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.
Seshamma Vs. Yeeranki Peda Venkata Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad713
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cocanada setting aside an abatement of a suit, the order appealed against being passed under Order 22, Rule 9. In ordinary circumstances no appeal lies against such an order, but in the circumstances of this case it is contended that the order appealed against was passed without jurisdiction and vitiated by material irregularity.2. The plaintiff who is the respondent in this appeal, sued one M. Narayana Rao in the Court of the District Munsif of Peddapur on a mortgage and on 27-11-1918 obtained a preliminary decree. It since transpired that the judgment-debtor died on the morning of 27-11-1918 before the decree was passed. The plaintiff admits that, not long after the decree, he came to know of the fact of the death of the judgment-debtor, but not of the actual date of it and assumed that he had died after the decree and that therefore the decree was valid. He took no steps to bring on the legal repre...
John Joseph Brito Vs. Mrs. S.S. Brito
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.888; (1924)46MLJ357
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against an order passed by us in C.R.P. No. 423 of 1922 in which we refused to interfere in revision with the order of a Subordinate Court restoring to file a suit which had been first disposed of upon an alleged compromise between the parties.2. Before we can certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council, we must be satisfied that the order passed by us was a final order within the meaning of Section 109 C.P.C. What is a ' final order ' has been defined in Ramchand Manjimal v. Goverdhandoss Vishandas Ratanchand ILR (1920) C 918 The Privy Council say that ' an order is a final one if it finally disposes of the rights of the parties. ' A similar interpretation of the word ' final ' has been adopted in Sankar Bharati v. Narasimha Bharati ILR (1922) B 106 where Shah, C. J. says that ' a final order is one which decides a cardinal point in the suit and finall...
Aiyisa Bivi Ammal Vs. Kalandarsa Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ501
Wallace, J.1. The ruling in Imambandi v. Mutsaddi ILR (1918) Cal. 878, 1918 35 M.L.J. 422 which was relied on by this Court in its judgment of 10-2-1920 for holding that the sale Exhibt III is not binding on the plaintiff is equally in point to hold that the mortgage Exhibit I is not binding on the defendants. Both transfers being by a person not guardian of the minors, are equally void.2. So that the position is this: 1st defendant was admitted into possession in 1893 under a void mortgage. The nature of his possession after that was nevertheless that of mortgagee and not absolute trespasser--see Gopala Dasu v. Rami ILR (1921) .M. 946 and he began then to prescribe by adverse possession for the legal status of mortgagee which, if his possession was not altered or disturbed, he would acquire, after twelve years of such possession, i. e., the plaintiff would after such a period of 12 years be barred by limitation from contending on the ground that the mortgage was a void one, that 1st d...
In Re: Vairavan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad668; (1924)46MLJ401
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application made to this Court to revise the conviction of the accused, one Vairavan Servai, under Section 19 (e) of the Arms Act, as he was found carrying a loaded gun in contravention of the provisions of Section 13 of the same Act which runs thus: 'No person shall go armed with any arms except under a license and to the extent and in the manner provided thereby. '2. What happened in this case was that the accused Vairavan Servai was found with a loaded gun trying to shoot game in the forest. When he was asked for an explanation he said that his master Mr. Delhi Batcha Thevar owned the gun, that he was carrying it for him and that his master was somewhere in neighbourhood, but, when he was asked to fetch his master, he was unable to do so; in fact his master was nowhere near, The finding is that he was using the gun for his own purposes.3. It has been urged before us that Mr. Delhi Batcha Thevar is a person exempted under the Rules framed under the Arms Act ...
Best and Co., Ltd., Agents of the Nobel's Explosives Co. Ltd. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.107; (1924)46MLJ505
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The Full Bench having decided that an English incorporated company is not exempt from the tax on companies imposed by Section 110 of the Madras City Municipal Act IV of 1919 by the mere reason of its capital being expressed in sterling, we have now to determine the third question referred to us, which is whether income derived from the transaction of business outside the City of Madras which is transmitted to Madras to the agents of an English firm for being converted into sterling and remitted to England is part of the gross income of the company upon which the tax is leviable. The same question was raised once before in the Sun Life Assurance Company v. The Corporation of Madras : AIR1922Mad85 but was left undecided.2. The proviso to Rule 7 of schedule IV, Part II of the Act provides a scale for assessing the gross income of Companies the head office or a branch or principal office of which is not in the City, and whose gross income ''receiv...
Aiyisa Bevi Ammal Vs. Kalandarsa Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.561
Wallace, J.1. The ruling in Jamam-bandi v. Mutsaddi 45 Cal. 878 which was relied on by this Court in its judgment of 10th February, 1920 for the holding that the sale Ex. III is not binding on the plaintiff is equally in point to hold that the mortgage Ex. I is not binding on the defendants. Both transfers, being by a person not guardian of the minors, are equally void.2. So that the position is this: 1st defendant was admitted into possession in 1893 under a void mortgage. The nature of his possession after that was nevertheless that of mortgagee and not absolute trespasser (See Gopala Dasee v. Rami 64 Ind. Cas. 328: (1921) M.W.N. 385 : 41 M.L.J. 194 and he began then to prescribe by adverse possession for the legal status of mortgagee, which, if his possession was not altered or disturbed he would acquire, after twelve years of such possession; i.e., the plaintiff would after such a period of 12 years be barred by limitation from contending on the ground that the mortgage was a void ...
Chokkalinga Pillay Vs. Velayudha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad117; 87Ind.Cas.152; (1924)47MLJ448
Phillips, J.1. This suit (O.S. No. 27 of 1917) has been brought to set aside the final decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1903 in the Kumbakonam Sub-Court and for recovery of the properties comprised therein. The first question we have to deal with in this appeal is whether that decree can be set aside as being absolutely void for want of jurisdiction. It is a decree in a mortgage suit instituted in 1903 when the Kumbakonam Court had jurisdiction over the place wherein the mortgaged property is situated. In 1907 the jurisdiction over this particular place was transferred from the Kumbakonam Court to the Mayavaram Court; and, at the time of passing the final decree, the Kumbakonam Court had no jurisdiction over the place where the mortgage properties lie. The Subordinate Judge, relying on Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar : AIR1914Mad162 , has held that this decree was absolutely void, but has, for other reasons, dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. In urging the appeal the respondents support ...
Chemalapati Venkata Reddy Vs. Nataraja Setti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ371
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. The suit was brought in the District Munsif's Court of Madanapalle to recover Rs. 316-5-2 in respect of 9 bags of jaggery delivered to defendant as commission agent on behalf of plaintiff. The District Munsif and the District Judge held that the Madanapalle Court had no jurisdiction. Hence this petition.2. Six or seven years prior to the plaint, the plaintiff went to Madras where he and the defendant ' talked and settled about the commission to be paid to him. ' He told 1st defendant in Madras that he would consign goods directly to him or to others who would be directed to deliver goods to him. The defendant was afterwards writing letters to plaintiff informing the latter of the current prices prevailing in Madras and suggesting the despatch of goods. In October, 1915 plaintiff sent 18 bags of jaggery to P. S. Abdul Khader Saheb and Brothers at Madras with instructions to deliver 9 of them to the defendant. He also wrote to the ...
Cheemalapatti Venkata Reddi Vs. Nataraja Setti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.691
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. The suit was brought in the District Munsifs Court of Madanapalle to recover Rs. 316-5-2 in respect of 9 bags of jaggery delivered to defendant as commission agent on behalf of plaintiff. The District Munsif and the District Judge held that-the Madanapalle. Court had no jurisdiction. Hence this petition.2. Six or seven years prior to the, plaint, the plaintiff went to Madras where he and the defendant 'talked and settled about, the commission to be paid to him.' He told 1st defendant in Madras that he would consign goods directly to him or to, others who would be directed to deliver goods to him. The defendant was afterwards Writing letters to plaintiff informing the latter of the current prices prevailing in Madras and suggesting the despatch of goods. In Octobar 1915 plaintiff; sent 18 bags of jaggery to P.S. Abdul Khater Saheb and Brothers at Madras; with instructions to deliver 9 of them to the, defendant. He also wrote to th...
B. Anna Naidu Vs. V. Jaggu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad153
Krishnan, J.1. This was a suit brought by one Varada Jaggu Naidu, son of Naranna Naidu, for recovery of a one-third share in the plaint property which had been alienated by the widow Gaviramina in favour of one Sanyasi the father of the first defendant. He based his claim on the ground that he was one of the three reversioners entitled to the estate of one, Venkata Appala Naidu whose widow Gaviramma was. The other two reversioners are the third defendant, son of Musali Naidu, and the second defendant, the plaintiff's brother, also a son of Naranna Naidu.2. The relationship of the parties is shown in the pedigree given by the Appellate Judge in his judgment. Venkata Appala Naidu died, leaving two widows Gaviramma and Achamma and they were in enjoyment of the properties of the deceased as his brothers were divided from him. Gaviramma seems to have alienated the property in question in this suit to one Sanyasi whose son the first defendant is. The plaintiff claims that this alienation is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »