Chennai Court March 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. Lakshminarasamma and anr. Vs. Navugotla Pydanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad265
1. The only point open to the appellant is that because the claim petition which the respondent presented in 1914 was marked by the District Munsiff as ' not pressed ; dismissed ' and because no suit was consequently brought under the procedure laid down by the Code, the present suit is incompetent. The learned Judge has taken a broad view of the matter and has disposed of the case by ascertaining what really happened at the time. What took place was that the claimant wished to abandon his claim and to have it treated as if it never had been made. The only' argument suggested against that is that where a litigant abandons his claim and withdraws it as if it never had been made and the Judge by endorsement on the papers dismissed it, the litigant is precluded from taking the other course of bringing a suit. This argument appears to be, to say the least, highly technical and in our opinion it would be pernicious not to allow a litigant who has taken what ha is satisfied is a mistaken sto...
Kothandaramasami Naidu Vs. Pappammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1924
Reported in: 79Ind.Cas.891
Odgers, J.1. One T.M. Narayanaswami Naidu died in 1889 or thereabouts leaving a will whereby he constituted a certain religious trust called Ramanujamatam and appointed three trustees to manage it. These trustees died and the appellant before us applied for and obtained on 26th September 1894. Letters of Administration with fee will annexed to the estate of Narayanaswami Naidu. From 1894, the appellant was in management of the trust and in 1912 by O.S. 3 of that year, appellant's brother Lakshmiah sued appellant to produce the accounts of the trust and for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted to him. This suit was compromised on 18th December 1912 and a decree passed in pursuance thereof. It provided that plaintiff Lakshmiah should manage the trust properties for 2 years from 1st January 1913 and defendant for the next two years.They shall thus continue to manage the same alternatively in turns of 2 years each.2. Lakshmiah died on 17th March 1917 without apparently recov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›