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.
Karapurathiukkam T.C. Rama Kurup Vs. Pudyottel Thamasikam Kunhiratnam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.891
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit is to recover possession of B class lands relinquished by the Railway Company and included in Survey Nos. 65/Bl and 65/B3 of Azhiym Amsom. These lands were first sold to the defendant by the Tahsildar and possession was given to him. Afterwards on an objection raised by the present plaintiff, the sale to the defendant was cancelled and the plaintiff was given these properties with right to recover them from defendant. The questions for determination are (I) whether the defendant has obtained a valid assignment of the plaint properties and (2) what is the legal effect of the subsequent assignment of these properties to the plaintiff. If the defendant has got a valid assignment of the plaint properties it follows that the subsequent assignment of the same properties to the plaintiff can give him no right to recover possession. Both the Courts below found that there was a valid assignment of the plaint properties to the defendan...
Karapurathirikkam T.C. Rama Kurup Vs. Pudottal Thmasikkam Kunhirattan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad911
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. His auit is to recover possession of B. Class lands, relinquished by the Railway Company and included in Survey Nos. 65-B-1 and 65-B-3 of Azhiyur Amsom.2. These lands were first sold to the defendant by the Tahsildar and possession was given to him. Afterwards, on an objection raised by the present plaintiff, the sale to the defendant was cancelled and the plaintiff was given these properties, with right to recover them from the defendant. The questions for determination are: (1) whether the defendant has obtained a valid assignment of the plaint properties; and (2) what is the legal effect of the subsequent assignment of these properties to the plaintiff. If the defendant has got a valid assignment of the plaint properties, it follows that the subsequent assignment of the same properties to the plaintiff can give him no right to recover possession. Both the Courts below found that there was a valid assignment of the plaint properties...
Annamalai Chetty Vs. Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad243
ORDER1. This is an application by the Official Assignee of Rangoon for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the order in C.M.P. No. 3032 of 1922 passed by Scbwabe, C.J., and myself. The order was passed under Section 8 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act of 1909 annulling a prior order of Wallis, C.J. and Seshagiri Iyer, J.2. The 1st and 2nd respondents now contend that there is no appeal to His Maiesty in Council against the order under Section 8 of Act III of 1909. Up to 1909 the Insolvency Jurisdiction in Presidency Towns was granted by 11 and 12 Viet., C. 21. In 1848 there were no High Courts in India and the Supreme Court had no Insolvency Jurisdiction and the Act of 1848 constituted an Insolvency Court. Even after the issue of Letters Patent in 1862 it was generally supposed that the Insolvency Court was, strictly, a Court separate from the High Court. Having regard to Clause 18 of the Letters Patent, it is doubtful how far such a view was correct. Clause 18 of th...
P.D.U. Vatakkepat Kavilakath and ors. Vs. T.P. Rama Pisharody and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad374
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The deceased first plaintiff and Ichikutti Pisharasiar are the assignees of Exhibit A. Exhibit A is a kazhaka kanom document executed in favour of Gopal Pisharody and Narayani Pisharasiar by the ancestors of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant who are the trustees of a devaswom. The document recites that a sum of Rs. 100 was received by the trustees from Gopal Pisharody and Narayani Pisharasiar. It was while these two were performing the kazhakam service in the temple as deputies of one Chovallor Variar under some arrangement made with him that the trustees of the devaswom persuaded them to advance a kanom of Rs. 100 as security for the due performance of the kazhakam and executed kazhaka kanom deed, Exhibit A, in their favour. The deceased first plaintiff and his sister obtaining the assignment of the kazhakam service as mentioned above carried on their duties in the temple for above 16 years. In the meanwhile, the rights of the family of Chovallor Variar...
G. Kotireddi Vs. B. Subbareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad382
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendants who are the alienees from the 1st defendant the widow of the deceased Rammana, are the appellants in these two connected second appeals. The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of one half of the properties of his maternal grandfather, Venkatareddi, on the ground that the compromise entered into in Original Suit No. 193 of 1888 by his mother as his guardian with the first defendant is unlawful fond not binding on him. Venkatareddi died in 1876 and his widow died in 1888. Their only daughter Appamma, the mother of the plaintiff, died in 1907, Appamma's elder son Rammanna died in 1887 leaving a widow Achamma, the present first defendant. In 1888 Achamma instituted a suit for the recovery of the properties of Venkatareddi alleging that her husband Ramanna had been adopted by Venkatareddi. The defendant in the suit was present plaintiff who was a minor represented by his mother Appamma as guardian. The suit ended in a compromise by which the present firs...
The Official Assignee of Rangoon Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1924
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.126
ORDER1. This is an application by the Official Assignee of Rangoon for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the order on C.M.P. No. 3032 of 1922 Official Assignee of Madras v. Official Assignee of Rangoon : AIR1924Mad118(1) passed by Schwabe C.J., and myself, That order was passed under Section 8 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act of 1909 annulling a prior order of Wallis, C.J., and Seshagiri Iyer, J.2. The first and second respondents now contend that there is no appeal to His, Majesty in Council against the order under Section 8 of Act III of 1909. Upto 1909, the insolvency jurisdiction in Presidency Towns was governed by 11 and 12 Vict. C. 21. In 1818 there were no High Courts in India and the Supreme Court had no insolvency jurisdiction and the Act of 1848 constituted an Insolvency Court. Even after the issue of the Letters Patent in 1852, it was generally supposed that the Insolvency Court was, strictly, a Court separate from the High Court. Having regard to Claus...
V. Manickam Pillai Vs. Mahudum Bathummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad21; (1924)47MLJ398
Victor Murray Coutts Trottter, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff's vakil appeared in Court on the day fixed for the hearing of the suit, asked for an adjournment and stated that, if that adjournment was not granted, he had no further instructions to go on with the case. He had previously filed a vakalat in the ordinary form. He did something more than the mere asking for an adjournment. He took the plaint which he had drawn and signed and endorsed on it as follows : ' I have no instructions except to apply for an adjournment. (Signed) A.V. Krishnaswami Aiyar, vakil for the plaintiff (with the date).'2. The relevant provision of the Code is said to be Order 3, Rule 4. Sub-rule (1) of that rule is ' The appointment of a pleader to make or do any appearance, application or act for any person shall be in writing, and shall be signed by such per-son or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by the power of attorney to act on this behalf,' Sub-rule (2) is, ' Every su...
Mallampati Narasimham Vs. Sub-inspector of Police
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad895; 83Ind.Cas.1007; (1924)47MLJ447
ORDERSpencer, J.1. The Public Prosecutor is not prepared to de-fend the action of the Village Munsif in attempting to distrain the moveable property of the lessee of the defaulter for un-paid water-tax. The warrant authorises distraint of the property of the defaulter. The defaulter in this case was the pattadar, a person different from the accused. The conviction for assaulting a public servant in the discharge of his duty cannot stand. It is quashed and the fine collected is directed to be refunded....
Krishnamachariar Vs. Sri Rengammal and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad14; (1924)47MLJ409
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. By a rule framed by this Court in 1914 as an addition to Rule 13, Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were made applicable to applications to set aside ex parte decrees. It is suggested that that rule is ultra vires of the rule-making powers vested in this Court. I now propose to say very little about it, because I have already expressed my opinion on this matter in Sennimalai Goundan v. Palani Goundan 32 INDC AS975, and nothing that I have heard in the course of an extended argument induces me to think that that opinion was wrong. I think the strongest ground on which the rule can be supported is this: that Section 5 of the Limitation Act obviously contemplates its extension by means of rules. In its old form it used the word ' rule ' and the section may be made applicable ' by any enactment or rule. ' The words have been changed as follows : instead of 'by any enactment or rule,' the, section now r...
Lakshmanan Chettiar (Dead) and ors. Vs. Sella Muthu Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad76; 84Ind.Cas.301; (1924)47MLJ602
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The question of law argued in this Second Appeal is one of limitation. The facts of the case are not disputed. The 1st defendant, who was the assignee of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 380 of 1897 obtained by one Andiappa on the foot of a mortgage, dated the 9th of August, 1891, purchased the mortgaged properties at the auction sale. To this suit the plaintiff-appellant, who was a subsequent incumbrancer holding a simple mortgage, dated the 9th of September 1895 was not a party. Similarly the 1st defendant was not impleaded as a party to O.S. No. 207 of 1908 brought by the plaintiff to enforce his own mortgage. The plaintiff obtained a decree in his suit and in the course of execution of his decree purchased items 1 and 2 which are the only items we are concerned with in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this Second Appeal arises claims redemption and possession of items 1 and 2 and is met with the plea that his suit is barred by limitation...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »