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.
Addepalli Kondayya Vs. Yandru Veeranna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.672
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in A.S. No. 45 of 1921.2. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement whereby the defendant, was permitted to rest the beams of a structure upon plaintiff's wall, and to open certain cupboards in the said wall, in exchange for land which plaintiff added to his property. Plaintiff alleges that the full amount of land has not been made over to him, and sues to have the cupboards and beams removed. The lower Appellate Court has found that less land than what is alleged by plaintiff was agreed to be exchanged, and that defendant has fulfilled his part of the agreement. Accordingly it has dismissed plaintiff's suit and plaintiff appeals.3. Two points have been argued.(1). The lower Appellate Court's finding on the facts is not based upon any evidence (10th ground of appeal).(2). The exchange pleaded by defendant is not valid since there was no registered document and no delivery (2nd ground).4. I do not...
Sengamalam Vs. Logambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad471
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is whether Ex. I is a will or a deed of gift. The District Munsif held that Ex. I was not a will; but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, held that it was a will.2. Ex. I was executed on 9th January, 1898 by one Subrahmania Pillay, aged 26 years, who was then residing in a village in Nannilam Taluk, Tanjore District. On the date of the execution of the will, he was suffering from cholera and his condition was serious. He wanted to make a provision, for the performance of his obsequies and also for the obsequies of his mother. Under this document, he gave some property to his nephew Chidambaram and some other property to one Iyyaru, another nephew; he gave some property to his mother, to be enjoyed for life and some property he gave for some charity.3. The contention of the appellant is that the document is a deed of gift, and not having been registered, it cannot take effect. In construing a document of this kind, the whole of th...
Sengamalam, Minor, by Next Friend Kandaswami Pillai Vs. Legambal and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.8
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is whether Ex. I is a Will or a deed of gift. The District Munsif held that Ex. I was not a Will, but the Subordinate Judge on appeal held that it was a Will.2. Exhibit I was executed on 9th January 1898 by one Subramania Pillai aged 26 years, who was then residing in a village in Nannilam taluk, Tanjore District. On the date of the execution of the Will he was suffering from cholera and his condition was serious. He wanted to make a provision for the performance of his obsequies and also for the obsequies of his mother. Under this document he gave some property to his nephew Chidambaram and some other property to one Iyyaru another nephew; he gave some property to his mother to be enjoyed for life and some property he gave for some charity. The contention of the appellant is that the document is a deed of gift, and not having been registered, it cannot take effect. In construing a document of this kind the whole of the documen...
Chairman, Municipal Council Vs. Gajireddi Seetharamayya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad584; 90Ind.Cas.152
ORDERJackson, J.1. This is a petition by the Chairman of Chicacole Municipality, seeking to set aside the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Cr. A. No. 67 of 1923, reversing the judgment of the Sub-Magistrate of Chioaeole, in C.C. No. 147 of 1923.2. The Chairman issued a notice to the respondent under Section 219(1) of the Madras Act, V of 1920, calling upon him to remove a dangerous tree. The respondent failed to comply with this notice and was prosecuted under Section 313(c) of the same Act. The only points for determination in such a case are whether the order under Section 219(1) is lawful, and whether that order has not been complied with. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has gone into the question, whether the Chairman was right in thinking the tree to be dangerous. He can at most consider whether the tree never appeared to the Chariman to be dangerous, without considering whether the Chairman was justified in forming such an impression; for in-stance, if a tree were one f...
Sriramsubba Rao and anr. Vs. Chitturi Venkatratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad945
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised by Mr. Ramadoss in the two connected appeals (Second Appeals Nos. 848 and 849 of 1922) is that the lower Courts have gone wrong with regard to the finding that the property was purchased benami for the partnership in the name of the plaintiff in Suit No. 206 of 1917 (Second Appeal No. 848). This is a question of fact and the lower Courts have found that the plaint property was purchased in the name of Subba Rao plaintiff-appellant in Second Appeal No. 848, for the benefit of partnership. There is nothing in this contention.2. The second contention is that Exhibit III which is an unregistered deed of release should not have been received in evidence and that no parol evidence should have been admitted to prove the transaction evidenced by Exhibit III. The contention of Mr. Ramadoss is that under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, parol evidence is not admissible to prove the terms of an agreement reduced to writing, Section 91 is 'When the terms of ft ...
M. Rudrappa Vs. K. Mariappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad490; 92Ind.Cas.385
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff's suit was substantially for a declaration of the rights of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 to the plaint lands and also for delivery of possession.' During the pendency of the suit plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 sold their rights to plaintiffs Nos. 5 and 6. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to the members of the Racheyla family and it was purchased by the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 one Hampayya of Idukal on the 3rd of September 1912 under Ex. A. The case of the defendants is that the property belonged to the family of Ponpayya and Mallayya, that they took a sale-deed of it from the Racherla family in the name of Mallayya's father-in-law, Harupyya of Idukal, that it was a mere benami transaction, that Pompayya and Mallayya were always inpossession, that thelandsnowbelong to defendants Nos. 4 and 5 the children of Pompayya and Mallayya, and that the lands are now being held by the 2nd defendant o...
Ramaswami Alias Palunna Nathan, Minor, by Guardian 2 and 3 and ors. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ829
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this appeal may be briefly stated:The plaintiff, the 1st defendant's father and two others carried on a partnership business at Zanzibar. O.S. No. 143 of 1909 was filed in the Subordinate Court of Madura East for its dissolution. In that suit, the present plaintiff was the 5th plaintiff and the father of the present 1st defendant was the 1st defendant. A preliminary decree was passed on 27th October, 1909, and a Commissioner was appointed. The Temporary Subordinate Court of Ramnad, to whose file the suit was then transferred, confirmed the report of the Commissioner. Paragraph 6 of the order confirming the report runs as follows :- ' It is therefore ordered that the 1st defendant do forthwith pay into Court the sum of Rs. 2,611-6-3 being the amount found due to the partnership by him, that, in default of such payment, the 5th plaintiff is appointed Receiver to realise and collect the said amount with power to bring and defend suits in his own name, etc. (see ...
Ramaswami Nathan and ors. Vs. M.P.M. Muthiah Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad279
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this appeal may be briefly stated:2. The plaintiff, the first defendant's father and two others carried on a partnership business at Zanzibar. O.S. No. 143 of 1909 was filed in the Subordinate Court of Madura East for its dissolution. In that, suit, the present plaintiff was the 5th plaintiff and the father of the present 1st defendant was the 1st defendant. A preliminary decree was passed on 27th October, 1909, and a Commissioner was appointed. The Temporary Subordinate Court of Ramnad, to whose file the suit was then transferred, confirmed the report of the Commissioner. Paragraph 6 of the order confirming the report runs as follows:It is therefore ordered that the 1st defendant do forthwith pay into Court the sum of Rs. 2.611-6-3 being the amount found due to the partnership by him, that, in default of such payment, the 5th plaintiff is appointed Receiver to realise and collect the said amount with power to bring and defend suits in his own name, etc. (see...
Ramasami Alias Palunna Nathan and ors. Vs. M.P.M. Muthayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad482
1. The facts of this appeal may be briefly stated. The plaintiff, the first defendant's father, and two others carried on a partnership business at Zanzibar. Original Suit No. 143 of 1909 was filed in the Subordinate Court of Madura (East) for its dissolution. In that suit, the present plaintiff was the fifth plaintiff and the father of the present first defendant was the first defendant. A preliminary decree was passed on 27th October 1909 and a Commissioner was appointed. The Temporary Subordinate Court of Ramnad, to whose file the suit was then transferred, confirmed the report of the Commissioner. Paragraph 6 of the order confirming the report runs as follows :--'It is, therefore, ordered that the first defendant do forthwith pay into Court the sum of Rs. 2,611-6-3 being the amount found due to the partnership by him, that in default in such payment, the fifth plaintiff is appointed Receiver to realize and collect the said amount with power to bring and defend suits in his own name...
Subramania Iyer Vs. A. Subban Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1130; 90Ind.Cas.1047
1. This case is on all fours with Veeraiyan Chettiar v. Ponnusami Chettiar (1911) 35 Mad. 362 and is a stronger case than Sowcar Lodd Govindadoss v. Muniappa Naidu (1908) 31 Mad. 534 the remarks in which also support the view of the Court below. It is true that Lodd Govindadoss v. Muniappa Naidu (1908) 31 Mad. 534 was disapproved in Ulagappa Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetty (1916) 3 L.W. 171 but this latter decision was reversed in Letters Patent Appeal in Ramanadhan Chetty v. Katha Velan (1917) 41 Mad. 353. In Reoti Lal v. Manna Kunwar A.I.R. 1922 All. 70 the principal's name was not disclosed. The passage from Dicey's Parties to an Action, page 134 (1870 Edition) apparently deals with a similar case the only authority mentioned being Leake on Contracts, p. 302. The view we are adopting is in accordance with Daniel's Negotiable Instruments, Section 1187 latter part. There is no section about payee like Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of maker and the general princi...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »