Chennai Court February 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.
Para Kanakan Vs. Amir Bi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad837; 84Ind.Cas.249
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. I assume that the notice of appeal was not served on the complainant. Nor was it served upon the officer appointed under Section 422, Cr.P.C. It is to he regretted that the provision is so often disregarded, but it is settled law that the High Court ought not to interfere in revision with an order of acquittal unless interference is urgently demanded in the interests of public justice, Faujdar Thakur v. Kasi Chowdhury 27 Ind. Cas. 186 : 42 C.P 612 : 19 C.W.N. 184 : 21 C.L.J. 53 : 10 Cri. L.J. 122 Vellayanamhalam v. Solai Servai 30 Ind. Cas. 152 : 39 M.P 505 : 28 M.L.T. 092 : (1915) M.W.N. 540 : 10 Cri. L.J. 600, Sankaralinga Mudaliar v. Narayana Mudaliar 68 Ind. Cas. 615 : 43 M.L.J. 369 : 10 L.W. 413 : (1922) M.W.N. 579 : 31 M.L.T. 342 : 23 Cri . L.J. 583 : A.I.R. (1922) (M.) 502 : 45 M.P 913. I accepted this view in the judgment I delivered this morning [Mohamed Mustafa v. Shanmuga Thevan 83 Ind. Cas. 349. lam not satisfied that in the-present case any inju...
Ramappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ekambara Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad715; 79Ind.Cas.818; (1924)47MLJ13
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. A claim was preferred under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P. Code and it was dismissed on account of the non-appearance of the claimant. On his application the Subordinate Judge restored the petition. The present revision petitions have been filed challenging the correctness of this order.2. Order 21, Rule 63 provides that the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit, but subject to the result of such suit the order shall be conclusive. It is said that the words ' the order shall be conclusive ' have the effect of precluding an application of this kind being entertained. No authority bearing directly on the point has been cited and I am not prepared to accede to this contention. If the legislature had intended to lay down such a rule I should have expected to find very clear language employed to indicate that intention. The words in my opinion do not take away the right of the party to have the order of dismissal for default set aside. Full effect can be gi...
Venkatramana Pai Vs. Sampa Alias Santappa Mallayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.845; (1924)47MLJ256
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. I desire to say not one word more than is necessary for the decision of this case, because I am free to admit that I do not understand what the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Baluswami Iyer I.L.R. (1921) M 831 : 41 MLJ 346 enjoins upon us; but it appears to me that this much is clear that the real line of cleavage in this case is Are we to treat this instrument as being absolutely clear and, therefore fettering us in its construction, or as something capable of passing a qualified estate in the property to the tenant It is quite common for persons in the position of trustees of religious and charitable endowments to make lease of such property, and the common current of decisions in this presidency has always been to recognise those as being valid for the life of the lessor or the trustee, or, what is equivalent to his life, his continuance in the trust and to construe words apparently wider in import as...
T.S. Sivarama Aiyar and ors. Vs. T.S. Gopalakrishna Chettiar (Dead) an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad88; (1924)47MLJ337
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit (of 1919) for possession, the plaintiffs claiming to be entitled, after the death of one Vembu Ammal, to the suit properties, of which a lease for seven years had been granted by her to the original sole defendant on 19th June, 1918. The lessee pleaded that, under the will of the last male owner Cuppuswami Aiyar, Vembu Ammal's husband, Mr. T. V. Gopalaswami Aiyar is entitled to the properties after her death, and not the plaintiffs. He also contended that the lease was binding on the remainder-man. One of the issues originally framed was ' whether the suit is bad for the nonjoinder of T. V. Gopalaswami Aiyar as a party to it.' The case was set down for preliminary argument on this issue and on 28th September, 1920, T. V. Gopalaswami Aiyar was added as 2nd defendant in the suit. The Subordinate Judge found on the 6th issue that the lease by Vembu Ammal was not within her competency to grant. On the 11th and 12th issues, he found that the 2n...
Kannayiram Pillai Vs. Virudupatti Gins Ltd. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad139
1. The Second Appeal arises out of a suit to recover six plots of land in an inam village, belonging to. Chokkanathaswamy Temple of Virudupatti, of which the plaintiff and 2nd defendant are trustees. The 1st defendant denied the plaintiff's title to those plots generally; in particular, it was also contended that the 1st defendant was entitled to plot II by purchase from the 2nd defendant (in his personal capacity), to plot II by tracing title to one K. Shanmugam Pillai and as to plot IV by tracing title to one Saravana Muthu Pillai.2. It was also mentioned that a portion of plot III was known as Vannan Ooruni that a portion of plot V contains the memorial stones of the Chukkiliars and is known as Chukkiliar Malai and that plot VI was originally a public path, but has been closed about 20 years ago, by Messrs. Ralli Brothers and fell into disuse. Except as implied in these statements, no plea that any of the plots was dedicated to communal purposes and that the title to them is vested ...
Kalepalli Rajitagiripathy Vs. Kalepalli Bhavani Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad673; (1924)47MLJ4
1. This appeal relates to the execution of a decree dated 27-3-1918. On 26-7-1919 the transferee decree-holders applied for recognition of their transfer and for execution. However, in consequence of an attachment of the decree, this petition was dismissed. The next petition was put in on 4-4-1922 asking for the transmission of the decree to the District Court for execution, and on 26-4-1922 the present execution petition was filed. It was contended that the present petition was barred by limitation, but four grounds were urged by the decree-holder for allowing execution. The District Judge has held that two of these grounds were valid and has ordered execution to proceed. Now, this appeal is filed by the first defendant, the judgment-debtor.2. The first ground taken is that the plea of limitation is res judicata by reason of the order on the application of 4-4-1922 directing the transmission of the decree to the District Court. It has been held in the Calcutta Court in Sreepati Charan...
Koduri Subbarayudu and ors. Vs. Koyyalamudi Subbanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.457; (1924)47MLJ765
Krishnan, J.1. These are three Second Appeals arising from three suits brought by three plaintiffs on promissory notes executed to them respectively by defendants 2 and 3. The cases being similar in their facts they have been dealt with in one judgment by the lower Courts and it will be convenient to do so in Second Appeal as well.2. One Viranna died leaving debts due to these plaintiffs among others. The 1st defendant is his minor son and was his undivided co-parcener. The property belonging to Viranna is found to have been all joint family property. He nevertheless executed a will before his death and named defendants 2 and 3 as the executors of it; he authorised them to take possession of the properties on behalf of his minor son and manage them and collect outstandings and pay the necessary education and maintenance expenses with his mother's consent and hand over the properties and accounts to the minor on his attaining majority. Defendants 2 and 3 entered upon the management unde...
Kizhakkepat Krishna Menon Vs. Marambatte Unni Mamu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1222; (1925)49MLJ99
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for the recovery of lands lei to the defendants who were his tenants. Under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act of 1899, it is well known that the landlord is bound to compensate the tenant on ejectment for the improvements effected by the tenant. In this case the improvement that is in dispute in second appeal was an improvement alleged to consist of the conversion of one crop into two crop land, described in the suit as item (1). The case for the tenants was that this land, having been at one time one crop land, had at the time of the ejectment become two crop land, and having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, that was enough for them, because the effect of that section clearly is to throw upon the landlord, when once it is shown that one crop land has been converted into two crop land, the burden of proving that this was not due to anything done or spent by the tenant. In this case...
K. Subbarayudu and ors. Vs. K. Subbanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad371
Krishnan, J.1. These are three Second Appeals arising from three suits brought by three plaintiffs on promissory notes executed to them respectively by defendants 2 and 3. The cases being similar in their facts they have been dealt with in one judgment by the lower Courts and it will be convenient to do so in Second Appeal as well.2. One Viranna died leaving debts due to these plaintiffs among others. The 1st defendant is his minor son and was his undivided co-parce,ner. The property belonging to Viranna is found to have been all joint family property. He nevertheless executed a will before his death and named defendants 2 and 3 as the executors of it; he authorised them to take possession of the properties on behalf of his minor son and manage them and collect outstandings and pay the necessary education and maintenance expenses with his mother's consent and hand over the properties and accounts to the minor on his attaining majority. Defendants 2 and 3 entered upon the management und...
Kizhakkapet Krishnamadar Vs. Marambatte Unnimammu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.999
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for recovery of lands let to the defendants who were his tenants. Under the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act of 1899 it is well-known that the landlord, is bound to compensate the tenant on ejectment for the improvements ejected by the tenant. In this case the improvement that is in dispute in second appeal was an improvement alleged to consist of the conversion of one crop into two crop lands described in the suit as item (1). The case for the tenants was' that this land having been at one time one crop land, had at the time of the ejectment become two crop land and having regard to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, that was enough for them, because the effect of that section clearly is to throw upon the landlord, when once it is shown that one crop land has been converted into two crop land, the burden of proving that this was not due to anything done or spent by the tenant. In this case the story set up by the landlord in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »