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.
Kummatti Veettil Kottaparambath Maliyakkal Kunhibi (Dead) and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ379
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff was in occupation of some land cultivating it by a tenant. Government claimed that it was their land, and on the 17th of April, 1919, they sent her a notice to quit under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act III of 1905. Nothing happened for a time. In May, 1919 the plaintiff put in a petition for a review of this notice to the Deputy Collector. On the 18th of September 1919 the Deputy Collector dismissed the review petition. On the 2nd of October, 1919 an order which amounted practically to a notice to quit went to the plaintiff. On the 22nd of December, 1919 the plaintiff filed the present suit for vindicating her alleged rights of ownership in the Civil Court.2. The Courts below have declared that suit to be barred by limitation by reason of Section 14 of the Act which says, ' Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent persons deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act except as herein ...
Al. Vr. Ct. Lakshmanan Chetti and ors. Vs. V.R. Rm. V.L. Subbiah Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ389
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This case furnishes a signal instance of the mischievous tendency of the Courts in this country to evade, or endeavour to evade, plain statutory mandates, and in no sphere of the law, so far as I have observed, has that tendency been more freely exercised than in that branch of the law we are concerned with in the present case, namely, the Law of Limitation. The way in which this matter stands is as follows:--In October 1913, a decree was obtained in a suit in which the plaintiffs were a father and his three sons, and the three sons were described on the face of the proceedings as suing through their next friend and guardian, the first plaintiff (that is, the father). Two months after that decree the father died and it was not until December of the following year, 1914, that the eldest of the three sons attained his majority. On the 3rd December, 1917, well within three years of the attainment of majority, an execution application was taken out. It ...
Al.Vr.Ct. Lakshmanan Chetty and anr. Vs. V.R.Rm.V.L. Subbiah Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad78
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This case furnishes a single instance of the mischievous tendency of the Courts in this country to evade or endeavour to evade, plain statutory mandates, and in no sphere of the law, so far as I have observed, has that tendency been more freely exercised than in that branch of the law we are concerned with, in the present case, namely, the law of limitation. The way in which this matter stands is as follows:2. In October 1913, a decree was obtained in a suit in which the plaintiff's were a father and his three sons, and the three sons were described on the face of the proceedings as suing through their next friend and guardian, the first plaintiff (that is, the father). Two months after that decree the father died and it was not until December of the following year 1914, that the eldest of the three sons attained his majority.3. On the 3rd December 1917, well within three years of the attainment of majority, an execution application was taken out. It is said that...
Parim Manickyam Vs. Kodimangi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad226
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He instituted a suit to recover property convoyed to him by the first defendant. The first defendant is the widow of the adopted son of the second defendant. The 5th defendant is the daughter of the 2nd defendant. These defendants raised the plea that the first defendant was unchaste and therefore the conveyance of the property by her to the plaintiff was illegal. This plea was upheld by the lower Courts and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In second appeal now for the first time it is argued by the plaintiff (appellant) that these pleas could not be raised by defendants 2 and 5 as they are precluded from doing so on the ground of res judicata by the decision in O.S. No. 97 of 1917. That suit was instituted by the present 5th defendant for a declaration that adoption of the first defendant's husband by the present 2nd defendant's husband was invalid and for the setting aside of an alienation made by the second defendant in this sui...
K. Sankara Chenna Basappa Vs. K. Manappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad245a
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The appellate Magistrate erred in treating as evidence against the first accused admissions of the second accused. Under Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act, the improper admission of evidence is not ground of it sell for a reversal of any decision, if it appears to the Court that, independently of the evidence improperly admitted, there is sufficient evidence to justify the decision. If I were competent to dual with facts, I should ignore the evidence which ought not to have admitted, and then consider whether there still remains sufficient evidence to support the conviction, see Mohur Singh v. Ghureeba (1871) 15 W.R. 8. But I am dealing with the matter in revision and I cannot adopt this course. Ordinarily in such circumstances, the case will be remanded and the Magistrate will be directed to give a finding with reference to admissible evidence only. But unfortunately there was already one remand and I do rot think any useful purpose will be served by p...
Koyasan Koya Haji and ors. Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad927
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff was in occupation of some land, cultivating it by a tenant. Government claimed that it was their land, and on the 17th of April 1919 they sent her a notice to quit under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905. Nothing happened for a time. In May 1919 the plaintiff put in a petition for a review of this notice to the Deputy Collector. On the 18th of September 1919 the Deputy Collector dismissed the review petition. On the 2nd of October 1919 an order which amounted practically to a notice to quit went to the plaintiff. On the 22nd of December 1919 the plaintiff filed the present suit for vindicating her alleged rights of ownership in the Civil Court.2. The Courts below have declared the suit to be barred by limitation by reason of Section 14 of the Act which says:Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent persons deeming themselves aggrieved 'by any proceedings under this Act except as herein provid...
Letchmana Chetty and Two ors. Vs. Subbiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad920
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This case furnishes a signal instance of the mischievous tendency of the Courts in this country to evade, or endeavour to evade, plain statutory mandates, and in no sphere of the law; so far as I have observed, has that tendency been more freely exercised than in that branch of the law we are concerned with in the present case, namely, the law of limitation. The way in which this matter stands is as follows: In October 1913, a decree was obtained in a suit in which the plaintiffs were a father and his three sons, and the three sons were described on the face of the proceedings as suing through their next friend and guardian the first plaintiff (that is, the father). Two months after that decree the father died and it was not until December of the following year 1914 that the eldest of the three sons attained his majority. On the 3rd December 1917, well within three years of the attainment of majority, an execution application was taken out. It is sa...
Kummati Veettil Kottaparampath Maliyakkal Kunhibi (Died) by Her Legal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.414
Victor Marry Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff was in occupation of some land cultivating it by a tenant. Government claimed that it was their land, and on the 17th of April 1919 they sent her a notice to quit under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905. Nothing happened for a time. In May 1919 the plaintiff put in a petition for the review of this notice to the Deputy Collector. On the 18th of September 1919 the Deputy Collector dismissed the review petition. On the 2nd of October 1919 an order which amounted practically to a notice to quit went to the plaintiff. On the 22nd of December 1919 the plaintiff filed the present suit for vindicating her alleged rights of ownership in the Civil Court.2. The Courts below have declared that suit to be barred by limitation by reason of Section 14 of the Act which says 'Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent persons deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act except as hereinbefore...
K.V.K.M. Kunhibi Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad825
Coutts Trotter, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff was in occupation of some land cultivating it by a tenant. Government claimed that it was their land, and on the 17th of April, 1919, they sent, her a notice to quit under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, III of 1905. Nothing happened for a time. In May 1919, the plaintiff put in a petition for a review of this notice to the Deputy Collector. On the 18th September, 1919, the Deputy Collector dismissed the review petition. On the 2nd of October, 1919, an order which amounted practically to a notice to quit went to the plaintiff. On the 22nd December, 1919 the plaintiff filed the present suit for vindicating her alleged rights of ownership in the Civil Court.2. The Courts below have declared that suit to be barred by limitation, by reason of Section 14 of the Act which says:Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent persons deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act, except as herein provided, from ap...
Venkatanarayana Chetty and anr. Vs. Sevugan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ240
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal in an insolvency proceedings which began in 1912. The appeal is by one of the creditors. He claimed to be entitled to a dividend from the assets realised from the insolvent's estate. His application was dismissed by the learned District Judge on the ground that the final dividend had been declared before his application was filed and that the distribution of the dividends so ordered could not be revised so as to include his share, as he knew that such dividend was going to be declared and took no steps in time. The learned Judge points out that he appeared in Court in person when it was claimed by the Official Receiver that a property transferred to him by the insolvent was not validly transferred; it was a case of a fraudulent preference and the Receiver applied to have the alienation set aside and it was set aside. The learned Judge holds that he should have kept in touch with the proceedings in Court; and as he had tendered no proof of his claim in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »