Chennai Court April 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.
D. Deynan Kunhathamma Vs. P. Avulla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad351
1. In this case the plaintiff is the owner of one share in the equity of redemption of the plaint properties which have been mortgaged to the second defendant. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for redemption of her share alone, but, as the plaintiff was not willing to take such a decree, her suit has been dismissed, and sow in appeal she contends that she is entitled to redeem the whole of the property on payment of the whole of the mortgage amount. This is in accordance with the decision in Huthasanan Nambudri v. Parameswaram Nambudri (1899) 22 Mad. 209 and also the decision in Mora Joshi v. Ramachandra Dinkar Joshi (1891) 15 Bom. 24 and Narayan v. Ganpat (1897) 21 Bom. 619 but the former decision was expressly dissented from in a later one reported as Rathna Mudali v. Perumal Reddy (1912) 38 Mad. 310. Our attention has, however, been called to a very recent ruling of the Privy Council reported as Mirza Yadelli Beg v. Tukaram A.I.R. 1921 P.C. 125 ...
Peruri Suryapracasam Vs. P.T. Munuswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad494
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the sureties praying that they may be given two months' time to pay the amount of the decree which they are liable to pay as sureties and that execution may be stayed for two months in order to enable them to pay the amount.2. The suit was filed under Order VI-A of the Original Side Rules against the defendant and leave to defend was given on condition that the defendant gave security. The applicants stood as sureties. A decree was ultimately passed and execution is now sought against the sureties.3. The affidavit of Chandrasekhara Chetti (one of the sureties), filed in support of the application, states that the defendant has been promising to settle the claim with the plaintiff and pay up the decree amount, and the sureties therefore did not take any steps to find the money, that ten days before the filing of the present application notice was issued to the sureties to show cause why execution should not be issued against them, that ...
Udamanthala Nalupuratatil Ibraine Vs. Parameswara Bavannavar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1019; 85Ind.Cas.996
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The only question for discussion in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The suit is for the redemption of a mortgage of the year 1837. It would admittedly be barred at the time when the suit was instituted, if there was no valid acknowledgment admitting the mortgage by the defendants. The acknowledgment relied upon is contained in Ex. C, which is a certified copy of the judgment in a suit to which the original mortgagees and the mortgagors were parties. The pleadings set forth in that judgment do refer to the mortgage of the year 1837. It is argued by Mr. Adiga for the appellant that Ex. C is not admissible in evidence on the strength of the Full Bench decision in Seethapati Rao Dora v. Venkanna Dora A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 71. With reference to this argument, it is relevant to point out that this case came on a prior occasion before the High Court when it was remanded for a decision whether the original mortgagee was the karnavan or...
(Peddi Reddi) Jogi Reddi Vs. Parem Chinnabireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1195
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit, instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he and Defendants 1 to 3 are each entitled to one-fourth of the plaint schedule movable and immovable properties, including debts, for the recovery of the plaintiff's one-fourth share of these properties, making him liable for one-fourth of the debts mentioned in Schedule D and for a declaration that certain alienations are not binding on him.2. The facts of the case are not seriously disputed. The plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 with their deceased brother Bali Reddi formed members of a joint Hindu family. Jogi Reddi, the 3rd defendant, who is the appellant before us, is the son of their sister Sanjainma, who married a Christian. On the death of his father, Jogi Reddi and his mother lived with his uncles as members of one household. It is admitted that when Jogi Reddi came to live in the family, he had considerable properties. All these properties were managed by his uncles, a...
Peddi Reddi Jogi Reddi Vs. Paneen Chinnabireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1016
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that he and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are each entitled to one-fourth of the plaint schedule, moveable and immoveable properties including debts, for the recovery of the plaintiff's one-fourth share of these properties making him liable for one-fourth of the debts mentioned in Schedule D and for a declaration that certain alienations are not binding on him.2. The facts of the case are not seriously disputed. The plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with their deceased brother Bali Reddi formed members of a joint Hindu family. Jogi Reddi, the 3rd defendant, who is the appellant before us, is the son of their sister Sanjamma, who married a Christian. On the death of his father, Jogi Reddi and his mother lived with his uncles as members of one house-hold. It is admitted that when Jogi Reddi came to live in the family he had considerable properties. All these properties were managed by his ...
Peruri Sooryaprakasam Vs. P.i. Muniswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.134
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the sureties praying that they may be given two months time to pay the amount of the decree, which they are liable to pay as sureties and that execution may be stayed for two months, in order to enable them to pay the amount.2. The suit was filed under Order VI A, of the Original Side Rules against the defendant and leave to defend was given, on condition that the defendant gave security. The applicants stood as sureties. A decree was ultimately passed and execution is now sought against the sureties.3. The affidavit of Chandrasekara Chetty (one of the sureties), filed in support of the application, states that the defendant has been promising to settle the claim with the plaintiff and pay up the decree amount, and the sureties, therefore, did not take any steps to find the money, that ten days before the filing of the present application notice was issued to the sureties, to show cause why execution should not be issued against them, ...
Krishnaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. Perumal Alias Mammaya Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.84
Phillips, J.1. This suit is brought for partition by the plaintiff against his brother the first defendant and the latter's minor sons. The second appeal was first of all dismissed for default en 26th April 1923 :and it was afterwards restored to file on 26th March 1924. The second respondent was given up and the appeal has now come on for hearing. Unfortunately the pleadings in this case are not before me. How-ever, from the facts found by the learned Subordinate Judge and from the abstract of the pleadings in the judgment the, following appear to be the facts upon which the second appeal has to be decided.2. In 1910, the plaintiff brought a suit, against the first defendant and his father for partition.- He withdrew that suit with leave to bring another; but he failed to pay the costs, which was the condition on which leave to sue again was granted. He continued to live jointly with his father and brother and after the former's death with the latter until disputes arose, which culmin...
A. Janoo Hassan Sait by His Authorised Agent, Dada Beg Mahomed Vs. M.S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ356
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit upon a foreign judgment of the Colombo Court against the Ist defendant. The Ist defendant and his brother who were trading in partnership executed a power-of-attorney to one Sheikh Abdul Rahiman under which he was empowered to sue in the Courts of Ceylon and to appear before any Court or Courts of Justice either as plaintiff or defendant, etc. The power is a very wide one and gives the agent very full powers to represent the principals. Under the provisions of that power Abdul Rahiman appointed one Abdul Guddus as his sub-agent during his absence from Ceylon. A suit was filed in 1915 on four promissory notes against Abdul Rahiman and Abdul Guddus, but upon their pleading that they were merely agents of Ist defendant's firm another suit was brought against the Ist defendant. Notice of the suit was served on Abdul Guddus as Ist defendant's agent and the judgment on which the present suit is based was passed in his absence.2. The first question for considerat...
The Official Receiver Vs. Vedappa Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ431
1. This is an appeal by the Official Receiver of Tanjore in an insolvency matter in which the Official Receiver applied to have a release deed or a transfer deed executed by the insolvent in favour of his father within two years of the insolvency to be declared void under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920. The learned District Judge disposed of the case, we think, somewhat summarily; he fell into the initial error of thinking that, as at the time the release deed was executed all the previous creditors had been paid off and there were no creditors in existence, the deed could not be said to be in fraud of creditors and the subsequent creditors could not impugn it. We cannot accept this as a correct statement of the law. It has been laid down so early as 1742 in Stileman v. Ashdown (1743) 26 ER 688. that, ' It is not necessary, that a man should actually be indebted at the time he enters into a voluntary settlement to make it fraudulent; for, if a man does it with a ...
A. Janno Hassan Sait Vs. S.N. Mahamad Ohuthu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad155
Phillips, J.1. This is a suit upon a foreign judgment of the Colombo Court against the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant and his brother who were trading in partnership executed a power of attorney to one Sheikh Abdul Rahiman under which he was empowered to sue in the Courts of Ceylon and to appear before any Court or Courts of Justice either as plaintiff or defendant, etc. The power is a very wide one and gives the agent very full powers to represent the principals.2. Under the provisions of the power Abdul Eahiman appointed one Abdul Guddus as his sub-agent during his absence from Ceylon. A suit was filed in 1915 on four promissory notes against Abdul Rahiman and Abdul Guddus but upon their pleading that they were merely agents of 1st defendant's firm another suit was brought against the 1st defendant. Notice of the suit was served on Abdul Guddus as 1st defendant's agent; and the judgment on which the present suit is based was passed in his absence.3. The first question for considera...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »