Chennai Court January 1924 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.
Esufali Mahammedbhoy Allibhoy and 2 ors. Vs. A.K. Thaha Ummal and 4 or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad610
Ramesam, J.1. This. is a suit for damages to plaintiffs' goods consigned on defendants' schooner Sahul Hameed. The schooner left Colombo on 25th August 1917 and arrived at Tuticorin on 28th August with 250 cases of safety matches entrusted by plaintiff to the master. The goods were landed on the 30th in a damaged condition. On a certificate of survey (Exhibit C) by Secretary of the Local Chamber of Commerce, the goods were sold by auction on 30th October 1917 (Exhibit G) and realized Rs. 3,142 (Exhibit D). The market value is alleged to be Rs. 31,750. The suit is for the difference.2. Exhibit II is the bill of lading issued by the defendants' agent. It contains the usual exemption clause:The act of God, King's enemies, fire and all and every other dangers, accidents of the seas, rivers and navigation of whatever nature or kind so ever excepted.3. Though there has been considerable argument on the question of burden of proof and several cases have been cited before us, the matter seems ...
Krishna Iyer Vs. Subramania Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.122; (1924)46MLJ368
1. This, appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram refusing to add the two respondents as parties after the preliminary decree in a mortgage-suit brought by the plaintiff had been passed and before the final decree. A portion of the mortgaged property had been attached by the second respondent and was brought to sale by him on the 18th of July 1921. A portion of the properties was purchased on that date by the first respondent, but the sale was not confirmed until December 1921. In the meanwhile, in November 1921 the plaintiff brought this suit. Some other properties which had been sold in July had been purchased by a third party, but that sale was set aside because the balance of purchase-money was not paid and they were again brought to sale in March 1922 when they were purchased by the second respondent. As those persons are interested in the mortgaged property, the plaintiff sought to add them as party defendants to his suit before he obtained the final decr...
Krishna Aiyar Vs. Subrahmania Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad648
Phillips, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram refusing to add the two respondents as parties after the preliminary decree in a mortgage suit brought by the plaintiff had been passed and before the final decree. A portion of the mortgaged property had been attached by the 2nd respondent and was brought to sale by him on the 18th of July 1921. A portion of the properties was purchased on that date, by the 1st respondent, but the sale was not confirmed until December 1921. In the meanwhile, in November 1921 the plaintiff brought his suit. Some other properties which had been sold in July had been purchased by a third party but that sale was set aside because the balance of purchase-money was not paid and they were again brought to sale in March 1922, when they were purchased by the 2nd respondent. As those persons are interested in the mortgaged property, the plaintiff sought to add them as party defendants to his suit before he obtained the final d...
Esuf Ali Mahammedbhoy Allibhoy and ors. Vs. A.K. Thaha Ummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad773
Ramesam, J.1. This is a suit for damages to plaintiffs' goods, consigned on defendants' Schooner, Sahul Hameed. The Schooner left Colombo on 25th August 1917 and arrived at Tuticorin on 28th August, with 250 cases of Safety Matches, entrusted by plaintiff to the mastef. On a certificate of survey (Ex. C), by the Secretary of the Local Chamber of Commerce the goods were sold by auction, on 30th October 1917 (Ex. C) and realized Rs. 3142 (Ex. D). The market value is alleged to be Rs. 31,750. The suit is for the difference.2. Ex II is the bill of lading issued by the defendants' agent. It contains the usual exemption clause:The act of God, King's enemies, Fire and all and every other dangers accidents of the Seas, Rivers and navigation of whatever nature or kind whatsoever excepted.3. Though there has been considerable argument, on the question of burden of proof and several cases have been cited before us, the matter seems to be clearly settled, in. the present state of authorities. It i...
Modadugu Perayya Vs. Peroli Venkayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ14
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the wife of one Narayana Rao, against whom the defendant obtained a decree. In execution proceedings, the plaintiff intervened with a claim alleging that the property attached was not her husband's but her absolute property. The claim having been dismissed, the plaintiff has filed this regular suit, which the District Munsif has dismissed on the ground that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was benami for her husband. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has reversed the finding of the District Munsif. He in effect has held that the plaintiff is not merely the ostensible but also the real owner of the property : but unfortunately he has thrown the onus wrongly upon the defendant, and this is what he observes on the point : ' The burden was on the defendant to establish that Ex. A which stands in plaintiff's name was benami for her husband, and, in my opinion, it was not discharged at all. ' Ordinarily it will be for the party who sets up that a part...
Chintalapalli Sesha Sastrulu and anr. Vs. Korivi Venkamma Alias Kidamb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad600; 84Ind.Cas.148; (1924)47MLJ1
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by a daughter against her parents for recovery of certain properties which she alleged were left in her parents' possession when she left their house. The plaintiff married her own uncle, Sankariah, who died in 1908. In 1908, her father-in-law K. Subbiah, who was also her grandfather, made a gift in her favour of certain properties to be enjoyed during her lifetime. In September, 1917, after she became a widow, she ran away to Rajahmundry to the Widow's Home of Rao Bahadur M. R. Ry., Viresalingam Pantulu and got married to her second husband K. Singaracharlu. As her parents retained her property after her re-marriage she gave them a Lawyer's notice, to which they replied denying that they had any Stridhanam property belonging to her, and she thereupon filed this suit.2. The Subordinate Judge's decree is attacked on the ground that it has not been satisfactorily proved that she left the jewels which she now claims in her parents' pos...
Suppai Goundan and anr. Vs. Kandaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.567
Wallace, J.1. This appeal may be disposed of on the short ground that there is no evidence that the plaintiff is the holder of the pronote. The allegation in the plaint was that the guardian of the minor son of the payee transferred the pronote to plaintiff in her capacity as guardian. In the Written statement defendants challenged this allegation and put plaintiff to strict proof of it. Plaintiff has made no attempt to prove it. The endorsement of transfer is signed by the lady in her personal capacity, and there is nothing either in the body of the note or appended to the signature to show that she signed as guardian. Both the lower Courts have merely inferred, on no evidence, that she signed as guardian. The oases relied (sick)n by the District Munsif are of very little assistance, since in each case it has to be decided on its own facts whether the endorser endorsed as guardian or not.2. When plaintiff was put to proof of this point and called no evidence, his suit must fail. It is...
Modadagu Perayya Vs. Peroli Vaikayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.899
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the wife of one Narayana Rao, against whom the defendant obtained a decree. In execution proceedings, the plaintiff intervened with a claim alleging that the property attached was not her husband's but her absolute property. The claim having been dismissed, the plaintiff has filed this regular suit, which the District Munsif has dismissed on the ground that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was benami for her husband. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has reversed the finding of the District Munsif. He in effect has held that the plaintiff is not merely the ostensible but also the real owner of the property but unfortunately he has thrown the onus wrongly upon the defendant, and this is what he observes on the point:The burden was on the defendant to establish that Ex. A which stands in plaintiff's name was benami for her husband, and, in my opinion, it was not discharged at all.2. Ordinarily it will be for the party who sets up that a particular...
Suppai Goundan and anr. Vs. A.M.R.M. Murugappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad710
Wallace, J.1. In this appeal the point argued is whether the plaintiff has adduced any evidence on which the lower Courts could conclude as a finding of fact that there was necessity for the suit promissory notes which could in law render them binding on defendants who are not parties to it. The promissory notes are executed by one Muthuswami Goundan, the elder brother of defendants 1 and 2 and the manager of their joint family, and they are signed by him only in his personal capacity.2. It is quite clear that this question of the promissory notes not being binding on the defendants was fully raised in the pleadings at the trial of the suit and that the plaintiff was put to strict proof of such necessity. The lower Courts have found that such necessity existed chiefly on the general ground that the executant was the manager of the joint family and was contracting other debts about this time for the joint family. But that is not sufficient, since there is no presumption in law that a do...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.1009; (1924)47MLJ503
1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of water-cess alleged to have been illegally levied by Government. It appears that the plaintiff took the water on account of which the cess was levied from a channel, which passed through his pattah land, but was not separately demarcated as poramboke. The fact has been treated by both the Lower Courts as conclusive against Government as to the legality of the levy; reliance being placed on a passage in a judgment in Kalianna Mudali v. The Secretary of State for India in Council by the Collector of Salem 31 IndCas 982 which runs as follows:As to the claim to levy water-cess, these rills run through plaintiff's pattah land, and their beds have not been separately demarcated as poramboke; they are part of the pattah land and not the property of the Government, and therefore the water course cannot be said to belong to Government as decided day before yesterday in Appeal Suit No. 113 of 1910 (on the file of the High Court). 2. The l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »