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.
T. Govindaswami Chettiar Vs. A.R.M.A.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad833
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 Chettiar, 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 upto 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. Venkatara...
Malayala Surayya and ors. Vs. Rajah Saheb Meharban Idostan Sree Rajah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad771
Devadoss, J.1. This is a batch of nine appeals. The same point arises in all the appeals. The plaintiff's suit is for a declaration that the Record of Eights made under Chap. XI of the Estates Land Act is incorrect in several particulars. The 1st 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 1st 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...
Diwan Bahadur Govindas Chaturbhujadas Vs. N. Ramados
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad521
Spencer, J.1. Appellant, Diwan 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 lie has since realized.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 adjudic...
Dewan Bahadur Govindas Chaturbhujdas Vs. N. Ramadoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.92
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. Appellant, Dewa Bahadur Govindas Chaturbhujdas, plaintiff in the Trial Court, was the secured creditor of respondent N. Ramdoss 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 the 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...
V. Gopal Chetty and ors. Vs. the Ripon Press and Sugar Mill Co., Ltd., ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.914
1. This is an application for the winding-up of the Ripon Cotton Press Co., 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 Company's Act, because the Company is not being worked for the benefit of the share-holders 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. Blackwood (1921) A.C. 783 : 93 L.J.P.C. 257 : (1924) B. & C.R. 209 : 131 L.T. 719 : 68 S.J. 735 : 10 T.L.R. 732 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...
T. Govindasami Chettiar Vs. A.R.M.A.L.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: 73Ind.Cas.10
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. I 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. Venkataram...
Kozhippurath Ammunni Amma's Daughter Pappiamma Vs. Kozhippurath Ammunn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.198
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, recited 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 Chakkara Kannan v. Kunhi Pokker 30 Ind. Cas. 755 : 39 M.P 317 : 18 M.L.T. 255 : 29 M.L.J. 481 : (1915) M.W.N. 740 is that in that case' the 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 her favour and in fa...
Doraiswami Mudaliar and anr. Vs. M. Doraiswami Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.382
Ramesam, J.1. This 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 the 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 Plaintiffs, Defendant dated 10thdated 22nd December1914. 1914.----------------------------------------------------------------...
Arjee Prabappa Chetti Vs. Koneti Desikachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1131; 90Ind.Cas.1028; (1925)49MLJ101
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., ordering execution on an execution application made by the assignee of a decree. Objection was taken to the execution application on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The article applicable to the application in question for execution is Article 183, because it was in respect of a decrele passed on the Original Side of this Court. Under that Article the decree-holder has twelve! years not only from the date on which he becomes entitled to enforce the decree but also twelve years from the date on which some part of the principal money secured thereby or some interest on such money has been paid. In this case, we find that M. Sabapathy Chetti, the original decree-holder, died without drawing from the Court the sum of Rs. 24,000 odd ordered to be paid to him by order, dated the 6th October, 1909. Subsequently, the Administrator-General of Madras, I believe, as Administrator-General pendente lite...
P. Sambasiva Sastrial Vs. Ramaswami Sastrial and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad803; (1925)48MLJ353
Ramesam, J.1. The finding about the adoption must be accepted. It was acted upon from 1867 to 1873 when the adopted boy died without being questioned by any relation. The reversioner, Ramachandra Sastri, lived only for three months after the death of Bhagirathi and it is not clear that he left a son or other reversioner who could! claim the property. It is true he left a widow but her inaction in not claiming the property is not inexplicable. The Subordinate Judge is right in presuming the authority for an adoption which took place in 1867 and which was not questioned.2. It is next argued that Bhagirathi and her daughters prescribed only for a mother's and daughter's estates respectively and Ex. XVIII is relied on for this purpose. Ex. XVIII throws no light on the estate prescribed by Bhagirathi or Valambal. Even as to Abhirami Ammal, it is not clear that she claimed a daughter's estate. The utmost that can be said for the appellant is that the document is dubious.3. Ex. XVIII is perfe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »