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.
G. Suryanarayana Vs. Sree Raja Ankineed Prasad Bahadur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad795
Spencer, J.1. An objection has been taken that the Magistrate acted illegally in dropping proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code on being satisfied that no dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed.2. It is argued that he was bound to record the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner, who might have shown by evidence that a dispute still existed, and that he should not have acted on the petition of the niece of the Zamindar who stated that she had compromised that matter in dispute between herself and the Zamindar who is the 1st Counter-petitioner.3. In Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Barada Kanta Chowdhry 0.[1903] 30 Cal. 112 it was held that whatever the source of the Magistrate's information he might act upon it if he was satisfied that the state of things which alone would have given him jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry no longer existed and in another casein the same volume at page 161 it was pointed out that Section 145(5) gives even third partie...
Chinnakozhandai Nainar and ors. Vs. Ananta Vijaya Nainar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad319; 85Ind.Cas.689
Phillips, J.1. We think that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that Bhadrabahu was merely a pro forma defendant, in the prior suit (1021 of 1915). In this suit, brought by plaintiff, under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Bhadrabahu was added as defendant and after setting out the sale by the latter to plaintiff, the plaint asks for a declaration that the properties belong to plaintiff and that they are not liable for the decree in execution of which they were attached. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the properties. We are of opinion that plaintiff put in issue the validity of the sale-deed in his favour, and an issue to this effect was actually framed. It was open to either defendant to impeach the validity of the deed and we cannot hold that the question was not in issue-between the plaintiff and Bhadrabahu merely, by reason of the fact that Bhadrabahu admitted plaintiff's claim, which was disputed successfully by the...
Cheriakkatavan Koran Vs. Putham Veetil Ponmileri Koroth Ammalu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1025; 85Ind.Cas.562
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The lower appellate Court has found that Ex. III is binding on the plaintiffs. It was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and the plaintiffs, and the latter cannot be heard to say that the 2nd defendant on the date of Ex. III had no right to the property. The question, however, whether the 2nd defendant was entitled to the property on the date of Ex. III is now immaterial, because subsequent to it the right of the plaintiffs to manage the property was recognised in a suit to which the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant were parties. The plaintiffs had filed O.S. No. 649 of 1911 for recovery of rent against a third party and to that suit the 2nd defendant was made a party. The suit related to the property which is the subject-matter of the present action. The plaintiffs claimed that it had been bequeathed to them as sriswath by their mother and that the 1st plaintiff was constituted the manager. The defendant (tenant) pleaded that he had obt...
Ellammal Vs. A.S. Vekataramana Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.958
ORDER1. The Subordinate Judge has now found against the alleged tender by appellant on November 30th and it has not been suggested that there was a tender on any other day before a petition was filed on December 2nd that the Court should allow the amount to be deposited in Court. We think that time in this case was of the essence of the contract and that the question of relieving against forfeitures, which arises when a penalty is provided for non-performance as it did in Nagappa v. Venkat Rao 24 M.P 265 and Ana Sheik Mohidin Thttragan v. Vadivalagia Nambia Pillai 22 Ind. Cas. 37 : (1914) M.W.N. 92 does not arise here.2. The distinction between the two classes of oases is made clear in the judgment of Mookerjee, Acting Chief Justice, Kandarpa v. Banwari Lal Nag 60 Ind. Cas. 864 : 33 C.L.J. 244 3. The interval between the date for payment of money and the date for taking possession of lands made the case in Supdu Dhoiu v. Madhavaram Jivaram 57 Ind. Cas. 534 : 44 B.P 544 : 22 Bom. L.R. 7...
P.L.A.R.M.S. Venkatachalam Chettiar by Agent, Kadiresan Chettiar (Dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ312
1. The original suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 1,691, principal and interest due on account of dealings by the defendants with the plaintiff in silk goods. It is not denied that the plaintiff was a commission agent in Bombay for the defendants at Kumbakonam, for the purpose of silk thread. In his capacity as such, the plaintiff had purchased two bundles of silk thread for the defendants and despatched them by rail to the defendants. One of them was lost on the way. The plaintiff in his present suit for the balance due in the matter of his agency account included the price of the lost bundle. The defendants repudiate liability for this and claim that it was lost through the plaintiff's negligence in not insuring the bundle as required by railway rules to ensure safe transit of all parcels of such a nature whose value is over Rs. 1oo. The defendants also call in aid Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act.2. The District Munsif held that Section 91 did not apply to a case of a commission...
Venkatachallam Chettiar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Ponnuswami Aiyangar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad46
Wallace, J.1. The original suit was to recover a sum Rs. 1,691, principal and interest, due on account of dealings by the defendants with the plaintiff in silk goods. It is not denied that the plaintiff was a commission agent in Bombay for the defendants at Kumbakonam, for the purchase of silk thread. In his capacity as such the plaintiff had purchased two bundles of silk thread for the defendants and despatched them by rail to the defendants. One of thorn was lost on the way. The plaintiff in his present suit for the balance due in the matter of his agency account included the price of the lost bundle. The defendants repudiate liability for this and claim that it was lost through the plaintiff's negligence in not insuring the bundle, as required by railway rules to ensure safe transit of all parcels of such a nature whose value is over Rs. 100. The defendants also call in aid Section 91 of the Indian Contract Act.2. The District Munsif held that Section 91 did not apply to a case of a...
Bandaru Chellamma Vs. Dungala Pentayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad828; 79Ind.Cas.845
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is a pattadar under the zemindar of Vizianagaram. He brought this suit for the recovery of rents from the defendant as well as for ejecting him from his holding. The land is situated in a jeroyiti village within the zemindari estate. The first Court granted a decree both for the rent and for ejectment, but on appeal, the Subordinate Judge has reversed the decree so far as the claim for ejectment goes, on the finding that the defendant has occupancy right in the land and that he is not, therefore, liable to be ejected. The question argued before me is as to the existence of the defendant's occupancy right,2. According to the rulings of the Privy Council, the latest of which is in Appeal No. 46 of 1922 in a case which went up from this Court, a tenant who sets up an occupancy right has to establish it. The facts appear to be that the lands in question in this case were originally forest lands in the zemindari. As regards such lands it was laid do...
Addepalli Venkata Gurunadha Rama Seshayya Vs. Sri Tripurasundari Cotto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.947; (1924)46MLJ563
Wallace, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiff had purchased in Court-auction some shares which the judgment-debtor held in the second defendant company, and some dividends on those shares which had fallen due before the date of his purchase. The company refused to pay him the dividends and he has filed a suit for these. His suit was in 1917. One of the dividends, namely that for 1912, fell due on 11-4-1913 and the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff's suit was barred as regards this dividend, since he had not sued within three years of the dividend falling due. The plaintiff appeals.2. The plaintiff relies chiefly on a ruling reported in Ripon Press and Sugar Mills, Ltd. v. Nama Venkatrama Chetty : (1918)35MLJ256 , which lays down that a suit by a share-holder to recover dividend is covered by Article 116 of the Indian Limitation Act, that is a shareholder gets six years within which to sue for payment of dividend which has fallen due. ...
T. Devarajulu Naidu Vs. Kondammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad427
Krishnan, J.1. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration that; they are entitled to the properties in the plaint A and B schedules and the value of the schedule properties. There was a dispute likely to lead to a breach of the peace, with reference to these properties, between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the matter was taken up by the Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate's order, which was read to me, shows that, finding himself unable to say which party was in possession of the properties, he directed the properties to be attached under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, and placed them in the possession of a Receiver, pending the decision of the Civil Court, in favour of one or other of the parties. It is as a result of that order that this suit has been brought by the plaintiffs for an adjudication, as stated above, that they are the persons entitled to the properties.2. It is objected in Second Appeal in limine that the suit as brou...
Keezhanti Janaki and ors. Vs. Pathiapurayikeezhanthi Govindan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad990
Wallace, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued as Members of a Malabar tarwad on behalf of the tarwad for a declaration that a deed of gift, Exhibit I, executed by the third defendant, then kamavan of their tarwad and now dead, and by other members of the tarwad including the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5, in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is not valid and binding on the tarwad, and for the recovery of the property gifted and incidental reliefs. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 were then minors and in the deed of gift were represented by the third defendant as their guardian. The lower Courts both held that, at the time of the gift, the property belonged to the third defendant absolutely, and to none of the other donors and certainly not to the tarwad, and that, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to question its validity on the ground that it was tarwad property. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The first ground urged is that it was not open to the donees, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, to assert that non...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »