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.A. Balakrishna Odayar and anr. Vs. Chakravarthy V. Jagannada Chariar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad820; 87Ind.Cas.194; (1925)48MLJ535
1. In this Civil Revision Petition defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 27 of 1920 on the file of the Sub-Court of Kumbakonam call for the interference of this Court in revision with certain findings of the Lower Court on certain issues in that suit. The suit has not yet been disposed of. Interference with findings in a suit not yet disposed of is not a matter which the High Court will view with favour, and it will require a very strong proof of want of jurisdiction or irregular exercise of jurisdiction to warrant interference. In this case the petitioners have before us restricted their case to three issues, on which the Lower Court has given findings, Issues I, IV and V.2. The suit is one under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the removal of certain trustees of the Kumbakonam Sri Sarangapaniswami Temple, defendants 1 and 2 and for other reliefs. It is filed by two plaintiffs with the sanction of the Advocate-General. The first plaintiff is himself a trustee of the temple and the ...
W.M. Varadaraja Mudaliar Vs. M. Arumugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1216
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The question raised in this matter relates to the institution fees payable in respect of a suit of a value less than Rs. 1,000, which has been transferred to this Court in order that it may be tried with another suit in this Court involving the same question. There car be little doubt that suits below Rs. 1,000, in value do not come within Sections 39 and 10 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. The transfer to the High Court will be under powers vested in it under Section 13 of the Letters Patent and the jurisdiction of the High Court to try such a suit would be Extraordinary Original Jurisdiction conferred by the Letters Patent. Srinivasa Aiyar v. Balakrishna Devai : (1912)22MLJ187 for this position. If the suit was over Rs. 1,000 in value, Sectionld have applied and the fees payable would be the ordinary fees leviable on the Original Side; but, as the suit s below Rs. 1,000 in value, Sections 39 and 40 do not apply. So far as the fees on the Original Si...
O. Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Doraiswami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad120
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff sued to recover two items of property described in Schedules A and B. He got a decree in the first Court for both these properties. In appeal the Subordinate Judge has disallowed his claim for A Schedule property. He purchased this property under Ex. A, dated 26th April, 1914. The 3rd defendant who is the contesting defendant before me also purchased the very same property on 9th May, 1914. The 3rd defendant claims priority for his purchase over that of earlier purchase by the plaintiff on the ground that he had a contract. under which the owner of the property, the 1st defendant, had agreed to sell it to him, of an earlier date than the 26th April, 1914. That agreement was produced and it is Ex. III. The agreement was found to be genuine. The question that I have to decide turns upon Section 27 of the Specific Belief Act. If it is an agreement which could be specifically enforced under Section 27 against the plaintiff as purchaser subsequent ...
C. Govindswami Pillai Vs. Doraiswami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.181
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover two items of property-described in Schedules A and B. He got a decree in the first Court for both these properties. In appeal the Subordinate Judge has disallowed his claim for A Schedule property. He purchased this property under Ex. A, dated 20th April 1914. The 3rd defendant who is the contesting defendant before me also purchased the very same property on 9th May 1914. The 3rd defendant claims priority for his purchase over that of the earlier purchase by the plaintiff on the ground that he had a contract, under which the owner of the property, the 1st defendant, had agreed to sell it to him, of an earlier date than the 26th April 1914. That agreement was produced and it is Ex. III. The agreement was found to be genuine. The question that I have to decide turns upon Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act. If it is an agreement which could be specifically enforced under Section 27 against the plaintiff as purchaser subsequent ...
V.A.V.S. Firm Vs. P.S.N. Muruganathan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad569; (1925)48MLJ228
1. This is an appeal against an order of Waller, J., sitting in the Insolvency Court in which he refused to transfer an insolvency petition presented to the District Judge of Coimbatore to the file of his Court.2. There is a preliminary objection that no appeal lies on the ground that the Judge's order is not a judgment. But this can easily be disposed of by reference to Section 8, Clause 2 (b) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, which provides for an appeal lying to this Court against any order made by a Judge in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred on him by this Act.3. The question we have to decide turns upon the interpretation of Section 97 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. This section runs thus:Where an order of adjudication has been made on an insolvency petition against or by one partner in a firm, any other insolvency petition against or by a partner in the same firm shall be presented in or transferred to the Court in which the first-mentioned petition is in cour...
(Kakaraparti) Punnayya Vs. Chilakalapudi Venkatappa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad343
Devadoss, J.1. The plantiff's suit is on a hypothection on executed by the 1st defendant on 16th May 1908. The 2nd defendant is impleaded on the ground that he purchased the hypothecated house after the date of the hypothecation bond. Both the lower Courts have given a mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiff against both the defendants. The 2nd defendant pleaded in his written statements that the 1st defendant ant sold only the house to his father and not the site for a debt due by the defendant to his father. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this case to consider whether the purchase of the house was by the 2nd defendant or by his father. 2. The contention of Mr. Krishna Menon for the appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as it is brought more than three year from the date of the sale to the 2nd defendant's father. His argument is that the 2nd defendant's father purchased only the materials of the house and that Article 36 of the First Schedule of the Lim...
Kakaraparti Punnayya Vs. Chilakalapudi Venkatappa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.754
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs suit is on a hypothecation bond executed by the 1st defendant on the. 16th May 1908. The 2nd defendant is impleaded on the ground that he purchased the hypothecated house after the date of the hypothecation bond. Both the lower Courts have given a mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiff against both the defendants. The 2nd defendant pleaded in his written statement that the 1st defendant sold only the house to his father and not the site for a debt due by the 1st defendant to his father. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this, case to consider whether the purchase of the house was by the 2nd defendant or by his father.2. The contention of Mf. Krishna Mohan, for the appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as it is brought more than three years from the date of the sale to the 2nd defendant's father. His argument is that the 2nd defendant's father purchased only the materials of the house and that Article 36 of the First Schedule o...
In Re: R. Krishnaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ132
ORDERKrishnan, J.1. In this case the accused has been convicted of having contravened Section 166, Clause 1, of the Local Boards Act, 1920, by having plied his motor cars without ' obtaining a license from Sattur to Srivilliputhur. The section says: 'No person shall, on any public road in a district, ply any motor vehicle for hire, or use any such vehicle for carrying passengers or goods at separate fares or rates on such road, except on a license obtained from the President of the District Board.' On the evidence it is quite clear that the accused did ply his motor cars in contravention of that section. Schedule VIII prescribes the penalty for plying motor cars for hire on a public road without license, the maximum fine being Rs. 200.2. It is argued before me for the accused that, though he had no license given to him, as the President of the District Board refused the license when he applied for one, the action of the President should be treated as a nullity as he did not exercise th...
Kalyanji (Now Dead) and anr. Vs. Ram Deen Lala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad609; (1925)48MLJ290
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing that a complaint under Sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code be filed against the appellants. Mr. Menon for the Crown Prosecutor raised two preliminary objections, first, that the appellate tribunal in a case like the present is not the High Court but a Bench of the Court of Small Causes, and secondly, that if the appellate tribunal is the High Court, the appeal must be put in on the Original Side of the High Court.2. As to the first objection, an appellate tribunal is, by force of Sections 476-B and 195 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court, if there is such a Court, to which appeals from the appealable decrees of the Court of Small Causes ordinarily lie. Mr. Menon relies on Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, which states that in the case of a contested suit, either party has the right to...
Syed Yusuf Saheb Vs. Subhan Bibi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad443; (1925)48MLJ395
1. This is an appeal against an order made in the course of the trial of a suit brought by a Mahomedan widow to recover her share in the properties of her deceased husband in the hands of the other sharers and residuaries of his estate. The order of the learned Judge was to the effect that the plaintiff should be paid Rs. 25 a month for her maintenance.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that an appeal will not lie, as the order is not a judgment. But there is no substance in this objection, for the order in question clearly falls within the definition in the judgment of Sir Arnold White, C. J. in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar ILR (1910) M 1 : 1910 21 MLJ 1 where he says : 'An order on an independent proceeding which is ancillary to the suit, not instituted as a step toward judgment, but with a view to rendering the judgment effective if obtained, is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.' An order imposing an obligation of this nature in a pending ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »