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.
P. Subbamma Vs. M. Venkatakrishna Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad151
Jackson, J.1. Respondents are absent and this appeal is heard ex parte. A widow obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 463 of 1914 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Kavali for arrears of rent and died before executing it. Her son's daughter claimed to execute it as succeeding to the estate of the widow's husband under a will. Her daughter's daughter claimed to execute it as heir to her private estate arguing that the money if collected would be part of the income and the widow could treat it as her stridhanam. The District Munsirf accepted this plea, and the son's daughter appeals.2. In Nabakishore Mandal v. Upendrakishore Mandal A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 39 it has been held by the Privy Council that if the stridhanam was due to accumulated savings from the income of the property received from her husband's estate, the widow might so deal with it that it would remain her own, yet it must be shewn to have been so dealt with. It was held in Madras that the onus lay the other way...
Clan Line Steamship Company Limited Vs. R. Srinivasa Pai (Died) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.892
Krishnan, J.1. In this second appeal the Clan Line Steamship Co., Ltd., is the appellant; the respondents are certain merchants in Cochin who were consignees of certain goods which the defendant Company had undertaken to carry from Liverpool and London to Cochin under bills of lading Exs. 50, 51 and 52. The language of all these bills is exactly similar and it will be sufficient to refer to one of them in considering the case. The total freight to Cochin was paid as advance freight in England and the goods were pub on board of one of the defendant Company's steamers, ' SECTIONS Clan Mackellar.' The ship duly arrived at the Bombay harbour, but when it arrived there it was commandeered by the Government of India for use as transport and in consequence its voyage with cargo had to be terminated and all its cargo was discharged in that port. The steamship agents gave notice of what happened to all the consignees including the plaintiffs by Ex. 24 and asked them to make arrangements to take...
Arunachela Goundan Vs. Katha Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad842
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. There were two suits before the District Munsif, the one he dismissed for default on account of the nonappearance of the plaintiff, and in the other he passed an ex parte decree on account of the defendant not having appeared. The plaintiff in the first suit; and the defendant; in the second suit happen to be the same person. Applications were made to the District Munsif to set aside the order of dismissal for default in the first suit and to set aside the ex parte decree in the second suit. The District Munsif refused to allow these applications, but on appeal the District Judge made orders favourable to the applicant. The propriety of these orders is challenged in the revision petition before me.2. A vakil appeared for the party in default and stated he had no instructions. It is argued that notwithstanding this, the pleader must be held co have appeared on his client's behalf and, therefore, the provisions of Order 9 do not apply. I am utterly unable to follow...
Pavani Subbamma Vs. Mungamur Venkatakrishna Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.290
Jackson, J.1. Respondents are absent and this appeal is heard ex parte. A widow obtained a decree in Original Suit No. 463 of 1914 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kavali for arrears of rent and died before executing it. Her son's daughter claimed to execute it as succeeding to the estate of the widow's husband under a Will. Her daughter's daughter claimed to execute it as heir to her private estate arguing that the money if collected would be part of the income and the widow could treat it as her stridhanam. The District Munsif accepted this plea, and the son's daughter appeals. In Nabakishore Mandal v. Upendrakishore Mandal 66 Ind. Cas. 305 : 26 C.W.N. 322: 30 M.L.T. 234: A.I.R. (1922) (P.C.) 39 it has been held by the Privy Council that if the stridhanam was due to accumulated savings from the income of the property received from her husband's estate, the widow might so deal with it that it would remain her own, yet it must be shown to have been so dealt with. It w...
Clan Line Ltd. by Its Agent James Finley and Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Srinivasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad885
Krishnan, J.1. In this second appeal, the Clan Line Steamship Company, Limited, is the appellant. The respondents are certain merchants in Cochin, who were consignees of certain goods, which the defendant company had undertaken to carry from Liverpool and London to Cochin, under bills of lading, Exhibits 50, 51 and 52. The language of all these bills is exactly similiar and it will be sufficient to refer to one of them in considering the case The total freight to Cochin was paid as advance freight in England and the goods were put on board of one of the defendant company's steamers, S.S. 'Clan Mackellar.' The ship duly arrived in the Bombay Harbour, but when it arrived there, it was commandeered by the Government of India for use as transport and in consequence its voyage with cargo had to be terminated and all its cargo was discharged in that port. The steamship agents gave notice of what happened to all the consignees, including the plaintiffs, by Exhibit 24, and asked them to make a...
Rajagopala Iyer Vs. Thathayya Arunachala Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad829; 83Ind.Cas.17; (1924)47MLJ305
Jackson, J.1. In Small Cause Suit No. 1494 of 1919 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore plaintiff sued for contribution. In O.S. No. 409 of 1906 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tiruvadi he was sued as defendant No. 6 along with defendants, deceased father of the present defendant Nos. 3 to 8 and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are also defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in this suit. The costs were recovered from plaintiff and he sues for contribution. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that defendants Nos. 2, 5 and 6 in O.S. No. 409 of 1906 were joint tort feasors, and plaintiff files this petition for revision (1st defendant pleaded payment and the point was found against him).2. There is authority for holding that there can be no decree for contribution among joint tort feasors. Vide Manja v. Kadugochen I.L.R. (1883) M. 89, Gobind Chunder Nundy v. Srigobind Chowdhry I.L.R. (1897) Cal. 330 though that authority is shaken by the observatio...
Appatta Chathu Nambiar and ors. Vs. Appatta Sekharan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.1050; (1924)47MLJ695
Krishnan, J.1. This suit is brought to recover with mesne profits possession of the properties described in the plaint from the possession of the defendants on the allegation that they are tarwad properties. The plaintiffs and the defendants are all members of a Marumakkatayam tarwad called 'Appatta.' The 1st defendant is the present Karnavan of that tarwad and the other defendants also belong to the tarwad. The plaintiffs who are some of the members of the tarwad are the appellants before me. The defendants against whom reliefs are claimed in this suit are also members of a tavazhi in the tarwad called Kuttierikandi tavazhi. The lower Courts have found that though the existence of the tavazhi was denied such a tavazhi does exist as a separate body in the tarwad with a separate Karnavan and owning separate properties. The members of the tavazhi claim the suit properties as theirs except items 1 to 12 and 14 which are admitted to be tarwad properties. The second appeal has been argued b...
Narano Mahapatro and anr. Vs. Sri Ramachandra Mardaraja Deo Garu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad357
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of Rs. 12 and odd on account of jodi on an enfranchised inam for faslis 1326 and 1327. The first defendant pleaded that he was not liable to pay any jodi. The question that was considered in the first Court was whether the plaintiff is entitled to the jodi claimed. On the evidence before the first Court it came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the jodi and so dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the District Judge agreed with the judgment of the first Court on the question whether the defendants were liable to pay the jodi claimed but reversed it on a question of res judicata which was not raised by the parties in the first Court. As against this decision the Second Appeal and the C.R.P. have been filed in this Court by the defendants.2. It is obvious that no Second Appeal lies and this is admitted by the learned Vakil for the appellants himself. But he asks the interference of thi...
A. Chathu Nambiar and ors. Vs. A. Sekharan Nambiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad430a
Krishnan, J.1. This suit is brought to recover with mesne profits possession of the properties described in the plaint from the possession of the defendants on the allegation that they are tarwad properties. The plaintiffs and the defendants are all members of a Marumakkatayam tarwad called 'Appatta.' The 1st defendant is the present karnavan of that tarwad and the other defendants also belong to the tarwad. The plaintiffs who are some of the members of the tarwad are the appellants before me. The defendants against whom reliefs are claimed in this suit are also members of a tavazhi in the tarwad called Kuttierigandi tavazhi. The lower Courts have found that though the existence of the tavazhi was denied such a tavazhi does exist as a separate body in the tarwad with a separate karnavan and owning separate properties. The members of the tavazhi claim the suit properties as theirs except items 1 to 12 and 14 which are admitted to be tarwad properties. The second appeal has been argued b...
Palani Alias Thirumeni thevan (Minor) by Next Friend Pechi Ammal Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ155
Krishnan, J.1. In this case an interesting question arises for decision regarding the legitimacy of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's mother, Pechi Ammal, was first married to one Subramania Thevan in September or October, 1903. That marriage, it is found, was dissolved in May or June, 1904, and then she married again one Thirumeni Thevan in June or July, 1904. The plaintiff was born to her in September, 1904. These are the findings of fact by the lower Courts.2. The question that has to be decided is whether on these facts the plaintiff is to be treated as the legitimate son of Thirumeni Thevan and is entitled to a share of his properties as the District Munsif has held, or whether he is not the son of Thirumeni Thevan but the legitimate son of Subramania Thevan as the Subordinate Judge seems to consider. Pechi Animal's marriage with Subramania Thevan did not prove to be a happy one. Thirumeni Thevan seems to have conceived a great regard for her and was a rival for her affections from t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »