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.
P. Nagalingappa and anr. Vs. P. Venganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad425
Odgers, J.1. In these cases, it has been agreed that I should decide the point of the guardian's liability, as a preliminary point and that if I find for the appellant on that, the case for the respondent goes, in both these appeals. The Subordinate Judge has held the guardian personally liable in spite of Shet Manibhai v. Bai Rupaliba (1900) 24 Bom. 166 on the authority of a ruling of the Calcutta High Court, in Rajani Kanta Roy v. Manmatha Nath Nandi (1918) 46 I.C. 665 The contention for the respondent is that on the wording of Exhibit A, the guardians have personally bound themselves to pay. That Exhibit A (a hypothecation bond) contains a personal covenant to pay is true; it is executed by the executants 'who are the guardians of the properties of the two minors,' viz., so and so. The bond continues 'we have agreed to pay,' 'the guardians of the estate of minors Nagalingappa and Murugappa.' In my opinion, there is, on the wording of Exhibit A, no personal covenant, to repay by the ...
Nidadavolu Achutam and ors. Vs. Veerina Surayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.902
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted for the recovery of a certain sum of money from the 1st defendant and defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who are his sons. The 1st defendant carried on business in brass utensils and in the course of that business, became indebted to the plaintiff. The debt was disputed by the 1st defendant, but the first Court found that his plea was false. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 pleaded that before suit there was an out and out division between their father, the 1st defendant and themselves. The learned District Munsif held in favour of the partition. In consequence of that finding, he dismissed the suit against the sons giving effect to the rule enunciated in Peda Venkanna, v. Snnivasa Deekshatulu 43 Ind. Cas. 225 : 41 M.P 136 : 22 M.L.T. 344 : 33 M.L.J. 519 : 6 L.W. 649 : (1918) M.W.N. 55 The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal disagreed with the District Munsif and found that there was in fact no partition. It was argued on behalf of defendant...
Soorapaneni Seetharamabrahmam Vs. Soorapanini Krishnabrahmam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.353
Wallace, J.1. Respondents raise the preliminary contention that the suits are of a Small Cause nature and, therefore, no second appeal lies. The plaintiff's case was that he and defendants had divided their properties, though the property still remained under the same patta and that his property was attached for arrears under this patta which were due to defendants Nos. 1 to 6 not having paid up the kist on their property under the same patta, that plaintiff to save his own property, there fore, had to pay up the arrears, and he sued for contribution.2. I think it is clear that the suit is not of the nature contemplated by Article 41 of the 2nd Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Here there was no joint property, since plaintiffs and defendants, on plaintiff's own showing were divided. The mere fact that the patta is still joint and, therefore, the liability under it is joint, will not affect the manner in which the property is held. The ruling in Srinivasa v. Sivakolund...
Kidambi Ritumalacharyulu Alias Ramanujacharyulu and ors. Vs. Amisetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.541
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiffs sued in this case to set aside the decree in O.S. No. 274 of 1917. on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Guntur, obtained against them when they were minors. They sued on the ground that they were not properly represented by the guardian in the suit and that the said guardian was guilty of gross negligence.2. There is no doubt that they were minors at the time of the suit, and both their father and mother were dead. It is also clear that they had no certificated guardian and no natural guardian. It appears that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 274 of 1917 first applied to the Court to have one K. Ramiah appointed as guardian ad litem and notice was sent to him but he refused to act. The plaintiff then applied for a Court guardian and the Head Clerk of the Court was appointed. The plaintiffs here in this case. urged that the appointment of the Court guardian was illegal because no notice of the application to appoint a Court guardian was sent, as it...
Lekkala Ramu Naidu and anr. Vs. Vetchalapu Nayanappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.571
Wallace, J.1. The argument put forward in this case is that an award passed by arbitrators in a pending suit, which merely embodied a compromise of the parties themselves before the arbitrators is not a valid award and that it was the duty of the arbitrators merely to record the compromise and pass it on the Court to deal with. I am not referred to any reported ruling which supports this proposition. On the other hand there are two reported rulings Deonarain Rai v. Jaisiri Rai (1885) A.W.N. 259 and Mihr Ali Shah v. Muhammad Husan (1892) A.W.N. 79: 7 Ind. Dec. 632 to the contrary, both of which refer to arbitrations in pending suits.2. I cannot see on principle why arbitrators should not accept a compromise of the parties before them and set out their award in terms thereof. Such a proceeding is as much an adjudication of the case as is a decree of a Court founded on a compromise. To admit that an award may be challenged on the ground that the arbitrators had not themselves independentl...
Pattur Nagalingappa and anr. Vs. Patukonda Venganna and Nimbagal Gumsi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.139
Odgers, J.1. In these cases it has been argued that I should decide the point of the guardian's liability as a. preliminary point and that if I find for the appellant on that, the case for the respondent goes in both these appeals. The Subordinate Judge has held the guardian personally liable in spite of Shet Manibhai Premabhai v. Rai Rupaliba 1 Bom.L.R. 646 : 12 Ind. Dec. 648 oil the authority of a ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Rajani Kanta Roy v. Manmatha Nath Nandi 46 Ind. Cas. 665. The contention for the respondent is that on the wording of Exhibit A the -guardians have personally bound themselves to pay. That Exhibit A (a hypothecation bond) contains a personal covenant to pay is true; it is executed by the executants ' who are the guardians of the properties of the two minors,'viz., so and so.' The bond continues 'We have agreed to pay, the guardians of the estate of minors Naglingappa and Marulappa.' In my opinion there is, on the wording of Exhibit A no personal covenant...
Seetharamabrahman Vs. Kristabrahman and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad790
Wallace, J.1. Respondents raise the preliminary contention that the suits are of a Small Cause nature and therefore no second Appeal lies. The plaintiff's case was that he and defendants had divided their properties, though the property still remained under the same patta, and that his property was attached for arrears under this patta which were due from defendants 1 to 6, they not having paid up the kist on their property under the same patta, that plaintiff, to save his own property therefore, had to pay up the arrears and he sued for contribution.2. I think it is clear that the suit is not of the nature contemplated by Article 41 of the 2nd Schedule to the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Here there was no joint property, since plaintiff and defendants, on plaintiff's own showing were divided. The mere fact that the patta is still joint and therefore the liability under it is joint, will not affect the manner in which the property is held. The ruling in Srinivasa v. Sivakolundu ...
K. Tirumalacharyulu Alias Ramanujacharyulu and ors. Vs. Ammisetti Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad763
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiffs sued in this case to set aside the decree in O.S. No. 274 of 1917 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Guntur, obtaining against them when they were minors. They sued on the ground that they were not properly represented by the guardian in the suit and that the said guardian was guilty of gross negligence.2. There is no doubt that they were minors at the time of suit, and both their father and mother were dead. It is also clear that they had no certificated guardian and no natural guardian. It appears that the Plaintiff in O.S. No. 274 of 1917 first applied to the Court to have one K. Ramiah appointed as guardian ad litem and notice was sent to him but he refused to act. The plaintiff then applied for a Court guardian and the Head Clerk of the Court was appointed. The plaintiffs here in this case urged that the appointment of the Court guardian was illegal because no notice of the application to appoint a Court guardian was sent, as it shou...
Ammakannu Ayi Vs. Murugayya Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad716
Ramesam, J.1. The facts have been stated by ray learned brother whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading and need not be repeated.2. A preliminary question of law raised by the defendant in the Court below and repeated here has first to be dealt with. He contends that, as the plaintiff filed her suit against Ritnathayi in 1914 and obtained a decree, she has elected her remedy and the present suit is not maintainable He relies on Scarf v. Jardine 7 A.C. 345; Moorel v. Earl of Westmoreland [1904] A.C. 11; and Moore v. Flanagan [1920] 1 K.B. 919. He also relies on Kendall v Hamilton 48 L.J. C.P. 705. Scarf v. Jardine 7 A.C. 345 is a case of a customer of an old firm of partners selling goods to a new firm consisting of an old partner and a new partner and carrying on business under the old style without notice of the change. In that case, the old firm was liable only on the ground of estoppel and after the plaintiff sued the new firm, it was held that he disavowed the estoppel a...
N. Achyutam and ors. Vs. V. Surayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad845
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted for the recovery of a certain sum of money from the 1st defendant and defendants 2 to 4 who are his sons. The 1st defendant carried on business in brass utensils and in the course of that business became indebted to the plaintiff. The debt was disputed by the 1st defendant, but the first Court found that his plea was false. Defendants 2 to 4 pleaded that before suit there was an out and out division between their father, the 1st defendant and themselves. The learned District Munsif held in favour of the partition. In consequence of that finding he dismissed the suit against the sons giving effect to the Rule enunciated in Peda Venkanna v. Sreenivasa Deekshatulu (1918) 41 Mad. 136; the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal disagreed with the District Munsif and founrl that there was in fact no partition. It was then argued on behalf of defendants 2 to 4 that there was at any rate a division in status, and to prove it they ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »