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.
Bolla Guruvayya and Four ors. Vs. Cherukuri Venkatarathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1924
Reported in: (1924)ILR47Mad833
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. This was a suit brought under Section 77 of the Indian Registration Act which enables a person who has tendered a document for registration to bring a suit in a Civil Court against the refusal of the Registrar to register it.2. In this case the plaintiff tendered a document, which is before us, for registration. The document bears the most apparent traces of having been tampered with. In one sheet all the glaze of the paper has been destroyed and there is very deep discoloration. Other sheets bear obvious signs of the surface of the paper having been chemically dealt with, but throughout, although the discoloration is extensive in the operative sheets of the document, the signature, which is admitted, and the stamp paper at the top, are practically intact. Expert evidence has shown that the discoloration and the destruction of the glaze on the surface of the paper are due to chemical action. The inference that those alterations were made after the e...
Minor Suyamprakasam Alias Meenatchisundaram, by Next Friend and Mother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ205
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. The question referred to us is 'whether a minor cannot maintain a suit against an agent appointed by the guardian for the benefit of the minor's estate (a) generally, and (b) at least in respect of properties received by the agent and not accounted for to the guardian. '2. The reference was really necessitated I do not gather that the learned Judges had much doubt about the point themselves-by the decision of a Bench of this Court in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Muthiah Chetty ILR (1919) M 439 : 1919 38 MLJ 247, which, in my opinion, applied itself to the wrong angle of view in looking at these matters. It is not a question of trustee de-son-tort; it is a question of a contract made by a minor with an agent to manage his property and a contract which no one can suggest is void though it may be voidable at the instance of the minor. It may be that the minor cannot be sued upon it; but here the minor is seeking to enforce his rights of property against a pe...
V.C. Venkatasubbiah Vs. T. Lakshmipathi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad302
Phillips, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant and he is one of two mortgagors. He does not dispute the execution of the mortgage-deed and his liability, to some exteflt ; but he pleads an agreement with the plaintiff, under which the 2nd defendant, one of the mortgagors, was. exonerated by the plaintiff, on payment of a sum of Rs. 900, and a portion of the mortgage-money was remitted. Both the District Munesiff arid the Subordinate Judge have disbelieved the oral evidence, as to this agreement and it is sought to be proved by Exhibit II. This purports to be a receipt, executed by the plaintiff to defendants 1 and 2 and it goes further and says that the money is received towards the entire discharge of the debt, due by the 2nd defendant and he undertakes to execute a deed of relinquishment of right, at his cost. If this does evidence the agreement that there should be a remission in the amount of the mortgage-money, it is clearly inadmissible in evidence, as it would require registr...
T.S. Nagappa Nadar Vs. T.S. Karuppiah Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad456
1. This petition refers to a contest between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, as to who is the legal representative of one deceased Sinnappa Nadar, who was the plaintiff, in O.S. No. 224 of 1922. The learned District Munsif has disposed of the matter, on the finding that the respondent is the person who has intermeddled with the estate of the deceased and that he is therefore the proper legal representative to be put on record. We are quite unable to accept this disposal of the matter. Under Order 22, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code:Where a question arises, as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court.and for that purpose, the Court must take evidence and decide for itself, who has got the better claim. In the present matter the question as to who is the legal representative would depend first upon whether the property in suit was the self-acquisition of Chinnappa ...
Ramaswami Naicker and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad762; 90Ind.Cas.906
Madhvan Nair, J.1. The facts so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this second appeal may be thus shortly stated : Defendants 1 and 2 are members of a joint family carrying on money lending business sometimes taking documents in the name of one and sometimes in that of the other and one or the other, collecting money and giving discharges on the documents. The plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,250 and executed to the 2nd defendant a promissory note Ext. R. in Ananda Chitrai (29-4-1914). To discharge this promissory note the plaintiff sent money to the 1st defendant and, in so sending it, the promissory note for discharging which the money was sent was by mistake referred to as executed to the 1st defendant in Ananda Vaikasi (See Exhibit D). This was on account of forgetfulness as the plaintiff had kept no copies or memoranda of the various promissory notes. Availing himself of this mistake in the dates, the 1st defendant allotted this money for the discharge of promissory no...
Vasireddi Sriramulu Vs. Putcha Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad30; (1924)ILR47Mad783; 83Ind.Cas.312; (1924)47MLJ273
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In this case two questions have been referred to us by the Divisional Bench; the first is, 'whether, where a person has been appointed guardian ad litem for a minor but his consent to such appointment has not been obtained, the decree is a nullity, or whether it is merely voidable on good ground being shown therefor'? The second question is, 'whether the consent of a guardian to his appointment as such must be express or may be implied'2. In the view we take of this matter, the answer we propose to the second question must end in a reference back to the Divisional Bench which may render the first of these questions purely academic and one which need not arise for the determination of the suit. The words of the statute are contained in Order XXXII, Rule 4, Clause (3): 'No person shall without his consent be appointed guardian for the suit', and we are asked to say whether that consent can be implied or whether it must be express. There are cases that...
Suyamprakasam, Minor Alias Meenatchisundaram, by His Next Friend and M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad17; 81Ind.Cas.779
Ramesam, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff, being minor, by his mother and next friend, sued the defendant (his maternal uncle) for an account of his management, generally, of the plaintiff's estate from October 1910 to March 1916 and, in particular, of certain items of moveables (paddy and outstandings). The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit following Ramanathan Chettiar v. Muthiah Chetty : (1920)38MLJ247 .2. The plaint does not expressly say that the defendant was appointed as agent by plaintiff's mother, nor have we in this case any power-of-attorney, as in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Muthiah Chetty : (1920)38MLJ247 and in Ramayya Chettiar v. Sappanimuthu Chettier, A.S. No. 90 of 1921. The plaint was filed prior to the decision in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Muthiah Chetty : (1920)38MLJ247 and it cannot be said that it was cleverly worded with a view to evade that decision. The allegations are loose and general, equally consistent with defendant being regarded as an agent appointed by the p...
T.S. Bagappa Nadar Vs. T.S. Karuppiah Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.178
1. This petition refers to a contest between the petitioner and the 1st respondent as to who is the legal representative of one deceased Sinnappa Nadar who was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 224 of 1922. The learned District Munsif had disposed of the matter on the finding that the respondent is the person who has intermeddled with the estate of the deceased and that he is, therefore, the proper legal representative to be put on record. We are quite unable to accept this disposal of the matter under Order XXII, Rule 5 of the C.P.O.: 'Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or a deceased defendant, such question shall be determined by the Court' and for that purpose the Court must take evidence and decide for itself who has got the better claim. In the present matter, the question as to who is the legal representative would depend first upon whether the property in suit was the self acquisition of Chinnappa or was joint f...
Vishnu Chotla Venkatasubbiah Vs. Tallapragada Lakshmipathi Minor by Fa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.392
Phillips, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant and he is one of two mortgagors. He does not dispute the execution of the mortgage-deed and his liability to some extent, but he pleads an agreement with the plaintiff under which the second defendant one of the mortgagors was exonerated by the plaintiff on payment of a sum of Rs. 900 and a portion of the mortgage-money was remitted. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have disbelieved the oral evidence as to this agreement and it is sought to be proved by Ex. II. This purports to be a receipt executed by the plaintiff to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and it goes further and says that the money is received towards the entire discharge of the debt due by the second defendant and he undertakes to execute a deed of relinquishment of right at his cost. If this does evidence the agreement that there should be a remission in the amount of the mortgage-money, it is clearly inadmissible in evidence as it would require registration be...
Govinda Naidu and ors. Vs. Chengalroya Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad22; 83Ind.Cas.74; (1924)47MLJ415
Ramesam, J.1. The facts are simple. The suit lands are ryoti lands in an estate as defined by the Madras Estates Land Act. Chengama Naidu, the landholder in 1870, purchased the kudivaram interest. In fasli 1318, the lands were let to the 1st defendant for cultivation for a year. Thereafter, the 1st defendant continued in possession under yearly leases also agreeing to relinquish possession of the lands at the end of the year. On 17th June, 1917 the plaintiffs purchased the lands and now seek to eject the 1st defendant.2. The question referred to us is :--Is Section 153 of the Estates Land Act exhaustive, and does it oust the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in all cases where it is sought to eject a non-occupancy ryot ?3. For the purpose of discussing Section 153, I will at once assume (without deciding) that the defendant is a non-occupancy ryot. Phillips, J., gave some reasons for holding that he is not a ryot at all. There is considerable force in his observations. Assuming, however, th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »