Chennai Court November 1924 Judgments
Linga Reddi Vs. M. Chengalraya Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad734; 87Ind.Cas.42; (1925)48MLJ417
Krishnan, J.1. In this case a suit had been brought by a member of a Hindu family on behalf of himself and his minor son for partition against his co-parceners; but, before the suit was ripe for hearing, matters were compromised between the plaintiffs and defendants and an application was made by the defendants to have the compromise recorded in Court and a decree passed in its terms. The question necessarily arose before the Munsif as to whether the compromise was beneficial to the minor or not, for, before the compromise can be enforced, when a minor is involved in the matter, the sanction of the Court is necessary. In the meanwhile, an application was made by the minor's maternal grandfather to have the father removed from his place as next friend of the minor and himself substituted in that position. That petition was also heard by the Munsif along with the petition to record the compromise. Some other petitions were also filed, but it is not necessary to refer to them at present. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Syed Mahamad Gouse and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ571
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These stamp references were posted to be spoken to at the instance of Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar, but after hearing the arguments of the learned vakils on both sides, I do not see any reason to modify or alter the order which I have already made.2. The only point now urged by Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar is that the decision of this Court reported in Swaminatha Aiyar v. Ramier : AIR1925Mad421 is against the view which I have taken in my prior order and that I should, therefore, reconsider my order in the light of the said decision. I will assume that if the decision in Swaminatha Aiyar v. Ramier : AIR1925Mad421 has really taken a contrary view, it is open to me to reconsider my order. In that case the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they and the 1st defendant were the lawfully appointed trustees of a certain temple; and they prayed for a direction that defendants 2 and 3 should be made to restore the office of trustee to them and for an injunction restraining them ...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Unni and Anr. Vs. Kummakattil Ezhuvan Kandan's son Raman
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.560; (1925)48MLJ596
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff obtained a compromise decree, by which if money was paid within the 30th Meenom, 1907 (12th April, 1922) the sum of Rs. 285 was to be taken in full satisfaction of the claim. The decree provided that, in default of such payment, the defendants were to pay the plaintiff the whole of the plaint amount with costs. The defendants put in an application to the Lower Court to have satisfaction entered of the decree, on the ground that he tendered the amount of Rs. 285 to the plaintiff, on the 12th April, 1922, but as the plaintiff did not receive that amount, he sent it by money order to the plaintiff, which again was refused and he therefore had the money ready with him to be deposited in Court to give a challan to make that deposit. That was on the re-opening day of the Court, after the mid-summer holidays, on the 12th June, 1922. The challan was granted and the money was deposited on the re-opening day. The Lower Court has found that the alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.S. Satheppa Chettiar Vs. K. Muthusami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad537
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the lower appellate Court in a promissory note suit. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the District Munsif's Court on an on-demand promissory note for Rs. 700. The defendant admitted execution and the receipt of the money, but pleaded that the promissory note was taken by the plaintiff as a sort of guarantee that the plaintiff would not resile from his bargain to empower the defendant to manage his lands and get possession of them for him by criminal proceedings, that the plaintiff promised to pay him Rs. 200 a month for his services and a bonus of Rs. 500 if the criminal proceedings turned out successful, that he thus got the Rs. 700 as a sort of advance of his pay and bonus which were going to fall due to him, and that this advance was to be discharged as and when that pay and bonus became due and that the plaintiff agreed to this course being adopted ; the defendant further pleaded that pay to the extent of Rs. 200 and more and th...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaran Unni (minor) and Anr. Vs. Kummakattil Ezhuvan Kandan's son Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad743
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff obtained a compromise decree, by which if money was paid within the 30th Meenom 1907 (12th April, 1922) the sum of Rs. 285 was to be taken in full satisfaction of the claim. The decree provided that in default of such payment, the defendants were to pay the plaintiff the whole of the plaint amount with costs. The defendant put in an application to the lower Court to have satisfaction entered of the decree, on the ground that he tendered the amount of Rs. 285 to the plaintiff on the 12th April, 1922, but as the plaintiff did not receive that amount, he sent it by money order to the plaintiff, which again was refused and he therefore had the money ready with him to be deposited in Court and to give, a chellan to make that deposit. That was on the reopening day of the Court, after the midsummer holidays, on the 12th June 1922. The chellan was granted and the money was deposited, on the re-opening day. The lower Court has found that the alleged te...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Syed Mahammad Gouse and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad804
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. In S.R. No. 9636 of C.C. 1923 in, Appeal No. 186 of 1923 : This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court Fees Act as regards the proper Court-fee to be paid on the memorandum of appeal filed by the 6th defendant.2. This suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is the Sajjadanashin of two durgas in the South Arcot District and for the possession of the durgas and their properties. The plaintiff alleged that he was appointed by the last Sajjada as his successor and that he took possession of the durgas and the properties on the last Sajjada's death, but that he was subsequently dispossessed by the first defendant, one of the female heirs of the original family of the founder. The lower Court holding that the plaintiff was not nominated by the last Sajjada and also that he was not the nearest male heir, dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court remanded the Suit to the lower Court to reh...
Tag this Judgment!S.N.S. Satheppa Chettiar by Authorised Agent, Chidambara Velan Vs. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.393
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand by the lower Appellate Court in a promissory note suit. The plaintiff sued the defendant in the District Munsif's Court on an on-demand promissory note for Rs. 700. The defendant admitted execution and the receipt of the money, but pleaded that the promissory-note was taken by the plaintiff as a sort of guarantee that the plaintiff would not resile from his bargain to empower the defendant to manage his lands and get possession of them for him by criminal proceedings that the plaintiff promised to pay him Rs. (sic) a month for his services and a bonus of Rs. 500 if the criminal proceedings turned out successful, that he thus got the Rs. 700 as a sort of advance of his pay and bonus which were going to fall due to him, and that this advance was to be discharged as and when that pay and bonus became due and that the plaintiff agreed to this course being adopted; the defendant further pleaded that pay to the extent of Rs. 200 and more and th...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kimidi Annam Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1093; (1925)49MLJ192
1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of five accused persons who were charged with offences under Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal as regards the former charges is not pressed, and we are concerned only with the offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code.2. The prosecution case was that P.W. 6, a P.W. D. lascar, went to enforce an agreement regarding the distribution of water for irrigation between the two villages of Gattamangalapuram and Chinnamangalapuram, which both take water from the Venkamma Channel ; that, on a complaint from Gattamangalapuram people that Chinnamangalapuram people had deprived them of their agreed turn, he went to open the sluices for Gattamangalapuram, but when he went and got into the channel to open the doors, apparently the sluices were plank sluices, the accused set upon him and pushed him down into the channel and threatened to beat him and take away his life. The accused were tried by the Stationary Sub-Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Sinnaswami Chetti and ors. Vs. Pannadi Palani Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad779; (1925)48MLJ528
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. This case arose in connection with the probability of a breach of the peace occurring between the Chetties and the Goundans in Chennakalvalasu, hamlet of Kolathupalayam in Dharapuram Taluq, Coimbatore District, regarding the right of worship in a temple in that hamlet. The Chetties who are the petitioners before me claim it to be a temple common to themselves and to the Goundans. On the other hand, the Goundans claim that the Chetties were not entitled to the temple at all. They, of course, also denied the right of the Chetties to perform worship in this temple. The Magistrate in order to prevent a breach of the peace has taken action under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he has found, as regards the possession of the temple itself, that it is in the exclusive possession of one Palani Goundan, one of the members of the Goundans' party.2. It has been argued before me that this is not a case which should have been dealt with under Section 145 but that i...
Tag this Judgment!Chockalinga Chettiar Vs. Muthuswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.663; (1925)48MLJ518
1. This Second Appeal by the defendant arises in connection with a preliminary decree passed by the District Munsif of Tanjore in a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of the amount found due to him on settlement of accounts on the ground that he has been an agent under the defendant in a trade which the latter had been carrying on, on the understanding that his remuneration was to be one-fourth of the total profits of each year. The suit was for the recovery of one-fourth share in the profits deducting out of it Rs. 488-3-6 due by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant-appellant, contended, amongst other things, that the plaintiff was not an agent, that as the plaintiff and one Natesa Chetty not a party to the suit had been trading in partnership business, that plaintiff was entitled to one-fourth share of the profits only on the footing of a partner, that he was bound to bear a proportionate share of the losses like any other partner and that the accounts should ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »