Chennai Court December 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.
In Re: Chinna Manikkam Alias Chinnappa Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad712
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The accused petitioners before me were convicted along with 20 others of the offences of rioting and hurt by the Magistrate who heard the ease. The Magistrate convicted the 20 accused, and on appeal the Appellate Magistrate acquitted 10 out of the 20. It is now argued before me that the learned Appellate Magistrate has not considered the ease of each of the petitioners separately and come to a conclusion with regard to his guilt or otherwise. On a careful consideration of the judgment of the Appellate Magistrate I an satisfied that he did not bring to bear, with regard to the case of each of these accused, a judicial mind for the purpose of considering whether he was guilty or not having regard to the charges against him and the special evidence directed to him and his particular defence if any. It has been held by Ayling, J., in the case of In re Bapu Naidu (1915) 2 L.W. 958 that though the Appellate Magistrate may give satisfactory reasons for accepting ...
P.K.P.S. Sivanadian Chettiar Vs. Batchu Surayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad727; 87Ind.Cas.127; (1925)48MLJ413
Phillips, J.1. I agree. I am quite clear that neither under the contract Ex. A, nor under the doctrine of English Law can the Rs. 6,600 advanced be treated as 'advance freight.' 'Advance freight' must connote freight, , and it is clear from the authorities referred to by my learned brother that the idea of freight does not arise until the voyage has actually begun, or at any rate until the goods for which freight is payable have been loaded on the ship or accepted by bills of lading. In this case the ship has never been loaded nor was it attempted to be loaded and, consequently, there can be no question of freight. Even if the provisions of the Indian Contract Act are applied to this case, (it is unnecessary to decide this point which has not been argued before us) the plaintiff must succeed under the provisions of Section 65, because the contract has become impossible of performance.2. Odgers, J. : This was a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,600 payable on a contract of charter...
(Kamana) Venkataswami Vs. Godavarti Nagayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1142; 87Ind.Cas.413
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 2nd defendant; is the petitioner. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises in connexion with an application made by him to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. A preliminary objection is taken that no second appeal lies in such a case. In reply, it is pointed out by Mr. Somasundaram for the appellant that though the petition is filed as one under Order 21, Rule 90 in substance the objections which he intends to press here-are really objections which come under Order 21, Rule 66 and, therefore, there is a right of second appeal as the application is really one under Section 47, Civil P.C. The objections put forward are two in number, namely, that the petitioner had no notice of the proclamation of sale and that there is an under-valuation of this property. Both these objections fall under Order 21, Rule 66 and according to the decision in Thekkedath Neelu v. Subrarnania Moothan (1919) 11 M.L.W. 59 the petitioner has got the right of preferrin...
Kariya Goundan and anr. Vs. Tirukkaivelu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad585; 87Ind.Cas.90; (1925)48MLJ349
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I think this petition should be allowed. The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted a suit for redemption of property mortgaged by their father. They subsequently applied to amend their plaint by including a claim against defendants 5 and 7 as the substituted mortgagees for the reduction of the amount that may be found as damages due and payable to them in respect of the alienation effected by defendants 5 and 7 of a portion of the mortgaged property. The learned District Munsif dismissed the petition characterising it as belated and vexatious. I think he was wrong. The powers of amendment conferred on the Courts under the present law are much wider than formerly and it has often been stated by very eminent Judges that all amendments should be allowed as would enable the Court finally to determine all matters in controversy between the parties. I have no doubt whatever that this claim which is now sought to be included in the plaint by way of amendment was omitte...
Annamdevula Thata Alias Venkatarayudu and ors. Vs. Khan Saheb Khwaja A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad890; (1925)48MLJ701
1. These Second Appeals arise out of a batch of suits filed to recover damages for use and occupation in respect of the two villages of Kadiam and Jagurupad in the Godavari District. The Courts below gave decrees in favour of plaintiff and the defendants file these appeals.2. The two villages, though situate within the ambit of the Zamindari of Pittapore, had a history of their own apart from the Zamindari. They were granted in Fasli 1158 (or 1748) by or on behalf of Asoof Jan alias Mizam-ul-mulk, the first Nizam of Hyderabad. They were regarded as excluded from the assets of the Zamindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement in 1802 and continued to be held by the grantee's successors as inam. In 1856, they were resumed by the Government for reasons not clear but not material. Thus, they did not get the benefit of the Inam Settlement in 1862 but continued to be held by the grantees on ryotwari tenure. The defendants or their predecessors were the tenants of the villages. In 1900, t...
T.N. Rajagopalachari Vs. Narsimha Thathachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1182
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the petitioner. The facts of the ease are clearly set out in the order of the learned District Judge. These appear to be as follows : a money-decree was passed ex-parte against the petitioner. He put in an application to set aside the ex-parte decree and on that application the learned District Munsif passed an order to this effect that 'the ex-parte decree will be sot aside if in two weeks petitioner pays to plaintiff all costs of suit so far incurred unconditionally and further he puts the suit amount and interest decreed into Court in 14 days. If he does not pay, petition will stand dismissed with costs.' He also made a note on the order that the petition is to be called for final disposal on the 13th September, 1923. It appears from the B diary that this application was postponed from time to time, and it was posted for final disposal on 20th September, 1923. On that date an application was made by the petitioner for permission to give imm...
Annamdevula Tata Alias Venkatarayudu and ors. Vs. Khan Saheb Khwaja Ah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.401
1. These second appeals arise out of a batch of suits filed to recover damages for use and occupation in respect of the two villages of Kadiyam and Jogurapad in the Godavari District. The Courts below gave decrees in favour of plaintiff and the defendants file these appeals.2. The two villages though situate within the ambit of the zemindari of Pittapore had a history of their own apart from the zemindari. They were granted in Fasli 1148 (or 1748) by or on behalf of Asoof Jah alias Nizumulmulk, the first Nizam of Hyderabad. They were regarded as excluded from the assets of the zemindari at the time of the Permanent Settlement in 1802 and continued to be held by the grantee's successors as inam. In 1856, they were resumed by the Government for reasons not clear but not material. Thus, they did not get the benefit of the inam Settlement in 1862 but continued to be held by the grantees on ryotwari tenure. The defendants or their predecessors were the tenants of the villages. In 1900, the ...
Karpaga Nidhi, Ltd. by Secretary, Rangia Goundar Vs. Vania Vilasa Nidh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad587; (1926)48MLJ459
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I think this petition ought to be allowed. The District Munsif in the Court below was apparently under the impression that he had no jurisdiction to order payment out on the application of the petitioner for the reason that his application for rateable distribution was presented subsequent to the realization of the assets. The learned District Munsif obviously overlooked' the provisions in Section 73, Civil Procedure Code, that every person that had applied to the Court previous to the realization of assets for execution of the decree obtained by him was entitled to come in under that section and have rateable distribution. The learned vakil for the respondent has drawn my attention to two decisions of this Court. The first is the one reported in Somasundaram Chetti v. Tirunarayana Pillai (1914) MWN 738. In that this Court refused to interfere because it was of opinion that a regular suit was in the circumstances of that case the more efficacious remedy having ...
M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. S.K. Kother Mytheen Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.720; (1925)48MLJ491
Krishnan, J.1. The order dismissing the pauper application on the sole ground that some time subsequent to the application and before the Court passed its orders the petitioner became an insolvent, cannot be supported. The grounds on which a pauper application can be rejected are stated in Order 33, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code. Subsequent insolvency is not one of the grounds. It is suggested that on his becoming an insolvent the petitioner ceased to have a cause of action under Clause (d); but Clause (d) only provides that his allegations should show a cause of action. That refers to his allegations in his plaint and not to subsequent events. The proper procedure would have been to enquire whether -the petitioner was a pauper and if he was and his allegations showed a cause of action to give him leave when his application would be numbered as a suit. If he has become insolvent the provisions of Order 22, Rule 8 can then be applied. It is clear that the Official Receiver cannot make hi...
Kanthimathi Ammal Vs. R. Perumal Kona and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad777; (1925)48MLJ492
ORDERSrinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an application on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent to be brought on record in the place of the 1st respondent in the Memorandum of Cross-Objections. The learned vakil for the petitioner states that he has had no instructions to apply for bringing his clients on record as the legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent. Messrs. Chidambaram and Marthandam, vakils for the appellant, state that having regard to the principle decided in the case of Vathiar Venkatachari v. Ponnappa Aiyangar and Ors. (1918) 45 IC 959 any order that is made bringing the legal representatives of the deceased respondent in the record in the Memorandum of Objections will enure for the whole of the proceedings including the appeal. 1 see therefore no objection whatever on the present application to make an order directing that the legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent be brought on the record not only in the Memorandum of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »