one of fact. We would call upon him to submit a revised finding on the issue in question. We think the parties may be allowed an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence on the point as the evidence on record seems to be too meagre to arrive at a satisfactory finding. Finding will be submitted in two months and 7 days will be allowed for filing objections.2. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the District Judge of Trichinopoly submitted a finding that the mesne profits should be fixed at Rs 115 a year.3. This Second Appeal again coming on for hearing on Thursday, the twenty-second day of March, 1923, after the return of the revised finding called for by the order of this Court made herein, dated the 22nd August, 1922.4. We regret we are again unable to accept the finding as to mesne profits, by the learne...
Ponnusami Aiyar, Vs. Damodar Hunsraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad403
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge returning the plaint in O.S. No. 530 of 1920 on his file to be presented to the proper Court. The learned Judge held that no part of the cause of action arose within his jurisdiction and therefore passed that order. The suit was brought by the Receivers on behalf of a firm in Madras called Kuppusami Naidu & Co., against the defendants, a firm carrying on business in Calcutta, for a certain sum of money which, they claimed, had been overpaid to the defendants' firm. Among the pleas raised by the defendants' firm, one was that the Court in Madras had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was properly triable only by the Court in Calcutta where they carried on business and where, according to them, the whole cause of action arose.2. It is not denied that the defendants do not reside, or carry on business, or work for gain in Madras, but the plaintiffs rely entirely for their contention that the s...
Veeraswamy Mudali Vs. Palaniappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad626
Napier, J.1. The suit from which this second appeal arises was brought in the District Munsif's Court of Karur, by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain lands in the possession of tenants. He had previously brought two suits in respect of the same property. The first suit had been dismissed for want of a notice to quit, the second suit had been dismissed for failure to give a proper notice to quit. It is admitted that in the second suit the Court found that the defendants had no per present suit, the plaintiff relied on favour and an issue was framed on that contention; but both the lower Court have paid very little attention to this question and seem hardly to have dealt with it; but the plaintiff is undoubtedly entitled to argue this question.2. The two principal findings of the Lower Appellate Court were that the plaintiff had not proved that kudivram in him, and secondly, that even if he had so proved it, he had not proved that he had a right to evict. I fail to understand...
Subbayya Chakkiliyan Vs. Maniam Muthiah Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ182
Krishnan, J.1. The question that has been raised before us is what exactly is the land that was purchased in Court-auction under Ex. II, the Court sale certificate. This certificate describes the land in the following terms:In Coimbatore district, Ganapathi Sub-District, Coimbatore Taluq, Annuparapalayam village, situate to the north of the east to west main road, west of Venkataswami Goundan's House, south of the temple and east of Kahannan's land; lying within these and belonging to the defendant measuring 12 cubits east to west and 24 cubits north to south, together with 1 thatched shed herein '. It was contended before the lower appellate Court and that Court has given effect to that contention, that what was sold was only the extent mentioned in the land falling within the boundaries given and not the whole of the land within those boundaries. It is not pretended that the whole of the land within the boundaries mentioned did not belong to the judgment-debtor; but, because the meas...
Yezzu Mallayya Vs. Talluri Punnamma, Minor, by Next Friend Konakalla P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ291
1. These are second appeals which arise in a suit brought on behalf of a minor by his next friend for setting aside the decree in O.S. No. 187 of 1917 obtained against that minor with the present second defendant as his guardian for a certain sum of money due on a promissory note, and also for the setting aside of a sale in execution of that decree, in which the third defendant became the purchaser of certain properties belonging to the minor. The learned District Judge has declared the decree to be invalid but he has upheld the sale in execution of that decree, and in consequence, the plaintiff has appealed in S. A. No. 850 of 1922 and the decree-holder in O.S. No. 187 of 1917 has appealed in S. A. No. 836 of 1922. Both the second appeals have been heard together.2. Now, the first question we have to consider is whether the decree in O.S. No. 187 of 1917 should be treated as null and void and not binding against the minor. The only reason urged before us for holding so is that the con...
Subbayya Chakiliyan Vs. Maniam Muttiah Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.414
1. The question that has been raised before us is what exactly is the land that was purchased in Court junction under Exhibit II, the Court sale certificate. This certificate describes the land in the following terms :2. 'In Coimbatore District, Ganapathi Sub-District, Coimbatore Taluk, Annaparapalayam village, situate to the north of the east to west main road, west of Venkataswami Goundan's house, south of the temple and east of Kaliannan's land; lying within these and belonging to the defendant, measuring 12 cubits east to west and 24 cubits north to south, together with one thatched shed herein.' It was contended before the lower Appellate Court and that Court has given effect to that contention, that what was sold was only the extent mentioned in the land falling within the boundaries given and not the whole of the land within those boundaries. It is not pretended that the whole of the land within the boundaries mentioned did not belong to the judgment-debtor; but, because the mea...
Subbayya Chakkiliyan Vs. Manjam Muthia Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad493
Krishnan, J.1. The question that has been raised before us is what exactly is the land that was purchased in Court-auction under Ex. II, the Court sale certificate. The certificate describes the land in the following terms:In Coimbatore District, Ganapathi Sub-District, Coimbatore Taluq, Annuparapalayam Village, situate to the north of the east to west main road, west of Venkataswami Goundan's House, south of the temple and east of Kaliannan's land; lying within these and belonging to the defendant measuring 12 cubits east to west, and 24 cubits north to south, together with i thatched shed herein.' It was contended before the lower appellate Court and that Court has given effect to that contention, that what was sold was only the extent mentioned in the land falling within the boundaries given and not the whole of the land within those boaudaries. It is not pretended that the whole of the land within the boundaries mentioned did not belong to the judgment-debtor; but, because the meas...
Sankaranarayana Pillai and ors. Vs. Rajamani Alias Guruswami Nadar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1923
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ314
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the sons of defendants 1 and 2 and in 1912, defendants 1 and 2 and 3rd defendant who were carrying on business together were adjudicated insolvents, and at the same time the plaintiffs who were made parties to the insolvency petition were also adjudicated. The family properties of defendants 1 and 2 were sold by the Official Receiver and now the plaintiffs bring this suit to recover their 4/9ths share in that property on the ground that they were wrongly adjudicated insolvents and that consequently, the sale of their property by the Official Receiver was void as against them.2. Assuming that the plaintiffs who were then minors were wrongly adjudicated insolvents, the question remains whether the sales effected by the Official Receiver did or did not pass their interest in the family property.3. The sale is objected to on two grounds, firstly, that the Official Receiver purported to sell the share of the plaintiffs and, not having authority...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »