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.
Appajee Pillai Vs. Manika Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.30
Devadoss, J.1. The only point urged in this second appeal is that the Subordinate Judge's finding is not a legal finding, The suit is on a promissory-note. The plaintiff stated that cash consideration passed, at the time of the execution of the promissory-note. The defendant's plea was that no cash consideration passed at the time, but it was executed, as a sort of security, for his good conduct, in connection with the partnership which was being carried on between him and the brother of the promisee of the promissory-note. The Subordinate Judge found that no cash consideration passed and the story of the defendant is true. Mr. Sesha Iyengar wants to build an argument upon the last but one sentence of his judgment.The result is inevitable that the promissory-note Ex. A, renewing Ex. B is also a security merely for accounting for sums drawn by defendant as a partner.2. From this, he wants to argue that the Subordinate Judge found that there was a contingent liability, arising at the tim...
Sri Toleti Satyanarayanamoorthi Vs. Jayanti Butchayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad606; (1925)48MLJ249
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. In the case from which this revision petition arises the petitioner was the defendant. He filed an application under Order 23, Rule 3, for recording a compromise alleged to have taken place between him and the plaintiff to be recorded. The Court of first instance found for the compromise and passed an order for its being duly recorded. On appeal the Subordinate Judge disbelieved the case for the defendant and found that the fact that there had been a compromise was not satisfactorily established and dismissed the petition of the defendant. Before merit has been sought to be urged by the learned vakil who appeared for the petitioner that the plaintiff had no right of appeal to the Lower Appellate Court because the order passed by the Court of first instance became merged in the preliminary decree passed at the same time by the Court. Reliance was placed for that position on the decision in Alamelu Animal v. Rama Aiyar : (1922)43MLJ290 . There the learned Judges,...
Vangali Venkanna and ors. Vs. Polamarasetti Chinna Appalaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ217
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this Second Appeal is that the suit is barred by limitation.2. Both the Courts have held that Article 97 of the Limitation Act applies to the case. But Mr. Satyanarayana contends that Article 62 applies. In this case the plaintiff was actually in possession of the property on the date of the sale which was on 26th April, 1909. The property which he purchased was a carpenter-blacksmith inam. Defendants 3 and 4 were appointed as village blacksmiths and they brought a suit in the Revenue Court for possession and a decree was given on 26th May, 1917. Possession was actually given to defendants 3 and 4 on 7th September, 1918. Both the Courts have held that limitation began to run only from the date on which the plaintiff was dispossessed of the property, i.e., 7th September, 1918. The suit was brought on 10th September, 1918. Now the contention of the appellant is that the sale itself was void ab initio and the period of limitation must be calculated...
A.S. Pakkir Mahamud Rowthen and anr. Vs. Pichai thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad625
Odgers, J.1. This was a representative suit brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the other Hindu inhabitants of the village of Perungulam, Ramnad taluk, against the defendants who are Muhammadans and settlers in that village. The plaintiffs are Maravars and they allege a right to throw seedlings into the tank adjoining the Ayyankoil at the Mulaikottu festival held every year. These seedlings are raised in the houses of the Maravars. Eight days after sowing they are thrown into the tank. The seedlings are watered with the water of the tank and are grown in mud pots and manured with dung. One of the plaintiffs' witnesses (P.W. No. 3) says that all kinds of animal excreta are used as manure.2. The plaintiffs put their right on two grounds: (1) Prescriptive title or casement by prescription as found by the lower Courts; and (2) custom. They ask for a declaration that the tank belongs to the Hindu community and for an injunction restraining the Muhammadans from obstructing ...
Vengali Venkanna and ors. Vs. Polamarasetti China Appala Swami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad749
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this second appeal is that the suit is barred by limitation.2. Both the courts have held that Article 97 of the Limitation Act applies to the case, but Mr. Satyanarayana contends that Article 62 applies. In this case the plaintiff was actually in possession of the property on the date of the sale, which was on 264-1909. The property which he purchased was a carpenter-blacksmith inam. Defendants 3 and 4 were appointed as village blacksmiths and they brought a suit in the revenue court for possession and a decree was given on 26-5-17. Possession was actually given to defendants 3 and 4 on 7-9-1918. Both the Courts have held that limitation began to run only from the date on which the plaintiff was dispossessed of the property i.e., 7-9-18. The suit was brought on 1-9-18. Now the contention of the appellant is that the sale itself was void ab initio and the period of limitation must be calculated from the date of the sale i.e. 26-4-09 and the relie...
Devabhaktuni Butchamma Vs. Devabhaktuni Punnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad896
1. The lower Court, first of all, granted plaintiff an injunction, restraining defendants from interfering with her possession of the property in A and B schedules of the plaint merely on the ex parte statement of Plaintiff that she was in possession and without issuing notice to the other side, or giving them opportunity of being heard. This was clearly improper. When 1st defendant naturally moved to set that injunction aside, the lower Court then heard both sides and passed the order under appeal.2. That order is itself very defective, in that (a) there is no finding that the property is in danger of waste or damage et cetera and (h) there is no finding as to who is in prima facie possession of the property, with which the injunction is concerned.3. We are asked to support the order of the lower Court, because it can be supported from affidavits filed in the lower Court, from paragraphs 7 and 8 of defendant's written statement and from the presumption of law that possession follows t...
Vangali Venkatanna and ors. Vs. Polamanasetti China Appalaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.755
Devadoss, J.1. The first point argued in this second appeal is that the suit is barred by limitation.2. Both the Courts have held that Article 97 of the Limitation Act applies to the case. But Mr. Sitarama Rao contends that Article 62 applies. In this case the plaintiff was actually in possession of the property on the date of the sale, which was on 26th April 1909. The property which he purchased was a carpenter-blacksmith inam. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as village blacksmiths and they brought a suit in the Revenue Court for possession and a decree was given on 26th May 1917. Possession was actually given to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on 7th September 1.918. Both the Courts have held that limitation began to run only from the date on which the plaintiff was dispossessed of the property, i.e., 7th September 1918. The suit was brought on 10th September 1918. Now the contention of the appellant is that the sale itself was void ab initio and the period of limitation must be calc...
In Re: Samanathu Kusunugadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.715
1. This is a Reference from the learned Sessions Judge of Ganjam submitting the records in Sessions Case No. 27 of 1924 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 case to this Court with a recommendation that the verdict be set aside and the accused convicted.2. The facts are simple. The prosecution case is that on the 1st day of June 1924 at night the accused entered the house of P.W. No. 4 removing a thatti door in order to enter, that after he got into the house P.W. No. 4's wife roused him being taken on alarm, that P.W. No. 4 discovered the accused in the house and cried out, that the accused ran away and P.W. No. 4 pursued him and caught him. The accused then struck P.W. No. 4 on the head with an iron instrument and also with P.W. No. 4's own chembu which he had carried away. Four people came up on hearing P.W. No. 4's alarm P....
A.S. Pakkiar Mahamud Rowthen and anr. Vs. Pichai thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.465
Odgers, J.1. This was a representative suit brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the other Hindu inhabitants of the village of Perungulam, Ramnad Taluk, against the defendants who are Muhammadans and settlers in that village. The plaintiffs are Maravars and they allege a right to throw seedlings into the tank adjoining the Ayyankoil at the Mulaikottu festival held every year. These seedlings are raised in the houses of the Maravars. Eight days after sowing they are thrown into the tank. The seedlings are watered with the water of the tank and are grown in mud pots and manured with dung. One of the plaintiffs' witnesses (P.W. No. 3) says that all kinds of animal excreta are used as manure. The plaintiffs put their right on two grounds: (1) Prescriptive title or easement by prescription as found by the lower Courts and (2) Custom, They ask for a declaration that the tank belongs to the Hindu community and for an injunction restraining the Muhammadans from obstructing the...
Peria Koil Kelvi Appan Govinda Ramaniya Peria Jeeyangarswami Vs. Mahom ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad834; 87Ind.Cas.386
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff, appellant, instituted a suit, for establishing his right to the suit-land and for recovery of its possession from the defendants. He alleged in the plaint that the land belonged to the Devasthanam, of which he was the Dharmakartha, that it was leased to the father of the defendant and that when possession was demanded of them it was refused. The contesting defendant viz., the 2nd defendant, claimed the land as his own, as he and his ancestors enjoyed, it, for more than 50 years, as owners without any objection. On these pleadings, three issues were raised, namely : (1) Is the plaint lease true? (2) Does the plaintiff possess a valid title to the suit property? and (3) Is the suit barred by limitation under Article 144 of the Limitation Act? The District Munsif found in favour of the plaintiff, on all these issues and gave him a decree. On appeal by the 2nd defendant, the Subordinate Judge held that the property belonged to the plaint Devasthanam, but ...