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.
Visvasankaranarayana Aiyar Vs. Kasi Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad453
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal against the final decree, in a partition suit, which was filed so long ago as 1910. The case has been in this Court before, and in 1917 certain findings were accepted here and the suit was remanded for determining what were the debts in existence, legally recoverable against the family. This order was passed, in order to give the first defendant an opportunity of contributing his share for those debts and thus preventing the sale of the family lands for their discharge. The District Munsif has given a decree for the debts, contained in Schedules 2 and 5, except item 3. The lower Appellate Court has disallowed items 1 and 2 in Schedule 5. These two items are debts, due under promissory notes, Exs. P. 2 and P. 3. It has been found that these debts are binding on the family. After the suit was filed and before the first remand order of this Court, the promissory notes were discharged and the 2nd plaintiff executed fresh promissory notes, in favour of the p...
Mahaboob Sir Frajvantu Sree Rajah Parthasaradhi Appa Row Savayi Aswa R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ483
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case employed one Sobhanadri, lather of the defendants, as his vakil in revenue suits, and he has now brought the present suit after Sobhanadri's death against defendants as legal representatives for an account of their father's agency. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that Sobhanadri acted as plaintiff's agent in each of the suits in which he appeared as vakil and has held that the plaintiff's claim is barred except in respect of suits the proceedings in which terminated less than three years before the suit.2. The first point taken in appeal is that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in treating Sobhanadri's agency as being an agency in respect of each of the suits, and it is argued that he was a general agent for the plaintiff in respect of all revenue litigation. The order appointing him is Exhibit B (2) under which he was appointed by the plaintiff to conduct revenue suits in the District Munsif's Courts and before revenue officers, but this...
Srinivasachariar Vs. Appavoo Reddy Alias Ayyanna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad889; (1924)47MLJ720
Krishnan, J.1. In this case a somewhat novel point arises for decision. There was a decree in the District Munsif's Court against one Bole Reddi and another. The property in question here was attached in execution of that decree. The property had also been already attached by an order of attachment before judgment by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The Subordinate Judge has passed a decree in his suit and the attachment before judgment took effect as an attachment after decree. The property was sold by the District Munsif in execution of the decree in his Court, and has been purchased by the appellant before us. Subsequently the decree-holder in the Subordinate Judge's Court applied to the Subordinate Judge to have the property sold in execution of his decree. Thereupon the appellant here put in a petition to the Subordinate Judge asking that the property should not be sold in execution of his Court decree as it was no longer the property of the judgment-debtor, the title to the p...
Devasikamani Mudaliar Vs. Narayana Prasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad288
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Serious allegations have been made against the accused who is a Head Constable. If the complaint is true, the accused abused his official position in order to benefit his mother who had dealings with the sowcar and also to benefit himself.2. The complainant should have been given every facility to prove his allegations. He mentioned that he had witnesses but none of them was examined.3. It has been held that complaints against Police Officer should be handled with the greatest care. See Shama v. Ejaz Ahmad [1920] 18 A.L.J. 731 Harihar Prasad v. Emperor [1920] 21 Cri. L.J. 343 Apart from the Magistrate's order being legal or illegal, the question relates to the propriety of the exercise of his discretion under Sections 202 and 203, Cr.P.C.4. The Magistrate's order is very laconic.5. I direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate being one of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make further enquiry into the complaint. The order is set aside. ...
Mahaboob Sir Frajvanu Sree Rajah Parthasaradhi Appa Row Savaji Aswa Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.276
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case employed one Sobhanadri, father of the defendants, as his Vakil in revenue suits, and he has now brought the present suit after Sobhanadri's death against defendants as legal representatives for an account of their father's agency. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that Sobhanadri acted as plaintiff's agent in each of the suits in which he appeared as Vakil and has held that the plaintiff's claim is barred except in respect of suits, the proceedings in which terminated less than three years before the suit.2. The first point taken in appeal is that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in treating Sobhanadri's agency as being an agency in respect of each of the suits, and it is argued that he was a general agent for the plaintiff. In respect of all revenue litigation. The order appointing him is Ex. B-2 under which he was appointed by the plaintiff to conduct revenue suits in the District Munsif's Courts and before Revenue Officers, but this doc...
Sreenivasa Chariar Vs. Appavoo Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.265
1. In this case a somewhat novel point arises for decision. There was a decree in the District Munsifs Court against one Bale Reddy and another. The property in question here was attached in execution of the decree. The property had also been already attached by an order of attachment before judgment by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The Subordinate Judge has passed a decree in his suit and the attachment before judgment took effect as an attachment after decree. The property was sold by the District Munsif in execution of the decree in his Court, and has been purchased by the appellant before us. Subsequently the decree-holder in the Subordinate Judge's Court applied to the Subordinate Judge to have the property sold in execution of his decree. Thereupon the appellant here put in a petition to the Subordinate Judge asking that the property should not be sold in execution of his Court decree, as it was no longer the property of the judgment-debtor, the, title to the property havi...
Agnes Isabella Campbell and anr. Vs. C. Audikesavula Nayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad736
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem the property mentioned in the plaint, which was mortgaged on the 17th July, 1874, to secure the sum of Rs. 8,450 with interest at 12 p.c. per annum. The mortgagee was in possession of the property. A decree was passed on the 2nd of March, 1922 declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgage and directing accounts to be taken of the amount due to the defendants for principal and interest, of the rents and profits of the mortgaged property, of the sums paid for rates, taxes and other public charges, of the sums paid by the defendants for the due management of the property and of the sums paid for necessary repairs. The matter was referred to the Official Referee who has submitted a report. Objections have been taken by the plaintiffs; but the defendants have filed no objections. The objections pressed before me are that, as there was no provision for payment of interest after July 1879, the Official Referee was wron...
Parthasarathi Rao Vs. Turlapati Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad840
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this case employed one Sobhanadri, father of the defendants, as his vakil in revenue suits, and he has now brought the present suit after Sobhanadri's death against defendants as legal representatives for an account of their father's agency. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that Sobhanadri acted as plaintiff's agent in each of the suits in which he appeared as vakil and has held that the plaintiff's claim is barred except in respect of suit the proceedings in which terminated less than three years before the suit.2. The first point taken in appeal is that the Subordinate Judge is wrong in treating Sabhanadri's agency as being an agency in respect of each of the suits, and it is argued that he was a general agent for the plaintiff in respect of all revenue litigation. The order appointing him is Exhibit B (2) under which he was appointed by the plaintiff to conduct revenue suits in the District Munsif's Courts and before Revenue officers, but this ...
In Re: Imperial Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad271
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an application by the liquidator for direction as to various matters set out in the Judge's summons. The first question is as regards the charges set out in Schedule A to the liquidator's affidavit; Schedule A is a list of preferential charges which, under the Act, have to be paid first and there is no dispute about Schedule A. The amounts in Schedule A will be paid first by the liquidator and to the sums mentioned therein will be added Rs. 21, costs allowed to Abdur Bahiman on his application as regards rent. As regards Schedule B, there is also no dispute, as items referred to therein, are sums payable in connection with income-tax and to the Postmaster-General for Customs duty. Schedule C refers to cartain claims made by the Imperial Bank of Madras and to certain sums due to the Overseas Export and Import Co., and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. Items 1 and 2 of Schedule C refer to the Imperial Bank of Madras. The Imperial Bank ob...
Saminatha Odayar Vs. Thiagarajaswami Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad331
Odgers, J.1. The first point raised is one of res judicata. It is said that as the District Munsiff decided on 20th August, 1918, that the petition to execute the decree personally against first defendant was not barred in the absence of the first defendant, that constitutes res judicata and the respondent is debarred from raising the plea now that the execution application is out of time. The reason given by the - District Munsiff for his decision is that 12 years had not elapsed since the hypothecation became exhausted ; but the Privy Council decision in Khulna Loan Co. v. Jnanendra Nath Bose 22 C.W.N. 145, clearly lays down that the 12 years is to run from the date of the decree in the casa of a decree of the kind in question where the mortgaged properties were first to be sold and the balance, if any, realised from the other properties and parsons of the judgment-debtors. At any rate, the present application is clearly barred by Section 48, Civil Procedure Code, and the section is ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »