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.
Venkatalakshmi Ammal Vs. Sadasiva Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad200
1. The Appellant's case is that at the time of making her present application for execution she was not in possession of the first set of suit properties, and if that case is true and if the appellant's prior application for possession was ineffective, there is no reason why she should not now apply for execution of the decree. Even if she had got possession in execution of the original decree and if subsequently she was wrongly dispossessed before the final decree of the Appellate Court restored the original decree of the District Munsif, she would on the authority of Theevana Pillai v. Kulla Pillai [1910] 7 M.L.T. 107 be entitled to apply for delivery of possession a second time.2. The grounds upon which her execution petitions have been dismissed are not sound. The appeal is allowed and the case will go back to the executing Court for enquiry whether on the date of the present application for execution the execution petitioner was in actual possession or not of the first set of prop...
The M.S.M. Ry. Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Rangaswamy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad517
Phillips, J.1. So far as the goods bought from Kaveri Chetty are concerned, it is obvious that plaintiffs can claim no damages and this is practically conceded in argument. Under Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act the other goods had been delivered to Munisacni Chetty and properties in them had passed to him. Plaintiffs in consigning the goods, some of which had never been their property, only acted as Munisami's agents. If the property had passed from plaintiffs they have sustained no loss by the non-delivery of the goods and consequently no damages Dawes v. Peck [1977] 8 T.R. 330 is authority for holding that consignee alone can sue in such a case and it does not seem to me that Section 72(3) of the Indian Railways Act has any application here for the responsibility of the Railway Company is not affected, but that responsibility is to the consignee and not to his agent, the consignor.2. The petition is allowed and plaintiff's suit is dismissed with costs throughout....
The President of the District Board Vs. K. Gopalakkrishna Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ125
1. A preliminary point is taken in this Second Appeal under Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that this was a suit which could be brought in the provincial Small Cause Court being for an amount under Rs 500. The Suit was rather a curious one. It was an action by a person who had bought the right to collect tolls on certain roads from the District Board. He had to comply according to his contract with the orders given by the President of the District Board. A large quantity of fodder being required for army purposes in this District, the Forest Officers hired carts and sent them along the road on which the toll bar in question was. The respondent tried to collect tolls on these carts and he received an order from the appellant, President of the District-Board, forbidding him to collect tolls, he basing his prohibition on his interpretation of the Army Act under which he decided that no toll was payable in respect of carts carrying supplies for the Army. The responden...
Pamidimarri Gnanamma and anr. Vs. Kettireddi Krishna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad217; (1923)45MLJ263
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioners, Judgment-debtors, against an order dismissing their petition under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. The majority of the grounds, on which the publication and conduct of the sale were impugned, were rightly held unsustainable by the lower Court, because they either had been or might have been taken in the proceedings for framing proclamation, of which the petitioners had notice, and, so far as they were taken, were either not established or were not material. We therefore can confine ourselves to two points, (1) the lower Court's failure to enquire into the allegation that the sale was not proclaimed in the village (2) its conclusion, adopted from a previous order, that no publication at the Collector's office was required, because the property was not ryotwari land.2. That previous order is in fact material on both points, because as regards publication in the village also the conclusion in it was adopted, no further enquiry being held. It w...
The President of the District Board of South Canara Vs. K. Gopalakrish ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad689; 74Ind.Cas.223
2. The District Munsif and on appeal the Subordinate Judge so found, and awarded him damages, for Rs. 214. No second appeal lies against that decision the amount being under Rs. 500 unless this is one of the suits set cut in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, IX of 1887. The Article of the Schedule relied on is Article 19 'a suit for a declaratory decree not being a suit instituted under Section 283 of the Civil Procedure Code.' I agree that if the case is really a case for a declaration, the Court would be entitled to hold that the Small Cause Court's jurisdiction was excluded. If the case was really a case for damages, as in our judgment this was, the Small Cause Court would have jurisdiction though in arriving at its decision, it would have to come to a conclusion, as to whether this prohibition was rightly or wrongly imposed. The other Articles relied upon are Articles 1 and 3 which except from the cognizance of a Small Cause Court suits concerning acts a...
Pamidimarri Gnamma and anr. Vs. Kettireddi Krishna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.369
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioners, judgment-debtors, against an order dismissing their petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code.2. The majority of the grounds, on which the publication and conduct of the sale were impugned, were rightly held unsustainable by the lower Court because they either had been or might have been taken in the proceedings for framing proclamation, of which the petitioners had notice, and, so far as they were taken, were either not established or were not material. We, therefore, can confine ourselves to two points, (1) the lower Court's failure to enquire into the allegation that the sale was not proclaimed in the village, (2) its conclusion, adopted from a previous order, that no publication at the Collector's Office was required, because the property was not raiyatwari land.3. That previous order is in fact material on both points, because as regards publicat on in the village also the conclusion in it was adopted, no further e...
N. Ramamma Vs. M. Gurunathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad719; (1923)45MLJ36
Ayling, J.1. The petitioner in this has filed a complaint under Section 1 of the Workman's Breach of Contract Act against the respondent before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kovur, and that officer proceeded to hear and determine the case as provided in the Act. On one of the dates of hearing, the petitioner was absent and the Magistrate thereupon passed an order purporting to acquit the respondent under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner subsequently applied to the Magistrate to review the order of acquittal and to proceed with the trial from the stage at which the case was thrown out. The Magistrate held that he had no power under the Criminal Procedure Code to review an order of acquittal under Section 247 and accordingly dismissed the petition. Against that dismissal the present revision is preferred.2. In our opinion the Magistrate's view was wrong. It has been held by this Court in Hussaina Beari v. King Emperor I.L.R.(1920) Mad. 443 that the Magistrate's...
Lakshmi Ammal Alias Pichai Ammal Vs. Alamelu Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad309; 79Ind.Cas.325; (1923)45MLJ811
Oldfield, J.1. The facts are that the plaintiff sued her sister and also the latter's husband, although he need not be further referred to, for partition and possession of a moiety of a certain property alleged to be stridhanam property of their mother. The suit eventually reached the stage of a preliminary decree, recognizing the plaintiff's right to half the property; and it is now pending for the passing of a final decree after ascertainment, by metes and bounds, of the plaintiff's share. The present proceedings, have arisen from the death of the plaintiff's sister. Thereon the plaintiff has moved in one application to have her sister's daughter, respondent, impleaded as legal representative of the deceased and in another for an amendment of the plaint to enable her to obtain a decree in these proceedings, not merely for the moiety of the property, horn which she alleges she was wrongfully excluded during her sister's lifetime, but also for the other moiety, on the ground that by su...
R.M.P.V. Chokalingam Chettiar Vs. S. Palani Ambalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1923
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.926
1. The question is, whether the plaintiff, landholder, is entitled to recover rent at wet rates from his tenant, the defendant, for land which the latter has been able to cultivate wet in consequence of improvements made at his own expense. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to wet rates on the strength of a contract contained in Exhibit D of the year 1885, before the Estates D and Act was passed. The improvements were made after it was passed. Krishnan J. held that, in the circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on his contract with reference to Section 13(3) of the Estates Land Act.2. It is no doubt true that, as the plaintiff contends, such a contract would have been enforceable under the previous law, Section 11 of Act VIII of 1865. The only authority relied on by the plaintiff is a. dictum of Kumarasam Sastri, J., in Venkata Perumal v. Ramudu : AIR1915Mad1022 , a case in which both the contract and the improvements were made before the passing of the present Act...
Marakkarutti and ors. Vs. T.P.M. Veeran Kutty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Mad647; 73Ind.Cas.1050; (1923)44MLJ673
1. This case is referred to us by the District Judge of South Malabar. It is an appeal from the District Munsiff of Parappanangadi. Difficulty has arisen owing to the fact of the District Munsif's Court having been destroyed in the Moplah rebellion and the records in this case at the same time destroyed. We are informed that there are many cases similarly affected, and the learned District Judge asks our direction as to what is the proper course to adopt.2. The respondent only has been represented before us, but his vakil, Mr. K.P. Ramakrishna Ayyar, has assisted the Court very much by placing before us fully everything that he could find whether it was for him or against him in the matter. 1 think that one can safely start with the proposition that there is inherent power in every Court to reconstruct its own records, and I think it follows that there is inherent power in the Appellate Court to reconstruct the records of the Court from which an appeal lies to it. This power has been r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »