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.
C. Janardhanan and anr. Vs. N.M. Verghese and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad707; 87Ind.Cas.113
Krishnan, J.1. These are two applications under Section 115 of the C.P.C. 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 the 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 Court.2. A pr...
Krishnadoss Vithaldoss Vs. Ghanshamdoss and Narayanadoss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ311
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. No one, I think, using language in its natural sense, would ever think of describing this plaint after the excision of the two grounds which Mr. Grant gave up, as befog a suit for land, but it is said that there are decisions of this and other Courts which compel such a construction to be put on those words as would bring the present suit within them. It is sufficient for me to say that I do not think that any one of the authorities cited has that effect. I only desire to say one thing ; and that is chiefly in reference to the case in Srinivasa Aiyangar v. Kannappa Chetty (1915) 30 MLJ 120 that, if that case is to be supposed to say that you are entitled to look at the amended Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of construing the words of the earlier statute, namely the Letters Patent with which we are concerned, I do not agree with it. But I am by no means convinced that that case is an authority for the position for which it was cited. The appeal...
Marina Ammayi Vs. Chaganti Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1039
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cocanada. The appellant before me is a person who purchased in execution of a mortgage decree the property which is the subject-matter of this application. Her purchase was subsequent to the purchase by the respondent who purchased in execution of a money-decree. The mortgage suit had been brought previously and a final decree had been obtained by the mortgagee for sale of the property. It was in that state of circumstances that the property wag subsequently attached by the money-decree-holder and brought to sale, and it was in that execution proceeding that the respondent purchased the property. The respondent seems to have obtained possession of the property in execution. Subsequently the mortgage decree was executed and the property was brought to sale and purchased by the appellant before me. She applied for possession and was put in possession of the property. Application was then ma...
Krishnadoss Vittaldoss Vs. Ghanshamdoss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1084; 90Ind.Cas.188
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. No one, it seems to me, using language in its natural sense would ever think of describing this plaint (after the excision of two prayers which Mr. Grant gave up) as being a suit for land. But it is said that there are decisions of this and other Courts which compel such a construction to be put upon those words as would bring the present suit within them. It is sufficient for me to say that I do not think that any of the authorities cited has that effect. I only desire to say one thing, and that is chiefly in reference to the case of Srinivasa Aiyangar v. Kannappa Chetti 33 Ind. Cas. 906 : 30 M.L.J. 120. If that case is to he supposed to say that you are entitled to look at the amended C.P.C. for the purpose of construing the words of the earlier Statute, namely, the Letters Patent with which we are concerned, I do not agree with it. But I am by no means convinced that; that case is an authority for the pure position for which it was cited. The appeal must be di...
M.P.P.S.T. Palaniappa Chetty and ors. Vs. S.N. Subramania Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad701; (1925)48MLJ419
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. The rule of law that, where a person's name appears on the face of the record as judgment-creditor and execution of the decree is sought by a transferee of the decree, the decree cannot be executed unless it comes within the words of Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and there has been an assignment in his favour either in writing or by operation of law seems to me to be no rule for holding that a person otherwise a stranger to the Court can come forward and allege that the decree was not his (the transferee's) and that he was a benamidar for himself. The learned Judge probably felt himself bound by Manikkam v. Tatayya : (1898)8MLJ48 , but I entertain no doubt whatever that that case was wrongly decided and was an unwarranted departure from, and an extension of the words of, the statute. And I accordingly come to the conclusion that this appeal must be allowed with costs in this Court as well as in the Court below.2. I may add that th...
Sri Rajah Bommadevara Satyanarayana Vara Prasada Rao Bahadur Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad794; (1925)48MLJ489
Krishnan, J.1. It is argued that the Lower Court acted without jurisdiction in allowing the amendment allowed by it. I think the amendment is quite unobjectionable and falls clearly within the scope of Rule 17, Order 6 of the Civil Procedure Code. The observations in the case cited in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung ILR (1921) Cal. 832 have to be read with the facts of that case. The amendment allowed here does not change the nature of the suit at all. The words of Rule 17 give wide powers of amendment and we have the authority of the Privy Council itself in Ma Shwe Mya v. Maung Mo Hnaung ILR (1921) Cal. 832 cited for holding 'that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised.' The petition fails and is dismissed with costs....
Guntupalli Ramakrishnayya Vs. Guntupalli Pitchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad726; (1925)48MLJ500
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover certain land which originally formed a portion of a karnam service inam which has since been enfranchised. The plaintiff became karnam in 1908 and this portion of the inam was enfranchised in 1909 in favour of the defendant who admittedly was not an office-holder. The plaintiff continued in office for some years but was then removed and now brings this suit in 1920 to recover the land. He bases his claim on the following facts: He contends that, when the land was enfranchised in 1909, it was enfranchised by Government not for the benefit of the person in whose name the title-deed stands but for the benefit of the office-holder. He being the office-holder at that time must be deemed to have had the land enfranchised for his benefit and it then became his private property. The fact that he is now out of office, therefore, does not affect his right to recover the land. In this argument I think there are two fallacies. In the first...
(Machullathil) Chandukutty Nayar Vs. Kuruvathancheri Keezana Narayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1083; 87Ind.Cas.557
Krishnan, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises in execution of a decree the construction of which is too question before me. The 5th defendant had obtained a usufructuary mortgage from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 of a property belonging to their tarwad and they took back the property on a kychit agreeing to pay rent the plaintiff got an assignment of the right of the 5th defendant. In the kychit it is provided that if any arrears of rent fell due those arrears would be a charge upon the equity of redemption of the property mortgaged. As arrears of rent accrued due, the plaintiff brought a suit not only for such arrears but also to eject the defendants from possession of the property and the plaintiff got a decree. It is the construction of that decree, which is before me. The defendants alleged that they made certain improvements on the property while they were in possession, and they claimed in that suit the value of the improvements. The decree provided (1 that plaintiff do ...
Changanath Kuttappa Nair Vs. Pooppil Alias Valamarudur Variyatha Laksh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ385
Spencer, J.1. The preliminary decree is not in accordance with the preliminary judgment, as in the plaint the mortgagee asked for the mortgaged property to be sold and for payment of the amount found to be due to him out of the sale proceeds, and the judgment of the Court was 'the suit is decreed as prayed for'; but the preliminary decree, as drawn up, did not provide for any payment being made to the plaintiff but provided for payment of the amount found to be due to a subsequent mortgagee and the balance to the mortgagors.2. There was an appeal which was dismissed with a slight modification as to the personal remedy.3. Now the Subordinate Judge, after disposing of the appeal, has declined to bring the first Court's decree in accordance with the judgment.4. I think he was wrong in thinking that he had no power to amend the decree and in declining jurisdiction. It was held in Shivial Kalidas v. Jumaklal Nathiji Demi ILR (1893) B 542 and numerous other cases that where there has been an...
Pakki Adinarayana Vs. Namburu Suramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad799; (1925)48MLJ372
1. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The suit related to two items. The contesting defendants as to item 1 are defendants 1, 2 and 5. The contesting defendant as to item 2 is the 3rd defendant. The lands are claimed by plaintiff as jirayati lands in the Zamindari of Vizianagram. As to item 2, the 3rd defendant claims it as his inam. The Maharaja of Vizianagram is therefore also impleaded as the 4th defendant.2. The Courts below dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act. In the year 1907 there was a charge for criminal trespass in respect of these items by the predecessor-in-title of defendants 1, 2 and 5 against the vendors of the plaintiff and the matter ended in favour of the former (Ex. D, which was confirmed on appeal in 1908, Ex. IX). The present suit is filed in April, 1920 more than ten years after Exs. D and IX.3. As to item 1, we agree with the Courts below that thc suit is barred. Mr. T. Ramachandra Rao, who appeared for the app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »