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.
J. Venkataramayya and anr. Vs. J. Raghavalu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad492
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in the second appeal is that the second defendant is not a transferee of the right of the first defendant and that therefore Section 27 of the Specific Belief Act has no application to him. The first and the second defendants are brothers. By Ex. I, called a deed of settlement, the first defendant relinquished all his rights in the family property in favour of the second defendant. The contract of sale with the plaintiff was on 4th March, 1919. The Subordinate Judge has held that the second defendant entered into the arrangement evidenced by Ex. I with the knowledge of the contract, in favour of the plaintiff. The question is whether the second defendant is a transferee of the right of the first defendant. The argument of Mr. Lakshmanna for the appellants is that the second defendant is a member of a joint Hindu family and when the members of the family agree to divide their property, it cannot be said that there is a transfer of the right of any on...
Suleman Saheb and ors. Vs. Perichevla Venkatraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad670
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the lower Appellate Court wrongly threw the onus of proof as regards the necessity for sale on defendants 8 to 11. The sale was by the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff and is said to be for the discharge of a debt contracted by the maternal grandfather under Exhibit XIII. Exhibit XIII is found to be not a genuine document. The sale-deed was exeouted by the grandmother and hy the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time, his father acting as guardian. Mr. Somasundaram's contention is that, inasmuch as the plaintiff joined in the execution of the sale deed through his father there is a presumption that the sale was for a purpose which could bind the plaintiff. The plaintiff was at the time a minor, and the mere fact that the father joined in executing the deed would not throw the onus on the plaintiff to show that there was no necessity for the sale. The principle of law is that in the case of purchase from a limited o...
Appichi Goundan, of Unsound Mind, Represented by His Mother Pongi Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad388
Wallace, J.1. The question that arises in this revision petition is one of some difficulty. The counter-petitioner claimed, maintenance from the petitioner, under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the Sub divisional Magistrate of Gobichettipalaiyam. It was pleaded on the petitioner's behalf that he is insane and that therefore the Divisional Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure laid down in Chapter XXXIV of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate on 9th January 1924, on a petition by the petitioner's mother, apparently held the petitioner to be insane and appointed the mother as his guardian ad litem but, when the case came into Court on 24th January 1924, the Magistrate considered from his own observation of the petitioner that he was not insane or incapable of understanding the proceedings. He then, without cancelling his order appointing the mother as the guardian ad litem, heard the case and passed an order that the counter-petitioner was entitled to...
Madam Pillai Vs. Athinarayana Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad929; 87Ind.Cas.48
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is on a pro-note alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant's father and the 2nd defendant. Both the defendants pleaded that the note was a forgery. The District Munsif held that the note was a forgery, and dismissed the suit. On appeal the, Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin recorded a finding that the 1st defendant's father alone executed the pro-note and the 2nd defendant's mark was affixed to the note without her permission and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the note being a forged document so far as the 2nd defendant was concerned, it could not be enforced even against the 1st defendant. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. The learned Advocate-General for the appellant contends that the Subordinate Judge should have given a decree against the 1st defendant and that Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no bar as the 2nd defendant's mark was affixed to the pro-note with the consent of the 1st defend-ant if not b...
V.S. Gopalaswami Aiyar Vs. Kachi Kalyana Rangappa Kalakka Thola Udayar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.433; (1925)48MLJ155
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to enforce a mortgage, refusing to recognise the discharge given to the mortgagors by his paternal uncle, the 5th defendant. The question to be decided is very simple. If the plaintiff and the 5th defendant were members of a joint undivided Hindu family, the act of the 5th defendant, who was the senior male member, would be binding on the plaintiff as the Judge has found that in waiving a portion of the amount due and giving a discharge, the 5th defendant acted prudently and for the benefit of the family and this finding has not been attacked before us. If, however, on the date the 5th defendant entered into the transaction, he and the plaintiff were divided, the act of the 5th defendant would still be binding on the plaintiff as it was subsequently ratified by the plaintiff's next friend in the agreement of compromise which was ultimately made a decree of the Court in Suit No. 9 of 1909 and in this connection I must observe that...
P. Balamani Ammal Vs. K.N. Rama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad786; 87Ind.Cas.57; (1925)48MLJ273
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit to enforce two mortgages which he alleged were executed by the 1st defendant in favour of certain third parties from whom he obtained assignments of those mortgages. The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying that any part of the sum of Rs. 31,921-7-8 for the recovery of which the suit was filed was due and making various charges of gross fraud against the plaintiff. On the 6th August, 1921, the case came on for hearing when the 1st defendant's vakil applied for an adjournment on certain grounds to which we shall presently refer, but the adjournment was refused. The vakil then said he had no instructions and the Subordinate Judge passed an ex par(? decree for the sum claimed against the 1st defendant. We are not concerned with the other defendants but we may mention that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were impleaded as subsequent mortgagees and that the 9th defendant obtained an assignment subsequent to the suit of the 2nd defe...
M. Rama Rao Vs. K. Rengaswamy Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad419
ORDER1. In January 1920 respondent applied to be discharged from guardianship. Two years later the District Judge granted him a discharge under Section 40 of the Act, at the same times directing him under Section 41(3) to deliver his accounts and all property in his possession belonging 'to the minor. In doing so, the District Judge expressed the opinion that ho could not make an investigation into the accounts. The ruling he relied on Nabu Bopari v. Sheikh Mahomed [1900] 5 C.W.N. 207 has no application hero ; for it dealt with the case of a minor who had come of age.2. When the Court has ordered a, guardian under Section 41(3) to deliver accounts and property in Ills possession, there is still a further question to be decided, that is to say, whether he is to be discharged from further liability under the next subjection, I am unable to sec how it is to be decided without an investigation into the accounts. I cannot for a moment concede that the Court is bound to accept without scruti...
Ammayya Pillai Vs. Narayana Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad487
Devadoss, J.1. This Second Appeal relates only to item 4 of the plaint. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation. It is urged by Mr. Seshacharri, on behalf of the appellant, that the suit is not barred against the 5th defendant, as he bought the property, after the institution of the suit. He urges that there has been a devolution of interest, during the pendency of the suit and therefore, limitation does not run against the plaintiff. The necessary dates are these : - The suit was filed on 11th December, 1919. The application to bring the 4th defendant on record was made on 23rd April, 1920 and the order on that petition was passed on 1st May, 1920. Before the order was made, 4th defendant had alienated the property to the 5th defendant and the alienation was on 15th March, 1920. The application to bring the 5th defendant on record was made on 14th June, 1920. The application was ordered on 24th June 1920. The plaintiff, who sues, as reversi...
Ammaya Pillai Vs. Narayana Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.187
Devadoss, J.1. This second appeal relates only to item No. 4 of the plaint. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation. It is urged by Mr. Seshachari on behalf of the appellant that the suit is not barred against the 5th defendant as he brought the property after the institution of the suit, and he urges that there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of the suit, and therefore, limitation does not run against the plaintiff.2. The necessary dates are these: The suit was filed on 11th December 1919. The application to bring the 4th defendant on record was made on 23rd April 1920 and the order on that petition was passed on 1st May 1920. Before the order was made 4th defendant had alienated the property to the 5th defendant and the alienation was on 15th March 1920. The application to bring the 5th defendant on record was made on 14th June 1920. The application was ordered on 24th June 1920. The plaintiff, who sues as reversioner...
Murugappa Naicker Vs. Rex
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ97
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 Section 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 hand 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 assume that such obstruction was offered by the petitioner before me.2. The point taken before me is that, in doing so, he committ...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »