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.
Varadarajan (Minor) by Next Friend S. Ranganatha Rao Vs. Srinivasa Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad792; 75Ind.Cas.471
Walter Schwabe, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Trichinopoly, in a partition suit. The plaintiff was the son of the first defendant and they were puisne members of a joint Hindu family. At one time before the suit the first defendant became insolvent. The plaintiff joined in the partition suit certain alienees of the joint family property alleging that the consideration was such that the transactions were not binding on him. The case came up before the District Munsif and then on to the District Judge who remanded the matter to the District Munsif again for finding on the question whether the consideration for these assignments was of a nature to bind the son. The findings were given and the case came up again and was heard on the findings by the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge took no notice of the finding and did not enquire at all into any of the matters considered by the District Judge as relevant, but accepted the contention that...
Thareesamna and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ339
Phillips, J.1. I think the District Judge is inclined to*allow insufficient weight to the award itself, which is the estimate of an impartial officer, based upon evidence and personal enquiry,, and cannot therefore be ignored in coming to a conclusion on the evidence, but notwithstanding this I am not prepared to differ from his conclusions and I agree in the order proposed by my learned brother.Venkatasubba Rao, J.2. The land acquired is 6 acres 56 cents in extent and is in Cochin Town. The learned District Judge has very clearly set out in his judgment the situation of the land, and it is sufficient for the present purpose to say that it is close to Kalvetti densely covered with houses and that a tidal channel runs through it. On the west is the European quarter fronting the sea and on the north is the commercial land abutting on the back-water. The learned District Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the value of the land in the aforesaid two localities cannot furnish any bas...
Thoppai Vedaviasa Aiyar Vs. the Madura Hindu Labha Nidhi Co., Ltd. by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad365; (1923)45MLJ478
1. The question in this appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that no appeal lay to it and passing an order of dismissal. The decision of the Court of First Instance was as to the order in which certain items of property were to be sold in execution of a decree on a mortgage and the question is whether that decision was appealable as having been passed under Section 47, first because although it was passed between the parties to the suit that Order should be read as relating only to questions arising between the parties who are opposed to each other in the suit; that is, it is contended between the plaintiff and one or other of the defendants and not between the defendants themselves. In support of this we have been referred to Raynoor v. The Mussoorie Bank (1885) .L.R. 7 A. 681, Yagnaswami Aiyar v. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar (1920) 13 L.W. 15 and Bhagwati v. Banwari Lal (1908) .L.R. 31 All. 82. But, although these cases do contain language susceptible of an in...
D.K. Kannisa Vs. Devichand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad46; 75Ind.Cas.390; (1923)45MLJ699
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the decree of the Court of Small Causes, Madras in U. C. Section No. 22 of 1922.2. The facts are these: The plaintiff brought a suit on a promissory note executed by the defendant. Summons in Form No. 13 was served upon the defendant on 3rd May 1922. He applied for leave to defend on 5th May 1922. The hearing of the case was fixed for the 8th May 1922. The learned Chief Judge rejected the application for leave to defend on 8th May as not having been filed three clear days before the date of hearing and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant has preferred the civil revision petition.3. The plaintiff does not appear to oppose the petition. It is contended that the direction contained in the Summons is ultra vires and the decision, therefore, of the learned Judge is without jurisdiction. The direction in the summons is: 'Leave to appeal, may be obtained on application to the Court support...
Avudainayagappa Pillai Vs. Sundaranandam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad767; 76Ind.Cas.173
1. The lower Court's order is one settling a proclamation of sale. The first objection taken to it is that the right, title and interest of the sixth defendant, here the appellant, is not correctly described in the words 'The right, title and interest in the property to be sold is that of sixth defendant, Avudaina yagam Pillai excluding that part, if any, of his right, title and interest derived by him from the deceased, fifth defendant Muthukaruppa Pillai.'2. The circumstances are that the fifth defendant died during the pendency of the suit, one brought on a mortgage. The plaintiff did not implead any legal representative for him within the statutory period. The decree passed referred to the death of the fifth defendant and the consequent abatement of the suit against him. But it was in terms against the whole mortgaged property. It is clear, however, that only the snare of the defendant against whom the decree was passed, that is of the sixth defendant, can be made liable since the ...
Ramasami Chetty Vs. Palaniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.798
William Ayling, J.1. This appeal arises out of a family partition suit between Nattukottai' Chetties, and is confined to properties named in B. and D. Schedules, which were included by the First Court among those to be partitioned but were struck out by the District Judge in first appeal.2. The case of the D. Schedule properties may be dealt with first. The Subordinate Judge says: 'In addition to the properties' mentioned in the plaint, there is a sum of' Rs. 1,500 in deposit in Pegu Firm. The plaintiff did not know of it. It is given out in the deposition of first defendant that it is family money. Therefore, it will be treated as family property which must be divided between all the members of the family. So another Schedule will be attached to the decree and that will be D. Schedule consisting of this money of Rs. 1,500. Of course, plaintiff must pay Court-fee before a final decree is passed and it is only then that he will get his share.'3. The District Judge has excluded this prop...
Thareesamma and ors. Vs. the Deputy Collector and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad252
Phillips, J.1. I think the District Judge is inclined to allow insufficient weight to the award itself, which is the estimate of an impartial officer, based upon evidence and personal enquiry, and cannot therefore be ignored in coming to a conclusion on the evidence, but notwithstanding this I am not prepared to differ from his conclusions and I agree in the order proposed by my learned brother.Venkatasubba Rao, J.2. The land acquired is 6 acres 56 cents in extent and is in Cochin Town. The learned District Judge has very clearly set out in his judgment the situation of the land, and it is sufficient for the present purpose to say that it is close to Kalvetti densely covered with houses and that a tidal channel runs through it. On the west is the European quarter fronting the sea and on the north is the commercial land abutting on the back-water. The learned District Judge has proceeded on the assumption that the value of the land in the aforesaid two localities cannot furnish any basi...
Ramaswami Chetty Vs. Palaniappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad354
Ayling, J.1. This appeal arises out of a family partition suit, between Nattukottai Chatties and is confined to properties named in B and D schedules, which were included by the first Court, among those to be partitioned, but were struck out, by the District Judge in first appeal.2. The case of the D schedule properties may be dealt; with first. The Subordinate Judge says:Ii addition to the properties, mentioned in the plaint, there is a sum of Rs. 1,500 in deposit in a Pegu firm. The plaintiff did not know of it. It is given out in the deposition of the 1st defendant that it in family money. Therefore, it will be treated as family property, which must be divided between all the members of the family. So another schedule will be attached to the decree and that will be D schedule, consisting of this money of fig 1,500. Of course, plaintiff must pay Court-fee before a final decree is passed and it is only then, that he will get his share.3. The District Judge has excluded this property f...
Pakkiam Solomon Vs. Chelliah Pillia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ208
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is a suit for nullity of a marriage under the following circumstances. The respondent when a Hindu was married to a Hindu. The respondent changed his religion being converted to Christianity. No steps were taken by him to dissolve his marriage, but he then went through a form of marriage with the petitioner also a Christian. The petitioner now brings this suit on the ground of bigamy of her husband, he having a wife alive at the time he went through the form of marriage with her.2. The first defence raised is that the petitioner has no rights under the Indian Divorce Act because it is alleged that she does not profess the Christian religion. This is based on a resolution of the particular sect to which she belongs, in effect ex-communicating her. In my judgment although she may be ex-communicated by the sect or the church to which she belongs, she does not thereby cease to profess Christianity. The question of profession of Christianity is a ques...
Nattu Kesava Mudaliar Vs. V.S. Govindachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.811; (1923)45MLJ514
ORDERWalter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The suit was for an injunction, and the question mainly turned on the interpretation of an agreement between two, if I may use the word, 'rival' temples made many years ago. According to the contention of one temple, the other was by reason of this agreement, permitted to hold certain processions in the streets of Madras on certain days only. According to the interpretation of the contract of the other side, they were entitled to hold their procession on those days taking a second place to the other temple but were free to hold other processions on any other day they pleased.2. As the amount involved is incapable of valuation the question is whether we should certify under Section 109(c), C.P. Code, that this is a fit case for appeal to His Majesty in Council. The meaning of that section has been much discussed in this Court and in the Privy Council, and in a recent case Raja Rajesw...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »