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.
S.S. Balakrishna Aiyar and anr. Vs. Muthammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad316; 82Ind.Cas.1028
1. The decree in Original Suit No. 138 of 1920 is one passed under Order XVII, r.3 of the Code of Civil procedure, as is clear from the judgment. The mere fact that the Vakil said he had no, instructions after he had appeared for the parties at many hearings does not mean that he withdraws from the undertaking in his vakalat unless it is so stated, We must, therefore, hold that there was an appearance and Order XVII, Rule 3 applies.2. Appellant ought, therefore, to have filed an appeal against the decree: Vide Patinhare Tarkatt Rama Mannadi v. Vellur Krishnan Menon 26 M.P 267 and Gundan v. Kamakha Rama Chetti 33 Ind. Cas 660 : 3 L W 524. The filing of an application to set aside the decree, as if it had been made under Order IX, Rule 13, was, therefore, wrong as also the appeal from the order thereon. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Addepalli Venkata Gurunadha Rama Seshayya Vs. Sri Tirupurasundari Cott ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.947a
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 11th April 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 Mill & Co., Ltd. v. Nama Venhatarama Chetty 48 Ind. Cas. 903 : 42 M.P 33 : 35 M.L.J. 253 : 8 L.W. 354 : 24 M.L.T. 246 which lays down that a suit by a shareholder to recover dividend is covered by Article 116 of the Indian Limitation Act, that is, a share-holder gets six year...
Keezhanthi Janaki and ors. Vs. Pathiapurayikeezhanthi Govindan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.546
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, Ex. I, executed by the third defendant then karnavan 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.2. 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.3. The first ground urged is that it was not open to the donees, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to assert that none o...
A.V. Gurwanaha Rama Seshayya Vs. Sri Tripurasundara Cotton Press
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad721
Wallace, J.1. The only question urged in this appeal is one of limitation.2. The plaintiff bad purchased in Court auction some shares which the judgment-debtor held in the second defendant company, and some dividends on those shares which bad fallen due before the date of his purchase. The company refused to pay him the dividends, and he has filed a suit for this. 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 Venkat rama Chetty [1918] 42 Mad. 33, which lays down that a suit by a share-holder to recover dividend is covered by Article 1 t 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, that is, a share-holder gets six years within which to sue for payment of dividend which has fallen ...
Bollapragada Subbarayudu and ors. Vs. Valluri Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ558
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought by the purchaser of the proprietary interest in Pedamamidipalli, a whole village in Elamanchili Zamindari Estate, to eject the defendants who are tenants holding plaint items 1 to 16 which were once part of a darimilla inam, or failing the relief of ejectment, to declare the plaintiff's right to impose full rates of rent on the lands, and to give the plaintiff a decree for recovery of rent at nine bags of grain per acre for three years. The suit lands were granted about 1819 to the defendants' ancestors for rendering karnam service. In 1910, Government purported to enfranchise these lands and the plaintiff filed a suit, O.S. No. 16 of 1911, for setting aside the enfranchisement and for a declaration that the right of resumption rested with him and not with Government. In this suit he was finally successful in the High Court. The present suit is for ejectment of the defendants. The lower Court gave the plaintiff a decree for possession with mesne prof...
A. Brahmayya and ors. Vs. C. Rattayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad67
Ramesam, J.1. Suit to set aside an adoption and to set aside certain alienation by the first defendant, a Hindu widow and heir of the last male owner Brahmanna, who died, according to the evidence (D.W. 1), 50 years ago. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The plaintiffs and 4th defendant are the daughter's sons of the deceased. The first point raised by the appellant is that the adoption is invalid as the assent of the nearest male heirs, of Brahmanna via., the daughter's sons (plaintiffs and 4th defendant) was not sought by the first defendant. In Southern India, in default of husband's authority, a widow may adopt with the consent of her husband's kindred. The question is whether the daughters' sons, when they happen to be the nearest heirs, should be consulted. Up to Vadreva Ranganayakammagaru v. Somasundara Rao (1921) 43 Mad. 876 the point has not arisen here and it could not arise elsewhere.3. The reasons why such a point did not arise till now are ...
A.C. Chenchayya and ors. Vs. K. Kondiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad300
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff who bad obtained a decree against the 3rd defendant, attached the plaint property, as belonging to the 3rd defendant, but ha was mot by a claim petition put in by defendants 1 and 2, claiming that the property belonged to them and that the 3rd defendant had no interest in it. That claim was allowed and this suit is brought by the plaintiff, to have that order sot aside and to have it declared that the property really belonged to the 3rd defendant and is liable to be attached and sold for the decree debt. The lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.2. Originally, the property belonged to the 3rd defendant; but he made a gift of it in 1912, to one Veera Reddi alias Musali Reddi. The donee then mortgaged the property, by way of simple mortgage, to defendants 1 and 2. It would seem that on a former occasion this property was attached as the property of the 3rd defendant, by another decree-holder, one Subbarayudu. At that time, both Veera ...
Nimmagadda Venkateswarlu Vs. Bodapati Lingayya and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad633
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is a lessee from the first defendant under a cowle (Exhibit F), dated the 29th day of February 1916. The document is a lease for 11 years of the immovable property in dispute which it is alleged fell to the share of the first defendant in pursuance of a partition entered into in the year 1898. The first defendant's father became an insolvent and the Official Receiver sold the property and the second defendant purchased the same. As the partition was long before the insolvency, it is contended that the sale by the Official Receiver passed no property to the second defendant. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge held against the alleged partition and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The present second appeal is not by the plaintiff but by the first defendant, and a preliminary objection is taken that, as both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs against the first defendant, t...
Nimmagadda Venkateswaralu Vs. Bodapati Lingayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.960
C.V. Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff is a lessee from the first defendant under a cowle (Exhibit F) dated the 29th of February 1916. The document is a lease for eleven years of the immoveable property in dispute which, it is alleged, fell to the share of the first defendant in pursuance of a partition entered into in the year 1898. The first defendant's father became an insolvent and the Official Receiver sold the property and the second defendant purchased the same. As the partition was long before the insolvency, it is contended that the saleby the Official Receiver passed no property to the second defendant. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge held against the alleged partition and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The present second appeal is not by the plaintiff but by the first defendant, and a preliminary objection is taken that, as both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs against the first defend...
Atmakur Chinna Chenchayya and ors. Vs. Khanda Kondiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.454
Krishnan, J.1. In this case-the plaintiff who had obtained a decree against the 3rd defendant, attached the plaint property as belonging to the '3rd defendant, but he was met by a claim petition put in by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 claiming that the property belonged to them and that the 3rd defendant had no interest in it. The claim was allowed and this suit is brought by the plaintiff to have that order set aside' and to have it declared that the property really belongs to the 3rd defendant and is liable to be attached and sold for his-decree, debt. The lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. Originally the property belonged to the 3rd defendant, but he made a gift of it in 1912 to one Veera Reddi alias Musali Reddi. The donee then mortgaged the property by way of simple mortgage to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It would seem that, on a former occasion, this property was attached as the property of the 3rd defendant by another decree-holder, one Subbarayudu. At that time both Vee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »