Chennai Court April 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.
Kaveribai Ammal, Agent S.L. Narayana Rao Vs. B. Mehta and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.901
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of Kumaraswamy Sastri, J., sitting on the Original Side refusing the application by Judge's summons to alter the price fixed as the upset price in the proclamation of sale, to alter the mode of selling a certain part of the property into a sale in convenient lots instead of a sale as a whole, and to postpone the date of the sale.2. The suit was a in rtgage suit. The preliminary decree gave what stems to be a short time of three months for redeeming. That time having elapsed, no application having been made for extension of the time and no appeal having been taken, from the preliminary decree, a final decree was passed ordering a sale. The Court then directed the sale on a certain day and in the ordinary way, under Order XXI, Rule 66, caused a proclamation to be drawn up. Thereafter this summons was taken out and the learned Judge having dismissed it, this appeal is brought to this Court; and the question is whether su...
Dharam Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad30
ORDER1. This case raises the same point as Criminal Revision Case No. 691 of 1922 Ponnusami Odayar v. Ramasami Thevan 1924 Mad. 15 the only difference being that it was tried summarily under Chapter XXII. In our judgment, there is no difference between summary trials of summons cases and the ordinary trials of summons cases. This petition must be dismissed. The sentence is light but in the circumstances as he has already been released and only has a few more days to serve we reduce the entence to 11 days....
Konthalathammal Vs. Thangaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad327
Oldfield, J.1. The first and important of the two orders before us was passed by the District Judge of South Arcot on a petition for the removal of 1st respondent from her position as testamentary guardian of the person and property of a minor Thirugnanavalli Ammal, for the appointment of the petitioner, or any other fit person in her stead and for connected reliefs. Against that order there is an appeal by the petitioner and also a revision petition. I deal first with the respondent's preliminary objection to the appeal, that this order, consisting in a refusal to remove a guardian is not appealable under Section 47, Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), and is final under Section 48. The order, as it stands, is certainly of that character, its conclusion being that the Court is not prepared to remove the guardian on any of the grounds stated in the petition and that the petition is dismissed; and the objection is supported by authority which I am prepared to follow, Mohima Chunder ...
The Taluk Board Dindigul, Through Its President Vs. Venkatarama Aiyar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.38; (1923)45MLJ333
Ayling, J.1. This appeal relates to a plot of land, 14 cents in extent, forming part of S. No. 261.2 F-4 in Solaikurichi village, Madura Taluq which measures 19-28 acres and is registered as Nattam (building site) poromboke. Most of the S. No. has already been built over, but 2.92 acres are still vacant and of this Government has granted the suit plot to the Dindigul Taluq Board (1st defendant) to build a girls' school upon. The plaintiffs are villagers, who claim that they have a right to use the whole of the vacant land (including the suit site) for various agricultural purposes and plead that the grant to the Taluk Board is consequently illegal.2. The sole question is as to the legality of the grant and on this the two lower Courts have come to opposite conclusions, the Subordinate Judge in first appeal deciding in favour of Plaintiffs.3. It is not disputed that Nattam poramboke may properly be granted for the purpose specified; but plaintiffs claim a right vested in the villagers w...
Surjimull Murlidhar Chandick Vs. Ananta Lal Damani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad352; (1923)45MLJ399
1. This is an appeal from a decision of Phillips, J. deciding a case on the ground that a document acknowledging a debt was not admissible in evidence. The document is called a Roka. It shows credit entries and the balance due at the last account and interest thereon up to date, and debit entries of the amount paid off and a balancing item of Rs. 4,397-12-3 and then the words 'balance payable up to Kartik Sudh 1st of Samvat 1974 (that is 15-11-1917) Rs. 4,397-12-3' and the signature of the defendant. The circumstances under which that document came into existence are clear from the correspondence, and I do not think that any evidence could be adduced which would give the Court any further assistance than is obtained from the correspondence. A letter, Ex. B, was produced from the defendant stating that he had taken down the statement of account which had been sent for, and given it to Ammajee, the plaintiff's mother, and promising on coming to Madras that he would prepare a fresh statem...
Sinnam Chetty and anr. Vs. G.S. Alagiri Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ516
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This suit having been dismissed on the ground that on the facts stated by the plaintiff there was no cause of action, we must assume for the purpose of this appeal that those (acts are correct. On this assumption the plaintiff was the owner of a ring of the value of Rs. 1,000 and lent it to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff was liable to the 1st defendant on a promissory note folks. 2,500 and the 1st defendant was liable to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,072-8-0 being the 1st defendant's contribution in respect of a joint bond which the plaintiff had discharged. The 1st defendant assigned the promissory note to one Mikka Piliai who brought an action on it, O.S. No. 21 of 1915 in the Salem District Court against the plaintiff. On the 7th March, 1913 the plaintiff presented an insolvency petition against the 1st defendant. In that petition he alleged that the 1st defendant was indebted to him in Rs. 3,072-8-0 made up of the Rs. 2,072-8-0 and Rs. 1,000 the value...
M.S. Dandayudapani Iyer Vs. District Munsif
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad402
ORDER1. We are asked in these petitions to direct that a paragraph be expunged from the order of the District Munsif of Kallakurichi on the ground that it contains language misrepresenting the conduct of a Vakil, petitioner before us, and damaging to him. I have already expressed my views on the jurisdiction of this Court to make such an order in In re : Krishnaswami Aiyangar : (1918)35MLJ368 , and I have been shown and now see no reason for changing them. Very little further in the way of authority has now been referred to. In fact, we have been shown no instance in which this power has been exercised by this or any other Court not mentioned in the case just referred to. I observe that Civil Revision Petition No. 1396 of 1916 is not an instance of the exercise of this power and was referred to as such only owing to the unfortunate misdeseription of the case in the judicial index of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 888 of 1916 and A.A.O. Nos. 205 and 206 of 1914, also neither ...
M.S. Dandayudapani Iyer, Pleader, Kallakurichi Vs. the District Munsif ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1923
Reported in: 78Ind.Cas.6
ORDER1. We are asked in these petitions to direct that a paragraph be expunged from the order of the District Munsif of Kalla-kurichi on the ground that it contains language misrepresenting the conduct of a Vakil, petitioner before us, and damaging to him. I have already expresssed my views on the jurisdiction of this Court to make such an order in In re Krishnaswami Aiyangar 47 Ind. Cas. 981 : 85 M.L.J. 868, and I have been shown and now see no reason for changing them. Very little further in the way of authority has now been referred to. In fact, we have been shown no instance in which this power has been exercised by this or any other Court not mentioned in the case just referred to. I observe that Civil Revision Petition No. 1396 of 1916 is not an instance of the exercise of this power and was referred to as such only owing to the unfortunate misdescription of the case in the judicial index of this Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 888 of 1916 and A.A.O. Nos. 205 and 206 of 1914...
Jayammal Vs. the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad312; 76Ind.Cas.992; (1923)45MLJ545
Coutts-Trotter, J.1. This is a suit brought by a little girl aged 7 called Jayammal for damages for personal injuries against the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Limited. I confess that I have felt little difficulty about the facts which I may briefly summarize as follows. The village of Amoor lies on both sides of the defendant's railway line and the Wallajah Road Railway Station is in the middle of the village. To the north of the line lie most of the inhabited houses which make up the village, and in one of those the plaintiff lived with her father, a toddy contractor named Jayamuni Naidu. The Post Office and certain shops lie to the south of the line. On the 15th June, 1921, the plaintiff went on an errand from the northern to the southern part of the village, and for that purpose she would have to cross the line. There are two recognised level crossings with gates where Railway servants are stationed to look after the public, one considerably to the East and the othe...
Parvathi Ammal Vs. Govinda Raja and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad359; (1923)45MLJ682
1. This Second appeal is argued mainly with reference to the property covered by sale deed Ex. B. That sale was made after the suit 13 of 1915 (on the file of the Court of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Madura) to enforce a mortgage on the property by its sale had been instituted. The question that arises is whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies to the sale in question and whether it should be held to have been subject to the result of the mortgage decree. The learned Subordinate Judge has answered this question in the negative relying on the ruling Upendra Chandra Singh v. Mohan Lal Marwari I.L.R. (1904) Cal. 745. We are unable to concur in that view. That ruling is inconsistent with the ruling of the Privy Council in Faivath Hussain Khan v. Prag Narain I.L.R. (1907) All. 339 and has not been followed even in Calcutta. See Tinoohan Chatterjee v. Trilokya Saran Sanyal (1913) 18 I.C. 177. It has been dissented from in this Court in Kathir v. Mareema Dissa I.L.R(1913) . M. 450 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »