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.
Nalluli Pandarathil Karnavan Raman Menon Vs. the Secretary of State fo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.956
Krishnan, J.1. In this cape the Secretary of State and the three persons who purchased the lands which were the subject-matter of Second Appeal No. 1025 of 1921, in which judgment has just now been delivered are the plaintiffs. They sue to receiver possession of the lands from the defendant on the ground that the defendant's lease had been terminated by a proper notice to quit and they are entitled to possession. The decree was asked to be given in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4. The lower Courts, have granted the decree asked for and the defendant appeals.2. It is contended on his behalf that his tenancy has not been properly terminated by a proper notice to quit and that, therefore, he was not bound to surrender possession. The argument is that the notices as issued by the Government, Exhibits O and P, were not issued by the party entitled to issue notices, as by the time they were issued, the Government had parted with all its rights to plaintiffs Nos.2 to 4 and they were the prop...
Krishnayya Vs. Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad134
Jackson, J.1. The suit is for Rs. 252-9-3 (Rupees two hundred and fifty-two, annas nine and pies three only) due on dealings. The lower Court has found that the amount is due but had dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Plaintiff accordingly prefers this Civil Revision Petition. The point for decision is whether 4th defendant has made such acknowledgment of liability as falls within the mischief of Section 19, Indian Limitation Act. There wore two partners, first defendant and one Seshayya, father of 4th defendant. On 1st December, 1918, (Exhibit C,) 4th defendant wrote to plaintiff:In respect of the amount due to you under the joint account opened with you in the names of my father and Rajasree Kottumasu Narasimham Garu (1st defendant) I agree to pay you the whole amount with interest after taking accounts.2. The date of this letter will admittedly save the bar of limitation and it seems to be a clear acknowledgment of liability. It is strenuously contended that 4th defendant h...
Subramanya Chetty Vs. Ramakrishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad403; 84Ind.Cas.866
Spencer, J.1. The plaintiff Subramania Chetty, is the elder brother of Pattabhi Chetty, the husband of the first defendant. Pattabhi Chatty died in September 1914. His widow, the first defendant, has been carrying on the family trade in groceries, in which the plaintiff was at on a time partner, till there was a dissolution of partnership on the 22nd January, 1915, and a distribution of assets and debits under a deed of division, which is Exhibit B. The brothers, as a family, became divided in 1910. The suit was brought for a declaration that certain alienations made by the widow were not valid beyond her lifetime. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the first defendant had more than doubled the value of the properties left to her by her husband and that her transactions were bona fide.2. When Pattabhi Chetty died, he left besides the widow, a daughter who died three years after her father. The first defendant's father Naganna Chetty, came and lived with his dau...
Venkayya and anr. Vs. Mokkarala Bangarayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad401
Devadoss, J.1. Plaintiff sued for recovery of Rs. 424-9-6, (Rupees four hundred and Twenty-four, annas nine and pies six) due on a pro-note executed by a widow for family necessity and obtained a decree against her reversioners who petition to have it set aside. The question is whether in circumstances of necessity, a widow can bind the estate. It was originally held in Madras that she cannot do so. See Ramaswami Mudaliar v. Sellatammal (1882) 4 Mad. 375 but that ruling has been departed from in Regella Jagayya v. Venkataratnamma (1910) 33 Mad. 492. Dhiraj Singh v. Manga Ram (1897) 19 All. 300 follows the earlier Madras view. Calcutta has always held the other way. See Ramkoomar Mitter v. Ichamoyi Dasi (1881) 6 Cal. 36 and the whole question has been exhaustively summed up by Jenkins, C.J., in Sakrabhai v. Maganlal (1902) 26 Bom. 206 where it is held that the assets are liable as against the reversioners.2. In the circumstances I see no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed wi...
Malladi Krishnayya Vs. Tondepu Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.940
Jackson, J.1. The suit is for Rs. 252-9-3 (Rupees two hundred and fifty two, annas nine and pies three only) due on dealings. The lower Court has found that the amount is due but has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Plaintiff accordingly prefers this Civil Revision Petition. The point lor decision is whether 4th defendant has made such acknowledgment of liability as falls within the mischief of Section 19 Indian Limitation Act. There were two partners, first defendant and one Seshayya father of 4th defendant. On 1st December 1918, (Exhibit C.) 4th defendant wrote to plaintiff: ' In respect of the amount due to you under the joint account opened with you in the names of my father and Rajasree Kottumasu Narasimham Garu (1st defendant) I agree to pay you the whole amount with interest alter taking accounts. The date of this letter will admittedly save the bar of limitation and it seems to be a clear acknowledgment of liability. It is strenuously contended that 4th defendant had...
A. Venkataramana Bhatta and anr. Vs. Krishna Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad57; (1924)47MLJ307
Krishnan, J.1. The appellants before me are defendants 11 and 12. The property in question belongs to defendants 1 to 10. It was mortgaged by them in 1910 to the plaintiffs who are the representatives of what is called the Bhandaram under an usufructuary mortgage. Defendants 1 to 10 obtained the property back from them under a lease for 63 years. In that lease deed there is a covenant for forfeiture on alienation the effect of which is the point to be considered in Second Appeal. Defendants 1 to 10 subsequently mortgaged again to defendants 11 and 12 some portions of this property as well as some other properties belonging to them under a usufructuary mortgage for a period of 90 years.2. It is contended by the plaintiffs that on account of that transaction the covenant for forfeiture in the lease taken by defendants 1 to 10 from them has taken effect and that the plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover possession of the properties from defendants 1 to 10 as well as from defendan...
In Re: Application of Mr. Aruna Chala Aiyar, Attorney, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.732
Kumaraswamy Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the Attorney, who appeared for the auction-purchaser, the counter-petitioner for an order that the petitioner should be declared to have a charge on the premises, more particularly described in the schedule, in respect of the costs, which are due to the Attorney, the counter-petitioner having engaged him, for the purpose of appearing in the application, to set aside the sale of the property, wherein he was declared the purchaser. It is clear from the vakalat, which the counter-petitioner admittedly executed in favour of the Attorney, that he engaged Mr. Arunachala Aiyar, the Attorney to appear for him and get the sale confirmed and oppose the application for setting aside the sale and that he agreed to pay him costs, according to the scale laid down by the High Court Fee Rules, 1902. The counter-petitioner declares in the vakalat that no counter-agreement was made between himself and the Attorney, in respect of costs. The vakalat was a...
In Re: Arunachala Aiyar, Attorney High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad793
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the Attorney, who appeared for the auction-purchaser, the counter-petitioner for an order that the petitioner should be declared to have a charge, on the premises, more particularly described in the schedule, in respect of the costs, which are due to the Attorney, the counter-petitioner having engaged him, for the purpose of appearing in the application, to set aside the sale of the property, wherein he was declared the purchaser. It is clear from the Vakalat, which the counter-petitioner admittedly executed in favour of the Attorrey that he engaged Mr. Arunachala Aiyar, the Attorney, to appear for him and get the sale confirmed and oppose the application for setting aside the sale and that he had agreed to pay him costs, according to the scale laid down by the High Court Fee Rules, 1902. The counter-petitioner declares in the Vakalat that no counter agreement was made between himself and the Attorney, in respect of costs. The Vakalat ...
ivaturi Brahmayya Lingam Vs. Kamisetti Mallamma Alias Kanakamma and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad849; (1924)47MLJ652
Krishnan, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues to recover certain items of property which he conveyed to the 1st defendant under Ex. I. The finding of the lower Courts is that though a consideration of Rs. 800 is recited in it and it purports to be a sale for that consideration, the transaction was really one by which the plaintiff made a gift of the property to the 1st defendant for the past co-habitation and for future cohabitation with her which she promised. The plaintiff is the appellant before me and the contesting defendant is a transferee for value from the 1st defendant. The first Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding that the sale to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff was an invalid transaction as the consideration was an immoral and illegal one and that the 2nd defendant was a transferee for value, but with notice and was thus not a bona fide, purchaser. On appeal the Subordinate Judge, though he agreed in the first finding that the consideration for the ...
In Re: Mirza Ahmed Namazi; in Re: the Indian Companies Act, Vii of 191 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.94
Devadoss, J.1. This is a Judge's Summons to show cause why the alleged surrender of the shares held by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the forfeiture of the shares held by the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 should not be declared to be invalid and why all the respondents herein should not be directed to pay to the liquidators, the respective call amounts and allotment monies due in respect of the shares held by them and for incidental reliefs. There are nine respondents to this application. Respondents Nos. 2, 7, and 9 do not appear and they are declared ex parte. The third respondent is dead and the application is withdrawn as against him. The eighth respondent admits his liability and his letter is filed as Exhibit K.2. The contention of the first respondent is that he surrendered the shares to the Company and the surrender was accepted by the Directors. On behalf of the liquidator, who has taken out that Judge's summons, it is alleged that there are four Directors in Madras at the time when t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »