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.
Nallur Chakravarthi Rajagopalachariar Vs. Bashyachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ520
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff brings this suit as a reversion-er to recover properties which were in the possession of the widow of the last male holder. He brought the suit on the 7th of September and alleged in his plaint that the widow had died on the 28th of September 1906 thus bringing his suit within time. The defendants in their written statement pleaded as follows : ' The plaintiff should prove that the said Seshammal died on 28th September, 1906 and these defendants do not admit that date as the date of her death. ' Later on in the written statement they say : ' The plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation also. ' The 5th defendant in a separate written statement also took the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. Issues were accordingly framed, the 6th issue being ' Whether the suit is barred by limitation ' and subsequently an additional issue was framed 'When did the widow Seshammal die ' The District Judge has found that Seshammal did not die on the date alleged by t...
C. Ganesha Mudaliar and anr. Vs. V. Gnanasikhamani Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad37
Wallace, J.1. The question in this case is whether Exhibits I and C, both dated 14th July, 1902, Exhibit I being ostensibly a deed of absolute sale and Exhibit C an agreement by the vendee to reconvey the property at any time within eight years on payment of the consideration recited in Exhibit I, constitute an out-and out sale and an agreement for re-conveyance or a mortgage by conditional sale. Both the lower Courts have held to the former view and it is urged that they are wrong.2. That such a question is not a pure question of fact is clear from the numerous cases in which it has been allowed to be fully argued in second appeals before this Court.3. The first defendant, vendee, under Exhibit I, was already holding an equitable mortgage on the property. The mortgagor, one C. Velayudha Mudali, was the owner of the property. He sold it to his mother in law under Exhibit B, evidently with a view to avoiding creditors. The first defendant was pressing for payment and the mother-in-law, ...
Ratnasami Pillai Vs. Sabapathy Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad318
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram refusing to accept the bid of Rathnasami Pillai, the appellant, for taking on lease certain property, the subject-matter of a suit before the Court, and directing a re-sale. What happened was, the Receiver, who had been appointed in the suit, was directed by the Court to sell by public auction the lease of certain lands in suit for a year. The conditions of sale were printed and the printed leaflets were circulated. The Receiver held an auction in which the appellant before us, Rathnasami Pillai, was the highest bidder. When the matter was taken to the Sub-Judge for confirmation, he refused to accept Rathnasami Pillai's bid and directed a re-sale. It is against that order that this appeal is filed.2 The appellant contends that a completed contract had been entered into with him by the Receiver and that the Court should, therefore, have directed a lease to be executed in his favour in the terms of his bid. At t...
L.A. Nilkanta Sarma Vs. Ganesa Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad469
Wallace, J.1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the sale deed Exhibit XI dated 27-8-1907 by the father and guardian of the then minors plaintiffs in favour of 3rd defendant is binding on the plaintiffs.2. The property sold under Exhibit XI is item 5 of the plaint property. At a partition, Exhibit I dated 1895, between plaintiffs' grandfather and his sons it fell to the share of the former. On 4-8-1902, he gifted it to plaintiffs. Even at the time of partition it was subject to a mortgage Exhibit XVII dated 22-8-1893 in favour of one Appadurai Aiyer of the family of 1st defendant. On the date of Exhibit XI about Rs. 110 was due on that mortgage. The consideration recited in Exhibit XI is this Rs. 110 and another sum of Rs. 90 to discharge othi Exhibit XIV by plaintiffs' father in favour of 3rd defendant. This othi purported to have been executed in order to get money for the minors' ex-penses, but both lower courts have found that there was no necessity for the loan. This...
Sundarammal and Pachalla Doraiswami Iyengar and anr. Vs. Sri Mahant Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.721
Wallace, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: One Sellappa Asari was an occupancy tenant in the 1st defendant's estate. On 4th May 1901, he mortgaged the five items of the plaint property. The mortgagee sued to recover his money and obtained a decree for sale of mortgaged property on 4th June 1912. It became final on 9th January 1913 and the property was sold in execution of the decree on 15th November 1915. The plaintiff purchased all the five items on 7th June 1916 from the auction-purchaser and got delivery through Court on 31st January 1917. In the meantime on 22nd March 1913 items. Nos. 3 and 4 of the plaint property were sold by the landlord the 1st defendant for the arrears of rent on the holding by Sellappa Asari and the 1st defendant alleges that he bought in these properties for eight annas and got delivery of them on 25th October 1915 and that he sold them again to defendants Nos. 2 to 8, The question at issue was whether the plaintiff's p...
Ramanathan Chettiyar Vs. K. Sivarama Subrahmanya Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad722
1. The accused was charged with misappropriation of paddy worth about Rs. 200. Summons was issued to him and he now moves the High Court and asks that the proceedings before the Magistrate should be quashed.2. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the High Court has no power to interfere with the proceedings of a Magistrate in a pending trial. Whether this contention is correct depends upon the interpretation of Sections 435, 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure. Code.3. Under Section 435 the High Court is empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court, situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The section thus does not deal merely with 'finding, sentence or order' but with proceedings generally and the power of ...
L.A. Niqlakanta Sarma Vs. Ganesha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.310
Wallace, J.1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the sale-deed, Ex. XI dated 27th August 1907, by the father and guardian of the then minor plaintiffs, in favour of 3rd defendant, is binding on the plaintiffs.2. The property sold, under Ex. XI, is Item No. 5 of the plaint properties. At a partition Ex. I dated 1895,between plaintiffs grandfather and his sons, it fell to the share of the former. On 4th August 1902, he gifted it to plaintiffs. Even at the time of partition, it was subject to a mortgage, Ex. XVII dated 22nd August 1893 in favour of one Appadurai Iyer of the family of 1st defendant. On the date of Ex XI about Rs. 110 was due on that mortgage. The consideration recited in Ex. XI is this; Rs. 110 and another sum of Rs. 90 to discharge othi, Ex. XIV, by plaintiffs' father, in favour of 3rd defendant. This othi purported to have been executed in order to get money for the minors expenses; but both the lower Courts have found that there was no necessity for the lo...
N.C. Rajagopalachariar Vs. Bhashyachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad838
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff brings this suit as a reversioner to recover properties which were in the possession of the widow of the last male holder. He brought the suit on the 7th of September and alleged in his plaint that the widow had died on the 28th of September, 1906, thus bringing his suit within time. The defendants in their written statement pleaded as follows: ' The plaintiff should prove that the said Seshammal died on 28th September, 1906, and these defendants do not admit that date as the date of her death.' Later on in the written statement they say: 'The plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation also.' The 5th defendant in a separate written statement also took the plea that the suit was barred by limitation. Issues were accordingly framed the 6tk issue being 'whether the suit is barred by limitation?' and subsequently an additional issue was framed 'When did the widow Seshammal die?' The District Judge has found that Seshammal did not die on the date alleged by the pl...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Binny and Co. Madras Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad802
Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax which raises a very simple point in the sense that it can be put within a narrow compass on a very few undisputed facts; in another sense it raised a subtle question of law, for it has given rise to a great variety of judicial opinion in very high quarters.2. Now the facts are these. A company called the Deccan Sugar and Abkari Co., Ltd. was incorporated in 1897 with a share capital of ten lakhs in shares of Rs. 500 face value each. In May 1908, the capital was increased to 22 lakhs by adding 7,000 Preference Shares of the A class of Rs. 100 face value each and 5,000 Preference Shares of the B class also of Rs, 100 face value each. In 1908, in pursuance of a resolution passed in June, the ordinary share capital was reduced to Rs. 1,66,672, thus making the total capital of the company something over 13 lakhs. Messrs. Binny & Co.; Ltd, held 200 ordinary shares of Rs. 125 each in this Company. In 1921 the Deccan Com...
Pachalla Doraiswami Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Sri Mahant Prayaga Dosjee Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad918
Wallace, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: One Sallappa Asari was an occupancy tenant in the 1st defendant's estate. On 4th May, 1901, ha mortgaged the five items of the plaint property.2. The mortgagee sued to recover his money and obtained a decree for sale of the mortgaged property on 4th June, 1912. It became final on 9th January, 1913, and the property was sold in execution of the decree on 15th November, 1915. The plaintiff purchased all the five items on 7th June, 1916 from the auction-purchaser and got delivery through Court on 31st January, 1917. In the meantime on 22nd March, 1913, items 3 and 4 of the plaint property were sold by the landlord, the first defendant for the arrears of rent due on the holding by Sallappa Asari and the first defendant alleges that he bought in these properties for eight annas and got delivery of them on 25th October, 1915, and that he sold them again to defendant 2 to 8. The question at issue was whether the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »