Chennai Court November 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.
Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar (Died) and ors. Vs. Dhanakoti Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad965; 87Ind.Cas.552; (1925)48MLJ661
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this Second Appeal are simple and may be thus stated.2. The plaintiff's husband, Neelaveni Naicker, was the original owner of the property. He mortgaged it to a Fund at St. Thomas Mount. Unable to pay the mortgage debt he sold the house to his brother-in-law Appu Naicker for Rs. 600 (Ex. II, dated 19th September, 1907) and paid off the debt. Some time after, Appu Naicker was in need of Rs. 600 and applied to Neelavani for finding another purchaser. The latter found a willing vendee in the defendant and caused Appu Naicker to sell the property to the defendant (Ex. III, dated 26th November, 1909). At the time of the sale, the plaintiff, her husband and the defendant entered into an arrangement that the defendant should execute an agreement in favour of the plaintiff containing the following terms, viz., that the plaintiff should keep the suit house in her possession, that the plaintiff and her husband should pay regularly Rs. 4-8-0 every month or once in two m...
Chokalinga Chettiar Vs. Muthuswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad768
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 bin 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 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 be was bound to bear a proportionate share of the losses like any other partner and that the accounts should be e...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Kimidi Annan Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad867
Wallace, J.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 renal Code. The appeal as regards the former charge 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 Stationa...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Basudevadoss Badrinarayan Doss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad723; (1925)48MLJ423
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. I am of the same opinion. I have had doubts in this case but the argument that concludes the matter to my mind is the fact which is known to every one familiar with these matters, viz., that, in many cases, the piece of paper which we call a patta is the only document that a ryot holds in respect of his; land, and that to say he cannot effect a valid equitable mortgage of that piece of paper, would be in effect to say that he could not equitably mortgage his land at all a result which I cannot believe to have been the desire of, or contemplated by, the framers of the Transfer of Property Act. I would rather wish to guard myself against the suggestion of my learned brother that, where a statute gives a definition for an instrument, that definition can be controlled by the understanding of the common people with regard to it, but I do not think that the decision of this case turns on that.2. Finally, I have to say this. As this is a subject-matter wit...
P.K. Bhimasena Rao Vs. C. Venugopal Mudali and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad725; (1925)48MLJ384
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I shall only say a few words with regard to the preliminary objection that was taken to the hearing of the appeal by the learned vakil for the respondent. The third defendant originally filed an appeal and by an order of this Court he was directed to furnish security for the costs of the plaintiff-respondent. He failed to do so and in consequence the appeal went off for default. The objection taken by the learned vakil for the respondent is that in form the present appeal preferred by the first defendant was a memorandum of cross-objections such as is contemplated under Rule 22, Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code. His argument was that, when the appeal went off for default and there was no hearing of the appeal the memorandum of cross-objections could not be heard; but assuming that Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to this case, the Legislature itself has provided for it in Clause 4 of Rule 22 of Order 41. Before this new Procedure Code there was ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad859; 87Ind.Cas.644; (1925)48MLJ440
Odgers, J.1. Government appeals from a decree of the District Court of Kistna whereby the plaintiff-respondent was held entitled to recover a sum paid by him to Government as cist of a certain village between 1912-1916. The village in question was originally a Devadayam inam attached to a temple at Kara. Government resumed the inam in 1908 or 1909 on the ground that the services were not being performed and granted a ryotwari patta to one Ankitam Raja Rao who was in fact the hereditary trustee. The validity of the resumption was challenged in O.S. No. 28 of 1911 of the Temporary Subordinate Judge's Court, Masulipatam. Meanwhile Ankitam Raja Rao had transferred the village to three others. The suit (O.S. No. 28 of 1911) was instituted on 20th April, 1911, and on 26th April, 1911, the present plaintiff-respondent entered into an agreement with the three persons aforesaid to purchase the village. This was completed by Ex. K, 19th August, 1911. Subsequently, plaintiff-respondent paid the a...
Vaddadi Kamaraju Vs. Kocherlakota Venkatalakshmipathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1043; 88Ind.Cas.982; (1925)49MLJ296
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. By Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act it is enacted that the chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate or other mere possibility of a like nature cannot be transferred. It is, therefore, clear that a reversioner in expectancy cannot validly transfer his spes successionis ; and that doctrine has been carried by this Court a step further in the case reported in Jagannadha Raju v. Prasada Rao : (1915)28MLJ650 that not only are transfers of expectancies forbidden but that contracts to transfer them when the reversioner enters into possession are also forbidden on the ground that, were it not so held, the provisions of the Act would be rendered entirely nugatory and futile. That reasoning of this Court has been accepted by the Privy Council in the case of Annada Mohan Roy v. Gour Mohan Mullick LR (1923) 50 IA 239 : 19232 45 MLJ 617. In the present case the plaintiff brought a suit in order to assert his position as reversioner to the esta...
Ramaswami Pillai and ors. Vs. V.R.M.K. Muthukaruppan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad737; (1925)48MLJ444
Phillips, J.1. Plaintiffs and one Muthuvairava Pillai were partners in a business carried on in Erode and other places. The 1st defendant is father of the late Muthuvairava Pillai, defendants 2 and 3 are his sons and 4th defendant is his brother's widow. Plaintiffs have brought this suit against the defendants as legal representatives of the deceased Muthuvairava Pillai alleging that the latter and the defendants were members of a joint Hindu family. The suit is to recover certain sums of money due to the partnership firm by the deceased partner, and in the original plaint there were four such items. The first and the third are said to be sums borrowed by the deceased on his own account and repaid out of partnership money; the second item is the amount said to have been overdrawn by the deceased and therefore due to the firm; the fourth item is also an amount relating to his drawings on account of his salary less the profit which is due to him.2. The accounts of the partnership, which ...
C. Janardhanan and anr. Vs. N.M. Verghese and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ451
Krishnan, J.1. These are two applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revise the common order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cochin on two applications put in by the respondents against the petitioners who were declared to have been elected in two wards in the town of Cochin to have their elections set aside. The petitioners objected before the Subordinate Judge that the petitions filed against them did not disclose any grounds on which an enquiry could be held under Rule 11 of the Election Enquiry Rules framed by the Governor in Council, Madras, and published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 30th November, 1920; and they asked therefore that the petitions should be dismissed without any enquiry. The Subordinate Judge, however, pronounced a common order in both cases deciding that the petitions did disclose reasons for going into evidence and for holding an election enquiry. it is against that order that these revision petitions have been filed in this ...
Zubeda Begam Saheba Vs. Kommana Kanniah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1100; (1925)48MLJ680
1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam refusing to set aside an attachment before judgment of property, namely a house alleged to belong to the petitioner who is the. wife of the 3rd respondent. The attachment order was passed in the following circumstances. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S. No. 19 of 1922 against respondents 3 and 4 for the recovery of Rs. 50,000 and obtained an order for attachment before judgment of the said property alleging it to belong to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner's case was that the house in question belonged to her and not to the 3rd respondent. The property is situate in what are known as the Agency tracts. The Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam in whose Court the application was made rejected the petition on the ground that the claim was not satisfactorily proved.2. The only question raised in this revision petition is one of jurisdiction. It has been argued before us that the Subordinate Judge of Vizag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »