Chennai Court March 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.
A.R. Narayana Iyer and anr. Vs. the South Indian Railway Co., Ltd., by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.260
1. Two questions have been raised on this petition. First, whether the burden of proof is on the consignee or the consignor under the Risk Note, Form H; second, whether the incidence of the burden of proof is affected by Section 76 of the Indian Railways Act.2. We deal first with Section 76. We have not been shown any case in which there is a special contract or Risk Note in question and in which Section 76 has been applied. Reference has been made to Nanku Ram v. Indian Midland Railway Company 22 A. 361 : A.W.N. (1900) 111 : 9 Ind. Dec. 1274 and Sesham Pather V.L.S. Moss 17 M. 445 : 6 Ind. Dec. 308. But it is not clear that in either of these cases there was any Risk Note or was anything on which it could be said that a question of the effect of a special contract apart from the ordinary law was raised.3. Turning to the incidence of the burden of proof, we find that in such a case as the present authority seems to be clearly against the petitioners. Ghehbhat Punsi v. East Indian Railw...
Majeti Subbiah and Co. Vs. Messrs. Tetley and Whitley
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.673
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case the dispute arises under a contract as to whether the vendors had broken the contract by failing to deliver at the proper time, and whether the purchasers were entitled to sue in respect of the alleged breach an I, if so, whether they are entitled to any and what damages2. From the correspondence it would appear that there might be a counter-claim also on the ground that the vendors allege that the purchasers failed to take and pay for the goods as they were bound to do under the contract. The contract contains an arbitration clause, Article 12, in the following; terms: 'Should any dispute arise as to the interpretation of this contract or any matter in connection therewith or with the carrying out thereof, the same shall be submitted to arbitration,' and it gives the merchants an option as to the form of arbitration. An application was made to stay the suit pending reference to arbitration under Article 12 of the contract. The learned Judge stayed t...
K. Kotayya (Dead) and anr. Vs. Peddi Veeraya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad177
1. We have had the benefit of a long argument by the Bar, but when the facta are properly appreciated we think the case presents no difficulty at all. The facts are these. The plaint property is the estate of one Ankayaya. He died leaving a son, who also died shortly after, and a widow, named Mangamma. He also left two divided brothers, plaintiff and Appayya; since deceased. The third defendant is the son of Appayya: the first defendant is the son of Mangamma's sister and the second defendant is the son of the first defendant. In 1903, the members of this family entered into an agreement which is set forth in two documents, Exs. I and V. In Ex. V. Mangamma made a gift of all the immoveable property left by her husband in equal shares to her for her own sister's son, the first defendant and to the third defendant, the son of her husband's brother. Out of the properties so gifted, it was provided that a small portion should be kept and enjoyed by her for maintenance during her life. At t...
A.R. Narayana Aiyar and anr. Vs. S.i. Ry. Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad388
Oldfield, J.1. Two questions have been raised on this petition. First, whether the burden of proof is on the consignee or the consignor under the risk note, Form H. Second, whether the incidence of the burden of proof is affected by Section 76 of the Indian Railways Act.2. We deal first with Section 76. We have not been shown any case in which there is a special contract or risk note in question and in which Section 76 has been applied. Reference has been made to Nanku Ram v. The Indian Midland Railway Co. (1900) 22 All. 361, and Sesham Pattar v. L.S. Moss (1894) 17 Mad. 445. But it is not clear that in either of these eases there was any risk note or was anything, on which it could be said that a question of the effect of a special contract apart from the ordinary law was raised.3. Turning to the incidence of the burden of proof, we find that in such a case as the present, authority seems to be dearly against the petitioners. Ghelabhai Punsi v. The E.I. Railway Co. (1921) 45 Bom. 1201...
Chevraya Goundan and ors. Vs. Athappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.336
Odgers, J.1. This suit was brought by the four plaintiffs for the recovery of certain lands alleged to belong to the Mariamman Temple of Chettipatti under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and for a declaration that the decree in Original Suit No. 934 of 1911, is not binding on the plaintiffs. The District Munsif found that the plaint property belonged to the temple, that the temple had possession of the plaint property within twelve years of the suit, and that there was no res judicata by reason of Original Suit No. 134 of 1911; and gave the plaintiffs a decree.2. On appeal the Sub-Judge found that there Was res judicata and that a certain compromise (to be referred to later) was not fraudulent or ultra vires and reversed the Munsif's decree. The question in second appeal is whether the Sub-Judge is right on both these points.3. In the previous suit, which was brought by the present defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and two others, they sued as the Periadhanakars of the Chettipatti ...
Alaga Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.958
ORDER1. The only point raised in this Criminal Revision Case is, that the Magistrate, who tried the case, the Second Class Magistrate of Thirumangalam has not been, empowered to try cases under the Opium Act, 1 of 1878, as required by Section 3 of the Act. We are referred to a Notification of Government published in the Fort St. George Gazette under date 4th June 1915 which empowers the Second Class Magistrates mentioned therein by virtue of their office to try cases under the Opium Act. The Second Class Magistrate of Thirumangalam is mentioned in the list appended to the Notification. We entertain no doubt whatever that this is a special empowering of the person holding that office in virtue of his office within the meaning of: Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code and would satisfy the requirements referred to by the learned Judges in Mahomed Kasim v. Emperur 28 Ind. Cas. 156 : 17 M.L.T. 191 : 2 L.W. 233 : (1915) M.W.N. 269 : 16 Cri.L.J. 268.2. The petition is dismissed....
Chenraya Goundan and ors. Vs. Athappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad88
Odgers, J.1. This suit was brought by the four plaintiffs for the recovery of certain land alleged to belong to the Manamman Temple of Chettipatti under Order 1, Rule 8, of the Code of the Civil Procedure and for a declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 934 of 1911 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The District Munsiff found that the plaint property belonged to the Temple, that the Temple had possession of the plaint property within twelve years of the suit, and that there was no res judicata by reason of O.S. No. 934 of 1911, and gave the plaintiffs a decree.2. On appeal the Subordinate Judge found that there was res judicata and that a certain compromise (to be referred to later) was not fraudulent or ultra vires and reversed the Munsif's decree. The question in second appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge was right on both these points.3. In the previous suit, which was brought by the present dafendants 1 to 3 and two others, they sued as the Periadhanakars of the Chettipatti vil...
Allaga Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad256
ORDER1. The only point raised in this Criminal Revision Case is, that the Magistrate who tried the case, the Second Class Magistrate of Thirumangalam, had not been empowered to try cases under the Opium Act, I of 1878, as required by Section 3 of the Act. We are referred to a Notification of Government published in the Fort St. George Gazette under date 4th June 1915 which empowers the Second Class Magistrates mentioned therein by virtue of their office to try cases under the Opium Act. The Second Class Magistrate of Thirumangalam is mentioned in the list appended to the Notification. We entertain not doubt whatever that this is a 'special empowering' of the person holding that office in virtue of his office within the meaning of Section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code and would satisfy the requirements referred to by the learned Judges in Mahomed Ksim v. Emperor [1915] 2 L.W. 233.2. The petition is dismissed....
Ramaswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. A.S. Venkatarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad81; (1923)45MLJ203
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the son of one Sambasiva Aiyar, the adopted son of one Sivarama Aiyar and he sues to recover possession of certain properties, sold by his grandfather Sivarama Aivar on the 29th of June, 1901 to the 1st 'defendant, who is the father of defendants 2 to 4, on the ground that the sale was not effected for any necessity and is not binding on him. The plaintiff's father and grandfather are now both dead and, therefore, the plaintiff claims to recover the whole of the suit properties.3. The Subordinate Judge has found that there was no necessity for the sale and that it is, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff's share and he has given a decree to the plaintiff for a division of the property into two parts and for recovery of possession by the plaintiff of one half with mesne profits from the date of sale. The defendants now appeal and state that the decree is wrong and that the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed on the ground that the ...
M. Kuppuswami Chetti and ors. Vs. M. Singaravelu Chetty (Dead) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad679; 75Ind.Cas.848; (1923)45MLJ233
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues for partition of certain property which he describes as joint family property. In 1895 the father of the plaintiff and of the 1st defendant, who had been canning on a business for many years past with the plaintiff, became more or less insane. The two brothers of the plaintiff, namely, the 1st defendant and one Rarnavelu, who subsequently became an insolvent, claimed that the property including the business was joint family property and should be divided as such. The plaintiff denied that the property was joint family property but ultimately entered into an agreement, Ex. A in the documents in O.S. Appeal No. 2 of 1917, referred to in this case as the muchilika, under which it was agreed that he should take half and his two brothers a quarter each in certain properties. They agreed to refer to arbitration how those properties should be apportioned. An arbitration took place. The arbitrators valued the moveable property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »