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.
Narayana Nair Vs. Kunhi Raman Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad131
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry, in A.S. No. 300 of 1921, on E.P. No. 55 of 1921.2. The decree-holder relies on certain pay-merits, made within three years of the date of the prior application, in order to save limitation the lower Appellate Court has found that the payment is true and that finding is not traversed.3. It also finds that the payment cannot save limitation and this is the point for determination.4. The decree is dated 1915. There was an arrest in 1917. On or about 25th January, 1918, Rs. 100 (Rupees one hundred only) was paid towards the decree debt, i.e., on 10th Makaram 1093. On 17th January, 1920, the decree holder applied for execution, in B.P. No. 55 of 1921 and the Munsif took this as a petition for certifying the payment of January, 1918 and found that this payment saved limitation.5. There are two ways in which a decree-holder may save limitation. He may prove a payment which satisfies the requirements of ...
In Re: A.S. Radakrishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad819
ORDERJackson, J.1. Bangaru Govinda Ayyar, petitioner in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923 applied to excuse 39 days delay, in presenting S.R. No. 12691, an application to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. He died and one Radakrishna Aiyar has applied to be brought on record as petitioner, in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923. Apparently, he only wishes to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis, as having derived that right from Bangaru Govinda Ayyar. He does not allege that he himself is a pauper. It has been ruled in Manji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo (1912) 36 Bom. 279 that the representative of a pauper cannot continue the suit in forma pauperis if not a pauper himself : cf. Lalit Mohan Mandal v. Satish Chandra Das (1906) 33 Cal. 1163. The old Calcutta ruling which Devar, J., in Manji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo (1912) 36 Bom. 279 says he cannot understand, Bhasbut Boss v. Buloam Doss 3 W.R. mis. 20 does not really present much difficulty, A party died and his legal representative applied to be placed on record...
Palani Alias Tirumeni thevan Minor by Next Friend Pechi Ammal Vs. Seth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad677; 81Ind.Cas.456
Krishnan, J.1. In this case an interesting question arises for decision regarding the legitamacy 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 Tirumeni 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 Tirumani Thevan and is entitled to a share of his properties as the District Munsif has held, or whether he is not the son of Tirumeni Thevan but the legitimate son of Subramania Thevan as Hie Subordinate Judge seems to consider. Pechi Animal's marriage with Subramania Thevan did not prove to be, a happy one. Tirumeni Thevan seems to have conceived a great regard for her and was a rival for her affections from the very ...
Alliar Rowther Vs. Narayana Kudumban and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad817; 81Ind.Cas.844
Jackson, J.1. This is an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code to set aside a sale held in execution of a decree, on the ground that no notice had been served on the judgment-debtor, and the proceedings were fraudulent. Both the Mansif and the Subordinate Judge have dismissed the application; and hence this second appeal.2. The District Munsif has found that the notices were duly served and there is no reason to hold that the sale was ob initio void. The case where an entirely wrong notice had been sent out, is not in point, cf. Raghunatha Das v. Sundar Das Khetri 24 Ind. Cas. 304 : 42 C.P 72 : 18 C.W.N. 1058 : 1 L.W. 567 : 27 M.L.J. 150 : 16 M.L.T. 353; (1914) M.W.N. 747 : 16 Bom. L.R. 814 : 20 C.L.J. 555 : 13 A.L.J. 154 : 41 I.A. 251. There is ample authority for holding that where the sale is sought to be set aside qn the ground of fraud, Article 166 applies. See Konidena Karnayya v. Konidena Ramamma 74 Ind. Cas. 458; (1922) M.W.N. 176; A.I.R. (1922) (M.) 95 : 16 L.W. 9...
Siva Pratap Bhattadu Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.131
Kumarasami Sastri, J.1. This is an application under the Specific Relief Act and the Income Tax Act for an order directing the Commissioner of Income Tax to refer to the High Court the following points.2. Whether on the facts stated in the accompanying affidavit of the petitioner's munim there is, 'sufficient cause,' with in the meaning of Section 27 of the Income Tax Act of 1912.3. Whether it was open to the Commissioner to arrive at a finding of wilful default in the absence of any evidence and whether there is evidence in this case on which such a finding can be recorded.4. Whether it is open to the Commissioner to take into consideration the previous adjournments which were granted by the Income Tax Officer (Collector of Godavari), to canvass the adequacy of the reasons for such adjournments and to base a finding of wilful default as regards the final due date 1st February 1923, on such considerations or whether he should confine the consideration of 'sufficient cause' to the final...
In Re: A.S. Radhakrishna Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: 88Ind.Cas.91
ORDERJackson, J.1. Bangaru Govinda Aiyar, petitioner in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923 applied to excuse 39 days delay in presenting S.R. No. 12691 of 1923, an application to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. He died and one Kadhakrishna Aiyar has applied to be brought on record as petitioner in C.M.P. No. 2199 of 1923. Apparently he only wishes to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis as having derived that right from Bangaru Govinda Aiyar. He does not allege that he himself is a pauper. It has been ruled in Mandji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo 11 Ind. Cas. 724 : 36 B.K 279 : 13 Bom. L.R. 577 that the representative of a pauper cannot continue the suit in forma pauperis if not a pauper himself: cf. Lalit Mohan Mandal v. Satish Chandra Das 33 C.P 1163 : 4 C.L.J. 234 The old Calcutta ruling which Davar, J., in Manaji Rajuji v. Khandoo Baloo 11 Ind. Cas. 724 : 36 B.P 279 : 13 Bom. L.R. 577 says he cannot understand Bhagbut Doss v. Buloram Doss 3 W.R. Mis. 20 does not really present much difficulty. ...
Venkatasubba Chettiar Vs. Sesha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ201
Jackson, J.1. This is a petition under Section 115 of Act V of 1908, and Section 107, Government of India Act.2. Petitioner and respondent were the only two candidates at the election held on 22nd September, 1922, for the appointment of a councillor to represent the 12th Ward of the Trichinopoly Municipality. The petitioner was declared duly elected and respondent filed a petition before the District Judge of Trichinopoly under the rules framed in accordance with Section 303(2)(b), Madras Act V of 1920. While the inquiry into this petition was pending the respondent applied in I. A. No. 625 of 1922 purporting to be under Sections 94, 141, 151 and Order 39, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the present petitioner be restrained by a temporary injunction from taking his seat in the Municipal Council until the disposal of the petition. In his order on this application, dated 30th October, 1922, the District Judge restrained the petitioner by interim injunction from taking his seat...
Kajuluri Swami and anr. Vs. Sree Rajah Chintalapati Sooryanarayana Raz ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ269
Jackson, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115, Act V of 1908 and Section 107, Government of India Act.2. Petitioner applied under Order 9, Rule 9 to restore his petition for setting aside an execution sale which had been previously dismissed for default. The lower Court has dismissed the application on the ground that such an application does not lie against orders in execution proceedings following Bhubaneswar Prasad Singh v. Tilakdhari Lal (1918) 4 Pat LJ 135. Hence this petition.3. The Patna Bench has ruled in terms that Order 9, Rule 9 does not apply, and the question is whether this ruling should be followed with special reference to Subbiah Naicker v Ramanathan Chettiar I.L.R. (1914) M 462 : 26 MLJ 189 the Madras ruling to the contrary. In the Madras ruling at p. 475, the following passage occurs: 'It is contended that O.9, Rule 13,Civil Procedure Code, does not apply to ex parte orders passed in execution but only to ex parte decrees in suits. We think that t...
Kuppakkal (Died) K. Ponnuswami Chetty, L.R. of the Deceased Vs. Mathan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ477
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. One Rangaswami Chetty sold to the 1st defendant under Ex. I, dated 26th June, 1917, a strip of land about 102 feet long and 21 feet wide having a frontage on a public road out of a large block of building vacant site of which he was the owner. The portion purchased by the 1st defendant I shall call site No. A. The land exclusive of site No. A may, for the purposes of this appeal, be regarded as consisting of two parts : (1) The portion south of and contiguous to what was sold to the 1st defendant opening also on the public road (this 1 shall call site No. B); and (2) the bulk of the property at the back of the site No. A and the site No. B to which access from the road was over the said site No. B (this I shall call site No. C).2. Three days subsequent to the sale of site No. A Rangaswami Chetty sold the remainder of the block, sites Nos. B and C, to certain persons from whom the present plaintiffs de-. rive title. On the site No. C the plaintiffs constructed a g...
Narayanan Chetty Vs. Muthiah Chetty (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1924
Reported in: (1924)46MLJ575
Ramesam, J.1. Appeal No. 25 of 1917: This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit. The defendants appeal.2. Narayana Chetti, father of 4th defendant and his younger brother, Muthiah Chetti, father of defendants 1 to 3 were carrying on business at Rangoon under the style of M. P. M. Rm. In the course of the business, one Veerappa Chettiar of the PL R. M. Firm, became indebted to the firm to the extent of Rs. 3,000, but was unable to pay the debt. The 2nd plaintiff advised the agent (Alagappa) of the defendants through P. W. 6 of the connected suit O.S. No. 90 of 1916 (examined on commission at Rangoon), to buy the suit site and that he (the and plaintiff) would ' take it off him afterwards,' so that defendants' firm who are not in need of the site need not lose interest (Fide, Ex. G-2). The defendant's father purchased the site for Rs. 5,000, the consideration consisting partly of cash and partly of the debt du...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »