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.
Subbiah Moopanar Vs. Ponnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad669
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first defendant was a dissolute young man. His relations, finding that he was wasting his property, got him to execute the deed, dated the 17th July, 1919. It deals with seven, items of immovable property and is described as a deed of settlement. The question to be decided in this appeal is, what is the true construction of this instrument? In my opinion it creates a joint interest in the 1st defendant, his mother and his wife, for their lives, with a remainder in favour of the 1st defendant's heirs. The words are these:Myself, my mother and wife shall jointly enjoy the under mentioned properties. No alienation by one of us singly shall be valid. If an alienation is to be made, it shall be done by us three together, and if it is made without the consent of all the three, it shall not be, valid. My heirs shall enjoy absolutely after our life-time.2. I cannot construe the words 'my heirs' as words of limitation. The heirs are intended to take as grantees and in...
Chidambara Chettiar Vs. Parvathi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad744
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The defendant in Original Suit No. 29 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Mayavaram is the petitioner before me. The petition is to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing his application for receiving certain documents produced by him which documents should have been produced either at the first hearing of the suit, namely, at the settlement of issues, or on or before such date thereafter as might be fixed by the Court. There are no materials before me on which I could possibly say what the practice was in this particular Court or of the particular Subordinate Judge. I am aware that the practice with regard to this matter generally varies from Court to Court and from Judge to Judge. It is possible that the Pleader who appeared for the defendant thought that some date would be fixed for the production of the documents in the possession or power of his client. It is admitted before me that the documents were not called for at the s...
Vellai Nachiar Vs. A.K.R.M.M. Meiyappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad905
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. It is most unfortunate that this Civil revision petition, which was filed in the year 1916, should have taken eight years for being disposed of by this Court. I have no materials on which I can say on whom is the blame for this most extraordinary delay.2. On the merits of the petition, however, I am clearly of opinion, that it ought to be allowed. The petitioner applied for a review of the judgment on the ground that the judgment was given by the Court as on the consent of the parties, whereas, as a matter of fact, she never authorised the compromise. For this purpose, it was obviously necessary for her to give evidence in support of her review petition. I find that the parties had all been served with notices by the 18th of April 1916. The petition was taken up again for hearing on the 19th, that is, on the following day. At the bearing of the application on that day, the plaintiff's Vakil would appear to have stated that the plaintiff was not present. The hea...
V. Gopal Chetti and ors. Vs. the Ripon Press and Sugar Mill Co., Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad633; (1925)48MLJ232
1. This is an application for the winding up of the Ripon Cotton Press Company which has its place of business at Bellary and its factory at Raichur in the Nizam's Dominions. It is not suggested that the Company is insolvent and in fact we have a statement in which dividends are shown to have been declared from 1909 till 1922. It is, however, urged that it is just and equitable that the Company should be wound up within the meaning of Section 162 (6) of the Indian Companies Act, because the Company is not being worked for the benefit of the shareholders in general but mainly for the benefit of the family of Mr. Venkata Rao who is one of the Directors of the Company and Chairman of the Board of Directors.2. In Loch v. John Blackwook (1924) AC 738 it was held to be a good reason for making a winding up order that there was a justifiable lack of confidence in the conduct and management of the Company's affairs owing to the management being held in one family which was in a position to dom...
Dewan Bahadur Govindoss Chaturbhujadoss Vs. N. Ramadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad593; (1925)48MLJ252
Spencer, J.1. Appellant, Dewan Bahadur Govindoss Chaturbhujadoss, plaintiff in the Trial Court, was the secured creditor of the respondent, N. Ramadoss, first defendant in the Trial Court, who pledged with him, through his agent, the second defendant, certain jewels as security for a loan of Rs. 12,000. Respondent was adjudicated insolvent on 20th September, 1921. The appellant got no notice from the Official Assignee and before he attempted to prove for the balance of what was due to him, the adjudication was annulled on 20th February, 1922. Appellant brought this suit to recover the balance due to him after deducting the value of his security, which he has since realised.2. The learned Judge held that he was not entitled to anything and dismissed the suit against this defendant. He acted upon first impressions as there is no decided case in this country as to the rights of a secured creditor to recover the balance of any debt which he has failed to prove in insolvency when the adjudi...
T. Govindasamy Chettiar Vs. A.R.M.A.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ397
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for damages for breach of contract of lease. The lease was of a house in Periyakulam and is dated 12th November, 1916 (Exs. 1 and A). It was executed by Subban Chetti, plaintiff's elder brother and it is not denied that plaintiff is the person now entitled to the house. The lease was for five years. One of the terms of the lease is that within six months from its date, the lessor 'shall have a latrine constructed, a well sunk and a room upstairs built.' The lessee occupied the house up to 23rd February, 1919 and a notice was given to the plaintiff on 3rd March, 1919 alleging that the defendant vacated the house as the well was not sunk and other necessary repairs were not effected. The plaintiff brought this suit for Rs. 521-12-9 being the rent for the period 23rd March, 1919 to 15th September, 1920. The District Munsif gave a decree but the District Judge reversed his decision and dismissed the suit.2. Before me, Mr. T. L. Venkatra...
Doraiswami Mudaliar and Thangavelu Mudaliar and Company Vs. M. Doraisw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ432
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this Second Appeal may be briefly stated. The 2nd defendant is a contractor who entered into a building contract in respect of the Vellore Municipal Hospital Works with the P. W. Department. By September 1914 a sum of Rs. 2,156-8-1 was due to him. At that time he owed Rs. 1,600 to the 3rd defendant. When the 3rd defendant demanded the payment of his debts, he executed certain letters intending (I assume this in favour of 3rd defendant) to transfer Rs. 1,600 out of the amount due to him from the P. W. D. in December, 1914, he owed Rs. 6,750 to the plaintiffs and intending to transfer the whole of this said amount, he executed similar letters. The documents that came into existence in September and December respectively may be shown in a tabular form as follows:3rd Deft. Plffs.dated 22--9-14. dated 10--12-14.2nd defendant to assignee. Letter not Exhibit C.exhibited. 2nd defendant to the Ex. I ' E.Engineer. Assignee to Executive III ' D.Engineer.Reply by Executi...
Malyala Surayya and ors. Vs. Rajah Saheb Meharban Idostan Sree Rajah R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ577
Devadoss, J.1. This is a batch of nine appeals. The same point arises in all the appeals. The plaintiffs' suit is for a declaration that the Record of Rights made under Chap. XI of the Estates Land Act is incorrect in several particulars. The Ist defendant is the Rajah of Pithapuram, the other defendants are the tenants of the plaintiffs. Several issues were raised in all the cases and they were found by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. The Ist defendant alone appealed against the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The tenants who were found not to have any occupancy right in the lands did not appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The District Judge has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs have preferred these second appeals.2. The main question in these appeals is whether the suit lands were included in the assets of the Pithapuram Zamindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement so as to form pa...
Doraisami Mudaliar and Thangavelu Mudaliar and Co. Vs. M. Doraiswami I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad753
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this Second Appeal may be briefly stated. The 2nd defendant is a contractor who entered into a building contract in respect of the Vellore Municipal Hospital works with the P.W. Department. By September 1914 a sum of Rs. 2,156-8-1 was due to him. At that time he owed Rs. 1,600 to the 3rd defendant. When the 3rd defendant demanded the payment of his debts, he executed certain letters intending (I, assume this in favour of 3rd defendant) to transfer Rs. 1,600 out of the amount due to him from the P.W.D. In December, 1914, he owed Rs. 6,750 - to the plaintiffs and intending to transfer the whole of this said amount, he executed similar letters. The documents that came into existence in September and December respectively may be shown in a tabular form as follows:From the table below, it is seen that on; each occasion, the scheme was the same, consisting of (1) a letter from assignor to assignee as an instrument of transfer (2) 3rd Defendant Plaintiffsdated 22-9-...
Koshipurath Ammani Amma's daughter Pappi Amma Vs. Koshipurath Ammani A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad761
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant before me. The suit is for maintenance. The defendants contend that the suit is not properly constituted, as necessary persons are not parties to the suit.2. The suit is based upon Ex. A, a teer-deed, executed by plaintiff's father Raman Menon, in favour of Narayani Amma. Raman Menon had four daughters and two sons. He executed the document in 1888, in favour of Narayani Amma; but the document recites that Raman Menon's properties were assigned in favour of Narayani Amma and 'those children - boys and girls - who are uterine relations below you and to your mother for your livelihood.' The only difference that I can find between this case and Chakkra Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker (1916) 39 Mad. 317 is that in that case, that document was executed in favour of all the children, whereas in this case, it is executed in favour of one child, but it was mentioned that it was in favour of her brothers and sisters. I do not think this fact makes any differe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »