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.
Sankamma Vs. Govinda Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad246; 85Ind.Cas.44
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This is a revision against the acquittal of one Govinda Chetty against whom one Sankamma made a complaint under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, ibhe complained that Govinda Chetty had defamed her, by certain allegations made in a letter written by Mr. T.S. Raja gopala Aiyar, High Court Vakil on his instructions on 30th November, 1922. It is not necessary to set out the letter at length ; but the allegations of defamation shortly are; (1) that she was living an adulterous life ; (2) that she was discarded by her deceased husband owing to her conduct ; (3) that her daughter was not the daughter of her husband ; and (4) that she had never lived with the deceased for about 25 years. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion, on hearing the evidence, that the matter fell within exception 9 to Section 499, Indian Penal Code and discharged the accused.2. I have heard the criminal revision case and it has been strongly urged before me that the exception does not apply in ...
Bodu Anna Naidu Vs. Varada Jaggu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.646
Krishnan, J.1. This was a suit brought by one Varada Jaggu Naidu, son of Narama Naidu, for recovery of a one-third share in the plaint property which had been alienated by the widow Gaviramma 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. 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 Gavilamma 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 inva...
Mohamed Esuf Rowther Vs. Sultan Abdul Kadir and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ20
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of certain lands. The parties are Muhammadans. It is necessary to make this clear at the outset, because in dealing with the parties contentions in the Courts below, there has been some confusion of mind caused by reference to self-acquired property and even to stridhanam (see paragraph 27 of the District Munsiff's Judgment in O.S. No. 38 of 1915).2. The plaintiffs are the widow and children of Sheik Muhammad Bava Rowther. Sheik Muhammad Rowther had one brother, who is the 1st defendant, and four sisters. There has been previous litigation on the subject of the suit property. Sheik Muhammad Rowther brought a suit O.S. No. 15 of 1905, to recover the same lands from the 1st defendant on a plea of trespass in which he alleged that the properties were in plaintiffs' possession but that it was necessary to have them delivered to him through Court to avoid any further dispute. The defendant took oath in that case...
Sunkari Sitayya Vs. Mudaragaddi Sanyasi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ361
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The plaintiff in execution of a money decree against the 1st defendant attached certain lands and a house and house site as belonging to his judgment debtor. That was on the 15th December 1918. Previous to this on 15th May 1916 there was a contract between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant to sell the same property to the 2nd defendant. After the attachment the 2nd defendant put in a claim petition which was allowed. The plaintiff thereupon brought this suit to set aside the order upon the claim petition, and it has been decreed by the first Court and confirmed in appeal by the District Judge. After the attachment had been made, the 2nd defendant brought a suit for specific performance and got an order for sale from the Court and delivery of possession. The question raised in the second issue is whether the 1st defendant had any subsisting interest in the property which was attached, in other words, whether the attachment can prevail aga...
Mohamed Esuf Rowther Vs. Sultan Abdul Kadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad711
Spencer, Og. C.J.1. This is a suit to recover possession of certain lands-The parties are Muhammadans. It is necessary to make this clear at the outset, because in dealing with, the parties' contentions in the Courts below, there has been some confusion of mind caused by reference to self-acquired property and even to stridhanam (see paragraph 27 of the District Munsiff's Judgment in O.S. No. 38 of 1915).2. The plaintiffs are the widow and children of Sheik Muhammad Bava Rowther. Sheik Muhammad Rowther had one brother, who is the 1st defendant, and four sisters. There has been previous litigation on the subject of the suit property. Sheik Muhammad Rowther brought a suit O.S. No. 15 of 1905,to recover the same lands from the 1st defendant on a plea of trespass in which he alleged that the properties were in plaintiffs' possession but that it was necessary to have them delivered to him through Court to avoid any further dispute. The defendant took oath in that case and the plaintiff's su...
Kanniappa Mudali and ors. Vs. P.V. Raju Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad761; 79Ind.Cas.850; (1924)47MLJ16
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the 9th defendant and the legal representatives of the 10th defendant are the appellants. Respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs. The suit was brought for recovery of the principal and interest due on a mortgage bond executed by the husband of the second defendant and defendants 1 and 6. The defence was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain the suit on account of certain proceedings in Insolvency.2. The further facts necessary to be stated for understanding this defence are that the sixth defendant became insolvent and his properties were vested in the Official Receiver, Chittoor. On the 16th August, 1915, the Official Receiver gave a notice to the mortgagees in which he stated that he proposed to sell the properties of the insolvent by public auction free from their mortgage with the same charge to them on the sale-proceeds as they might have on the properties, and called upon them to consent to the proposal. He added that, in case they did not in...
Souriraja Naidu and anr. Vs. Rajagopalan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad812; (1924)47MLJ302
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the 3rd plaintiff owning adjacent plots of land instituted this suit to establish a common right of easement to take water over the defendant's land by a channel marked A, X, Y and B. They base their claims on allegations of easement by prescription and easement of necessity. The District Munsif finding that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 had not proved any right of easement by prescription and could not claim an easement of necessity dismissed their suit. But he granted a decree to the 3rd plaintiff on the finding that he had enjoyed the right of irrigation by means of a channel X, Y for more than the statutory period. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 appealed against the dismissal of their suit. The defendants appealed against the decree given to the 3rd plaintiff.2. The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeals found that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 had got an easement apparent and continuous and necessary for enjoying their lands which w...
Sreekanta Sundararamiah and ors. Vs. Tadikamalla Venkatasubbiah and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.788; (1924)46MLJ380
Krishnan, J.1. In this suit the competition is between the purchasers of the plaint property in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by the plaintiffs and the purchasers in a rent sale in execution of a rent decree which the Zamindar had obtained against the pattadar of the lands in question. The father of the plaintiffs had obtained on this property a mortgage in 1897 evidenced by Ex. A. In 1909 the amount due under that mortgage came to about Rs. 508 and a new mortgage was then taken for a part of it Rs. 300 which was the principal of the old mortgage, and that deed is Ex. B. That deed was executed, as is evidenced by its' date, after the passing of the Estates Land Act. That deed says that it is taken for Rs. 300 due under the previous deed, and there is a statement that Rs. 208 are still due under the old deed. The plaintiffs brought a suit on the second of these deeds, Ex. B, and obtained a decree and brought the property to sale and purchased it themselves. But before they did...
Souriraja Naidu and anr. Vs. Rajagopalan (Minor) and ors. Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.833
Charles Gordon Spencer, Offg. C.J.1. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and. 2 and 3rd plaintiff owning adjacent plots of land, instituted this suit to establish a common right of easement to take water over the defendants' land by a channel marked A X Y B. They base their claims on allegations of easement by prescription and easement of necessity. The District Munsif finding that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had not proved any right of easement by prescription and could not claim an easement of necessity, dismissed their suit. But he granted a decree to the 3rd plaintiff on the finding that he had enjoyed the right of irrigation by means of a channel X Y for more than the statutory period. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 appealed against the dismissal of their suit. The defendants appealed against the decree given, to the 3rd plaintiff.2. The Subordinate Judge who heard the appeals, found that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 had got an easement apparent and continuous and necessary for enjoying their lands...
In Re: P.V. Radhakrishniah Chetty of K. Narayanaswami and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.128
Ramesam, J.1. This is a matter arising out of the insolvency of P.V. Chenroya Chetty and Brothers.2. The history of the family is briefly told. The family belongs to Vayalpad in the Cnddappah District. They belong to the Komati caste, the premier trading caste in Southern India, specially among the Telugus. Chenroya, the grand-father of the insolvents, carried on his business, namely, a money-lending business, at Vayalpad. After him, his son Venkataramiah continued the old business. He tried business in grain in partnership with others, but this was not very successful. In 1911 a cloth business was started. Soon after this, Venkataramiah retired and his eldest son began to attend to the business. In 1912 the eldest son opened a piece goads business at Madras under the style of P.V. Chenroya Chetty and Brothers. The second son Ramanujam Chetty was attending college. In 1917, he attained majority and left the college. In 19118-1919 the business was extended to Bombay and the third brothe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »