Chennai Court October 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.
A.N. Ramasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Narayanasami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ100
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned vakil for the respondents that no appeal lies as the order of remand was not made on account of the reversal of the Subordinate Judge's finding on a preliminary point. As will be seen from the statement of facts lower down, the question in the case on which the Courts below have differed is whether the trial of the suit (as between plaintiffs and the contesting defendants 4 to 9) is barred by the events in an earlier suit. Following the Full Bench decision in Raman Nayar v. Krishnan, Nambudripad (ILR 1933) M 900 : 43 MLJ 547 we think this is a preliminary point and overrule the objection.2. The facts are as follows : The defendants 1 to 3 were the owners of three sets of properties A, B and C. For convenience I will refer to the first two as property A-B. They created over all the three a first mortgage in favour of the 4th defendant (17--5--02) and a second mortgage in favour of...
A.N. Ramaswami Pillai and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad483a
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned vakil for the respondents that no appeal lies as the order of remand was not made on account of the reversal of the Subordinate Judge's finding on a preliminary point. As will be seen from the statement of facts lower down, the question in the case on which the Courts below have differed is whether the trial of the suit, (as between plaintiffs and the contesting defendants 4 to 9) is barred by the events in an earlier suit. Following the Full Bench decision in Raman Nay or v. Krishnan Nambudripad A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 505 we think this is a preliminary point and overrule the objection.2. The facts are as follows : - The defendants 1 to 3 were the owners of three sets of properties A, B and C. For convenience I will refer to the first two as property A-B. They created over all the three a first mortgage in favour of the 4th defendant (17-5-02) and a second mortgage in favour of plainti...
Murugappa Naicker Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad613
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application to set aside an order passed by the District Munsif of Conjeevaram, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, directing the prosecution of the petitioner before me under S, 186 of the Indian Penal Code. It was held by the District Munsif that the petitioner obstructed an Amin of his Court in the lawful discharge of his public functions, by pulling him by the band, when he went to deliver possession of a certain shop to the decree-holder, in O.S. No. 189 of 1922, on the file of his Court. The Amin, no doubt, had a warrant for delivery of possession of the shop to the decree-holder, and no doubt it may be, as the Munsif says, that some obstruction was offered to the Amin, in delivering possession of the shop. That is a matter, which will have to be decided later, if necessary; but for the purpose of the present case, I will assure e that such obstruction was offered by the petitioner before me.2. The point taken before me is that, in doing so, ho c...
(Viyyuru) Lakshama Reddi and anr. Vs. Alla Vira Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1085
1. As to guardianship of property the order of the Court below will stand. We are not satisfied from the affidavit of the appellants that any evidence was tendered but refused. It is open to them to file a fresh petition for showing that the father is unfit and for his removal from guardianship at any time they like.2. As to guardianship of the person, agreeing with the view taken by my brother (Jackson. J.,) in C.M.A. No. 127 of 1924, I think the petitioner in the lower Court (respondent) cannot fee appointed or declared a guardian under Section 19 of Act VIII of 1890. If the Legislature intended that the prohibition in. Section 19 should apply only to persons other than the husband in : Clause (a) and father in Clause (b) the fact ought to lie made clear.3. But there is no objection to an order directing the return of the child to the respondent if the District Judge thinks fit to do so. He has not applied his mind to this aspect of the case. The case will go lack for disposal by him...
Putti Sethu Rao Vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1188
Ramesam, J.1. The only point argued in appeal is the question of limitation. The facts necessary for understanding how the question arises may be briefly stated. The suit is by the trustee of the temple of Venkatramanaswami, in Tandoni village (Karur taluk, Trichinopoly district) to recover from the defendants, who are the sthaneekas and archakas of the temple, the collection of offerings of money, etc., in the hundials of the temple. The plaint is dated 15th August, 1919. The offerings sought to be recovered cover the period 25th August, 1911 to 31st August 1914. To avoid the obvious bar of limitation, the facts next to be mentioned are relied on. In 1893 by Exhibit M, the then members of the Devasthanam Committee granted a perpetual lease of the right to collect the offerings to the predecessors-in-title of the defendants. On 25th August 1911, two worshippers of the temple filed a suit to declare that the lease is invalid and not binding on the temple. (O.S. No. 923 of 1911). On a pe...
P.M. Subramania Pillai Vs. Corera and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad457; (1925)48MLJ121
1. These are three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, two being against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad and one against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. Practically the same points arise in all the three appeals. The questions arise in execution of a mortgage decree. The preliminary decree was passed on the 17th July, 1920 by the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. It was a decree for a sum of Rs. 30,836 and odd and provides for the recovery of the amount by the sale of the properties in the first schedule up to a limit of Rs. 20,000 and of the properties in the second schedule up to a limit of Rs. 10,000. The balance, if any, was to be recovered from the first defendant personally. The final decree was passed on 21st March, 1922. In the interval between the two decrees, a sum of Rs. 10,000 was paid, and the final decree mentions this fact and provides for the usual decree for the balance. On the 10th November, 1922, an agreement was arrived at between the mortgagee...
Veeraraghavachariar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad837; (1925)48MLJ204
Devadoss, J.1. S.A. No. 688 of 1921 : The first point raised in this Second Appeal is that the acquisition of house 'sites for Panchamas is not a public purpose and the Court can go into the question whether it is a public purpose or not notwithstanding the notification by the Government that the acquisition was for a public purpose. The second point raised is that Section 6, Clause 3, of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is ultra vires of Indian Legislature inasmuch as the clause states that the said declaration, meaning the declaration by the Government, shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for public purposes or for a company as the case may be. It is convenient to consider the first two points together.2. The argument of Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar for the appellant is that by enacting the provision in Clause 3 of Section 6 that the declaration shall be conclusive evidence, that the land is needed for public purposes or for a company, the Indian Legislature has taken away t...
A.L.S.K. Kadappa Chetti Vs. R.S.S.T. Thirupathi Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad444
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The 1st defendant drew the Hundi in question, in favour of the 2nd defendant, the drawee being one Suppiah Chetty of Rangoon. The 2nd defendant endorsed the Hundi in favour of the plaintiff, who instituted the present suit. The claim was made against the 1st defendant on the ground that he was the drawer and against the 2nd defendant, on the ground that he was the endorser.2. The first question that arises for determination is, 'was this Hundi presented for acceptance or payment to the drawee at Rangoon?'3. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff has not proved that the bill was duly presented for payment and has dismissed the suit against the 2nd defendant.4. The Hundi bears the date, 29th April, 1916. It was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff, on 7th May 1916. The plaintiff says that he sent the Hundi to one Malayandi Chetti of Rangoon, requesting him to present it to the drawee for payment. Malayandi has not been called. But the plaintiff h...
In Re: S. Kusungadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad466
1. This is a reference from the learned Sessions Judge of Ginjam, submitting the records in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1921, in which the jury unanimously found the accused not guilty of offences under Sections 457, 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, considering the verdict perverse, has sent up the casa to this Court, with a recommendation that the verdict be set aside and the accused convicted.2. The facts are simple. The prosecution casa is that on the 1st day of June, 1924, at night, the accused entered the house of P.W. 4, removing a thatty door, in order to enter, that, after he got into the house, P.W. 4's wife roused him, being taken on alarm, that P.W. 4 discovered the accused and cried out, that the accused ran away and P.W. 4 pursued him and caught him. The accused then struck P.W. 4 on the head, with an iron instrument, and also with P.W. 4's own chembu, which he had carried away. Four people came up on hearing P.W. 4's alarm, P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and 8 and assi...
(A.L.V.R.S.T.) Periya Karuppan Chettiar Vs. D.R. Angappa Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad483
1. This is an appeal by a creditor against the order of the District Court of Salem, declaring the first respondent an insolvent. Originally one creditor filed the petition and afterwards three more petitioners were added, one of whom was the insolvent's sister.2. The appellant is the creditor who opposes. Two points are taken before us. The first is that the District Court of Salem has no jurisdiction to declare the first respondent us insolvent. There is no doubt that the first respondent was originally a resident of Komarapalayam. He conducted bus business between Komarapalayam and several other places. In the license issued by the Collector, in 1921, he was described as a resident of Komarapalayani. Letters have been addressed from merchants of Madras to him, as a resident of Komarapalayam. It may be that latterly he was carrying on bus business between Bhavani and other places in Coimbatore. But this does not make him exclusively a resident of Bhavani. He had houses both at Bhavan...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »