Chennai Court August 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.
Abhoy Naidu Vs. N. Ramachandra Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.905
Venkatasubba Rao, J. 1. This appeal may be disposed of on a point of law but, it is necessary to state a few facts that gave rise to the suit.2. The plaintiff, the first defendant and the father of the second defendant borrowed from one Ramanatha Chettiar Rs. 4,000 on a promissory-note and the creditor sued the executants of the note and he having died after the institution suit, his minor sons were' brought on the record as plaintiffs with their mother as their next friend. A decree was passed in the suit against the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant who was added as a party on the death of his father the plaintiff claims to have paid the full amount of the decree and has filed the suit for the recovery of that amount on the ground that the first defendant and the second defendant's father are the principal-debtors and he was himself a surety.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that the whole amount borrowed was received onl...
Abboy Naidu Vs. N. Ramachandra Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad279
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal may be disposed of on a point of law but it is necessary to state a few facts that gave rise to the suit.2. The plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the father of the 2nd defendant; borrowed from one Ramanatha Chettiar Ks. 4,000 on a promissory note and the creditor sued the executants of the note and he having died after the institution of the suit, his minor sons were brought on the record as plaintiffs with their mother as their next friend. A decree was passed in the suit against the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant who was added as a party on the death of his father. The plaintiff claims to have paid the full amount of the decree and has filed the suit for the recovery of that amount on the ground that the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant's father are the principal debtors and he was himself a surety.3. The learned Subordinate Judge has disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that the whole amount borrowed was received only by the ...
Khaji Mir Majavath Alli Vs. Khaji Mir Mujafar Alli and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1923
Reported in: (1923)45MLJ791
Odgers, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit to establish his right to half share in the properties of one Joram Bi deceased. As to items 3-6 in the plaint schedule, the defence is raised that they originally formed Khaji inam lands and that such lands were in fact inalienable and impartible. The Munsif found that these items were the properties of Joram Bi and were liable to partition and gave plaintiff a decree. This was confirmed on Appeal by the District Judge. Joram Bi had been in possession for 40 years and the District Munsiff held that 1st defendant had failed to show that her enjoyment was permissive. He also held that the Khaji inams were divided among the several members of the Khaji family long long ago with the result that each member or group of members hold separate and defined shares. The District Judge also held that the several branches of the Khaji family were enjoying portions of the plaint items as their separate property. I am by no means certain that these finding...
Bachala Peda Somadu and ors. Vs. Nethipudi Appigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad379; (1923)45MLJ602
Odgers, J.1. Taking Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 1923 first, in this case 8 of the 24 accused were convicted by the acting Sessions judge of Godavari Division, as to accused 2 and 4 to 8 under Section 147, as to accused I under Sections 326, 324 and 148 and as to accused 3 under Sections 324 and 148. The riot in which these persons are held to have taken part was a fight between the Panchamas of Voolapalli and the Panchamas of Biccavole, a village close by, and it took place about midday on 12-4-1922 at the boundary between the two villages. The story of the beginning of the fight is told by P.W. 2 whose credibility there is not the least reason to doubt. He is an Inspector of Co-operative Societies, and when on tour from Biccavole on the day in question, 9th accused told him that the Biccavole and Voolapalli Panchamas had quarrels and the Voolapalli people were going to Biccavole to settle the quarrel. It appears that some Voolapalli men had married Biccavole wives and had refused to fet...
Bachula Peda Somadu and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad232
Odgers, J.1. Taking Criminal Appeal No. 40 first, in this case 8 of the 24 accused were convicted by the acting Sessions Judge of Goodavari division, as to accused 2 and 4 to 8 under Section 147, as to accused 1 under Sections 326, 324 and 148 and as to accused 3 under Sections 324 and 148. The riot in which these persons are held to have taken part was a fight between the Panchamas of Voolapalli and the Panchamas of Biccavole, a village close by, and it took place about midday on 12th April 1922 at the boundary between the two villages. The story of the beginning of the fight is told by P.W. 2, whose credibility there is not the least reason to doubt. He is an Inspector of Co-operative Societies and, when on tour from Biccavole on the day in question, 9th accused told him that the Biccavole and Voolapalli Panchamas had quarrels and that the Voolapalli people were going to Biccavole to settle the quarrel. It appears that some Voolapalli men had married Biccavole wives and had refused t...
In Re: Bachala Peda Somudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.203
Odgers, J.1. Taking Criminal Appeal No. 40 first, in this case eight of the twenty-four accused were convicted by the Acting Sessions Judge of Godavari Division, as to accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 8 under Section 147, as to accused No. 1 under Sections 326, 324 and 148 and as to accused No. 3 under Sections 324 and 148, Indian Penal Code. The riot in which these persons are held to have taken part was a fight between the Panchamas of Voolapalli and the Panchamas of Biccavole, a village close by, and it took place about midday on 12th April 1922 at the boundary between the two villages. The story of the beginning of the fight is told by P.W. No. 2 whose credibility there is not the least reason to doubt. He is an Inspector of Co-operative Societies, and when on tour: from Biccavole on the day in question 9th accused told him that the Biccavole and Voolapalli Panchamas had quarrels and the Voolapalli people were going to Biccavole to settle the quarrel, It appears that some Voolapalli men had...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. N. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad286; (1924)46MLJ1
Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Coutts-Trotter, J. on what is undoubtedly a difficult point under the Limitation Act. The case has been very clearly argued before us by Mr. O. T. Govindan Nambiyar for the appellant and Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar for the respondent. The facts appear clearly from the judgment of the Court below and it is sufficient to state them shortly for the purpose of this judgment.2. The Official Assignee is suing here as the representative of the estate of an insolvent, one K. R. Narayana Aiyar, who is since deceased. He was a mortgagee having obtained a mortgage in October 1894 from one Narayani Ammal for Rs. 1,000. She was a dancing girl. She died in August 1900 and she made the mortgagee the executor of her will. In that will she referred to the debt due to him, and, in applying for probate, he stated the amount of the mortgage encumbrance due by the deceased lady at Rs. 1,620. In November 1912 a suit was brought by one T. S....
Arunachala Goundan Vs. Swaminatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Mad611; (1924)46MLJ240
1. The finding of the Lower Appellate Court that Swaminatha Iyer is the legal representative of his mother Seethalakshmi the deceased decree-holder, is not and cannot now be challenged.2. The District Judge's refusal to allow the appellant to set up in these execution proceedings any agreement prior to decree and his direction to the appellant to seek his remedy in a separate suit cannot however be supported. Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is wide enough to permit any valid objection to be taken by a judgment debtor to the execution of a decree by a decree-holder or the decree holder's legal representative.3. It was held in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Krishna Vathiar 32 MLJ 13 (FB) by a Full Bench of this Court that even an agreement made prior to the decree as to the manner in which the decree should be executed after it was passed could be pleaded as a bar to the enforcement of the decree as it stood. Here the judgment debtor can raise in bar of Swaminatha Iyer's application t...
Thirumurthy Chetty Vs. Ponnan Chetty Alias Karuppan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.843; (1924)46MLJ51
1. This is a suit to recover money payable under an award. It is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes [Vide Simpson v. McMaster ILR (1890) M 344 and Mizaji Lal v. Partab Kunwar ILR (1919) A 169]. No second appeal lies and therefore this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal must be dismissed with costs.2. The appellant's pleader has quoted the authority of Kunja Behary Bardhan v. Gost Behary Bardhan (1917) 22 CWN 66. The suit there dealt with involved the partition of immoveable property and the award could not be enforced piecemeal by giving the plaintiff a decree for a sum of money which was also due under the award.3. There is a remark in that judgment that a suit for enforcement of an award is in essence a suit for specific performance of a contract. But a suit for the recovery of money, as this is, can in no sense he treated as a suit to enforce a contract. Moreover, the observation that a suit to enforce an award and a suit to enforce a contract are practically the same is opposed to the v...
C.C. Dorayya Vs. C. Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Mad50
1. On the authority of Shavaksha Dinsha Davar v. Tyab Haji Ayub (1916) 40 Bom. 386 which was followed in Dekkan Tea Co. v. Assam Bengal Railway Co. A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 238 it is argued that Section 89, Civil Procedure Code, precludes the application of Order 23, Rule 3 to cases in which there has been a reference to arbitration.2. But, as was pointed out by Macleod, C. J., Manilal Motilal v. Gokhaldas Rowji A.I.R. 1921 Bom. 310, a decision which overruled that learned Judge's earlier decision in Shavaksha Dinsha Davar v. Tyab Haji Ayub (1916) 40 Bom. 386. When the terms of the adjustment have been settled by an arbitration and award out of Court the parties may agree to ask for a consent decree. In such a case, the true position appears to be that the Court will not look at the arbitration proceedings, but only at the consent terms, as it makes no difference whether those terms have been arrived at by agreement between the parties acting by themselves or have been settled by a third party...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »