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.
Periyanayaki Ammal Vs. A.S. Rathnavelu Mudaliar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad61; (1924)47MLJ310
Ramesam, J.1. In this appeal the first question that arises is the construction of a will. The testator Shanmugha Mudaliar died in December, 1912, leaving a will dated the nth of November, 1911. Under this will he gave certain properties to his three daughters. We are now concerned with the disposition in favour of one of the daughters, Lokanayaki Ammal. She died on the 2nd of October, 1918. She had a son who was born on the 30th of September, 1918 and who pre-deceased her on the 1st of October, 1918 having lived only for a day.2. The important clause in the will runs thus:These (meaning the daughters) have no power to make sale, gift, mortgage, etc., of these two houses and grounds. After these, their issues shall use and enjoy them from son to grandson and so on in succession so long as the sun and the moon may last, with power of gift, mortgage, exchange and sale and they shall every year without default perform the aforesaid ceremonies, etc.3. The first question that arises is whet...
Nagappa Pillai Vs. Arunachalam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad281; 85Ind.Cas.1016; (1924)47MLJ876
Krishnan, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Bench by Coleridge, J. as he considered that the ruling of Phillips, J., in Sankunni v. Ikkora Kirtti (1919) MWN 570 on which the judgment of the District Munsif is based required re-consideration.2. The suit refers to a chit fund carried on by the defendant. There were 500 subscribers each paying a rupee a month. The chit was to last for 50 months during which period two prizes were to be drawn by lot of Rs. 25 each among the subscribers every month. Any subscriber who happened to win a prize was paid Rs. 25 at once and was thereafter to pay only a subscription of eight annas a month. If he won a second prize he would be paid Rs. 25 more and his subscription ceased and his name would no longer be included in drawing the prizes. At the end of the 50th month all the subscribers who had won no prizes were to be paid back the whole of the money they subscribed, namely Rs. 50 each; the single prize winners were similarly to...
Abdul Khader BIn Salim Bashrabil and anr. Vs. Faroji BIn Ali Bane Moon ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad228; 83Ind.Cas.769
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. In this case the defendants who are two gentlemen who live at Aden and who apparently also own ships, sent the plaintiff to Calicut, as their agent, to procure a ship's mast and certain other things and ship them at Calicut to be taken to Shermokkala. For some reason, quarrels arose between the parties and the plaintiff finally sued the defendant in the Calicut Court for his commission.2. The argument put forward in the first instance by the defendants is that there was no jurisdiction in the Calicut Court, because they said that Calicut was the seat neither of the lex fori nor of lex loci contractus. It appears to me that there is ample evidence in the probabilities of the case and the whole admitted relation between the parties to show that the plaintiff's duty was not to guarantee that the goods would reach their destination in Arabia, but he had performed his part of the bargain, when he procured the goods and got them on board a boat, at Calicut, bound for A...
Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao Vs. Muhammad Abdul Waheb Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad270
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Court of the District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam (in Appeal Suit No. 242 of 1921) preferred against the order passed in Execution Petition No. 1048 of 1920 in Summary Suit No. 77 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the Deputy Collector of Bhimavaram.2. The appellant is decree-holder in Summary Suit No. 77 of 1917. A collateral High Court judgment had decided that his judgment-debtor had never had possession of the property for the rent of which, the appellant has obtained a decree. Accordingly the lower Court held that the decree was superseded following Bommadevara Venkata Narsimha Naidu v. Ravi Venhatappiah (1920) 37 M.L.J. 591. That ruling has now been reversed by the Privy Council in Bommadevara Naganna Naidu v. Ravi Venkatappiah A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 167 and the respondent no longer attacks the decree on this ground. The old principle stands good that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Respondent contends, howeve...
S.R. Jaya Rao Vs. Venkatanarayana Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad264
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Both the lower Courts have treated the sum payable under the decree on a breach of the condition, in the nature of a penalty and relying upon Sheikh Mohidin Tharagan v. Vadivalagia-nambia Pillai (1914) M.W.N. 22 have dismissed the plaintiff's application.2. The question to be decided is : Is the doctrine of relieving against penalty to be applied to decrees? In Nagappa v. Venkatrao (1901) 24 Mad. 265 it has been held that the adoption of a contract by a Court amounts to an adoption if it with all its legal incidents and that the considerations which would arise if a mere contract were in question would equally apply to the enforcement of a decree embodying the contract. As the Court would have relieved the defendant from the penalty if the question had 'arisen in respect of a mere contract, it was likewise justified in relieving him from the penalty in the compromise decree containing the contract between the parties. The order, therefore, of the lower Court is c...
Annavi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad364
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The charge framed against the fourth accused runs thus:That you.... abetted, by being present, in the commission of the offence of mischief.... and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 430 and 114, Indian Penal Code.' Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code implies that the abetment had been completed before the actual offence was committed. It reads thus:Whenever any person who, if absent, would be liable to be punished as an abedtor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed, such act or offence.2. What is it that the section contemplates? It is dealing with a person who would be guilty of abetment independent of any act done at the time of the offence, that is to say, a person whose abetment is complete apart from his presence. The section defines the liability of such a person if be happens to be present when the offence is committed...
Abdul Rahiman Sahib and ors. Vs. Uthumansa Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad997; 85Ind.Cas.945
Devadoss, J.1. Plaintiffs are the grandsons of the first defendant by his elder son Muhammad Ganni, who died in 1911. The second defendant is the younger son of the first defendant. The third defendant is an alienee of some of the properties. The fourth defendant is a lessee and is in possession of some of the plaint properties. The fifth defendant is the plaintiffs' mother. The plaintiffs' case is that their father Muhammad Ganni and their grandfather, the first defendant Khader Sahib, traded in Natal and acquired considerable properties, that by an arrangement in 1908, evidenced by Exhibit B, they became entitled to A and B schedule properties, that their father left a Will, Exhibit C, to which the first defendant was a consenting party, and that they are, therefore, entitled to the whole of the A and B schedule properties; and that the alienation in favour of the third defendant does not bind the plaintiffs and that they are entitled to the G Schedule properties, half of the movable...
Venkatanarayana Chetty and anr. Vs. Vu. R.M.M.S.S. Sevugan Chetty and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad769
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal in an Insolvency proceeding, 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 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...
Ruckmani Ammal Vs. Veerasami Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ370
Jackson, J.1. In O.S. No. 420 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Srirangam, the plaintiff Pichu Aiyar died. Both his widow, Ruckmani Animal, the present petitioner and his daughter Seethai Ammal, the present 2nd respondent, applied to be brought on as legal representatives. The District Munsif found that Ruckmani Ammal was a minor, who had no right to apply in her own right, and dismissed her application. Having done so he disposed of Seethai Animal's application by merely recording 'Defendant (present Ist respondent) has no objection. 'Ruckmani Ammal now applies to have both orders revised.2. I cannot hold that the District Munsif acted irregularly in rejecting Ruckmani Ammal's application on the analogy of Order 32, Rule 2. He exercised a discretion allowed him by law, though I think he exercised that discretion very hastily. CA Rattonbai v. Chabildas Lallo Bhoy I.L.R. (1888) Bom 7. But I cannot find that the District Munsif was justified in adding Seethai Amm...
Sahadeva Reddi Vs. Lingappa Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad867; (1925)ILR68Mad781; 82Ind.Cas.942
Jackson, J.1. In Original Suit No. 426 of 1919, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvallur, plaintiff sued for Rs. 210 alleging that he held a lease of a blacksmith's inam from the previous holder which had been continued by the present holders, defendants 1 and 2. The other defendants 3 to 8 denied that these holders had title. The District Munsif and District Judge on appeal have held that the jurisdiction vested in the Revenue Court, and plaintiff seeks to revise the order and judgment of the District Court.2. This is an unenfranchised inam and a point directly in issue is whether defendants 1 and 2 have any claim to succeed to the office, and whether plaintiff as lessee can recover the emoluments of the office. Section 21, Act III of 1895, would seem therefore to apply. But it has long been settled that Section 21 must be read with Section 18. In spite of the generality of the language of Section 21 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is taken away only in those ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »