Chennai Court July 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.
Koyyalamudi Chinnayya and anr. Vs. Koyyalamudi Mangamma, Minor Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.661
Jackson, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore in A.S. No. 181 of 1921 preferred against the decree in O.S. No. 262 of 1920 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Ellore.2. The lower Appellate Court decreed the suit and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeal.3. The plaintiffs sue for recovery of possession of certain properties and for mesne profits alleging that the properties fell to the share of the 1st plaintiff's husband in a partition held in 1911, and the question whether there was such a partition (Issue No. 1) has been decided in the affirmative by the lower Appellate Court. It is a question of fact which ordinarily cannot be raised in second appeal but the appellants contend that the lower Appellate Court wrongfully admitted as evidence the documents Exs. P, P(1) and P(2) and was influenced by these documents without giving the appellants an opportunity of showing that they were forged. The District Munsif in...
K.R. Swaminatha Aiyar and anr. Vs. A. Ramier and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad421; (1924)47MLJ671
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they and the 1st defendant were the lawfully appointed trustees of the temple of Sri Umamaheswaraswami in Thirumalam village of Mayavaram Taluk; and they prayed for a direction that the defendants 2 and 3 should be made to restore the office of trustee to them and for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the exercise by the plaintiffs and 1st defendant of their duties as trustees. They valued the relief asked for at Rs. 5,500. The basis of their title was the order of the Devasthanam Committee made in January, 1916, appointing the plaintiffs and 1st defendant as trustees. The 4th and 7th issues in the suit raised the question as to the Devasthanam Committee's jurisdiction and the rights of the plaintiffs derived from their order of appointment.2. The lower Court, without deciding these important issues, dismissed the suit as not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiffs did not a...
Pondicherry Kokilambal Vs. Pondicherry Sundarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad902
Kumaraswami Sastry, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for partition, for a delivery to her of her share in the plaint property, for declaration that the mortgage by the 1st and 2nd defendants, in favour of the fourth defendant is not valid and binding on Let for the appointment of a receiver, for costs and for further reliefs. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are dancing girls. The first defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, the second defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the daughter of the second defendant. The fourth defendant is the mortgagee of the property from the 1st defendant the second defendant having stood surety for the first defendant in the transaction. The case for the plaintiff is that the house which is mortgaged is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, that there was a house, 58, Iyappah Chetty Street, Madras, which was inherited by the first defendant from her mother and grand-mother that the sui...
P. Kokilambal Vs. P. Sudarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.632
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for partition, for delivery, to her of her share in the plaint property, for declaration that the mortgage by the 1st and 2nd defendants in favour of the 4th defendant is not valid and binding on her, for the appointment of a Receiver, for costs and for further reliefs. The plaintiff and Nos. defendants 1 to 3 are dancing girls. The 1st defendant is the mother of the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant is the daughter of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant is the daughter of the 2nd defendant. The 4th defendant is the mortgagee of the property from the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant having stood surety for the first defendant in the transaction. The case for the plaintiff is that the house which is mortgagees the joint family property of the plaintiff, and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that there was a house, 53, Iyappah Chetty Street, Madras, which was inherited by the 1st defendant from her mother and grandmother, that the suit propert...
A.L.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar, Through His Authorised Agent, Pichappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ537
1. The short question for decision in all but two (C.R. P. Nos. 117 and 156 of 1921) of these Civil Revision Petitions is whether the payment of process fees for issue of a warrant of arrest in execution of a decree is a step-in-aid of execution so as to save limitation.2. The execution petitions under consideration were presented on 12th February, 1920, and the previous execution petitions were presented on 9th January, 1917, more than three years before. In the course of the latter petitions batta memos. for warrant of arrest were put in on 21st February, 1917 and 23rd March, 1917. The question is whether the filing of these batta memos. is a step-in-aid of execution. The District Munsif held that it was not. The decree-holders have put in these Civil Revision Petitions. The respondents, the judgment-debtors, do not appear.3. A step-in-aid of execution has been defined in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Rajagopala Aiyar (1921) 42 MLJ 303 as an application which is not an initial application f...
Sudalaimuthu Pillai and ors. Vs. Sudalaimuthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad365; 83Ind.Cas.138
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly in A.S. No. 99 of 1920, against the order of the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly, in E.P. No. 153 of 1918.2. In Original Suit No. 97 of 1906, plaintiffs had sued for recovery of certain items and obtained possession of certain items in the course of the litigation. Defendants obtained re-delivery and plaintiffs while appealing to the High Court for the cancellation of that order, applied for an injunction restraining defendants from cutting trees. This was granted on the condition that if the appeal failed, plaintiffs would be liable to defendants for the profits of which the injunction deprived them. The appeal was dismissed and the defendants have applied in these proceedings for their profits. The District. Munsif dismissed the application; but the Subordinate Judge allowed it on appeal assessing mesne profits at Rs. 310. Hence this appeal.3. Appellants contend that Section 144 has no appl...
In Re: Chanlet
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad424; 85Ind.Cas.42
ORDERSpencer, Og.C.J.1. There is no objection whatever to the accused being granted a copy of the statements made by witnesses at the inquest inquiry; and it the record of the inquest proceedings was in the custody of the Court, the Magistrate should have allowed certified copies to be given upon the application of the accused's Vakil. If the inquest report was not in the Court, the Magistrate had power under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for it to be produced by the Police.2. The Chief Presidency Magistrate will take back the application and pass the necessary orders....
A.L.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar Through His Authorised Agent Pichappa Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad906
Wallace, J.1. The short question for decision in all but two (O.R.P. Nos. 117 and 156 of 1921) of these Civil Revision Petitions is whether the payment of process fees for issue of a warrant of arrest in execution of a decree is a step-in-aid of execution so as to save limitation.2. The execution petitions under consideration were presented on 12th February, 1920, and the previous execution petitions were presented on 9th January, 1917, more than three years before. In the course of the latter petitions batta memos, for warrant of arrest were put in on 21st February, 1917 and 23rd March, 1917. The question is whether the filing of these batta memos is a step-in-aid of execution. The District Munsif held that it was not. The decree-holders have put in these Civil Revision Petitions. The respondents, the judgment-debtors, do not appear.2. A step-in-aid of execution has been defined in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Rajagopala Aiyar 1922 Mad. 79 as an application which is not, an initial applicat...
Mu. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. C.K. Kadar Mohideen Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad791; 84Ind.Cas.968; (1924)47MLJ522
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner's pauper petition was rejected merely because it was presented in person to the Sheristadar and not to the Court.2. There is no reason to hold that Rule 14 of the Civil Rules of Practice is ultra vires. ' Court ' is nowhere defined in the Code of Civil Procedure (1908) and the ' Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf ' is the Court for purposes of receiving suits, and, by analogy, applications. The insistence in Order 33, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, is on ' in person ' not on Court as meaning ' Judge himself.' If necessary the learned Subordinate Judge may take up the petition again in the light of these remarks; but possibly subsequent circumstances have rendered further action unnecessary....
Sithamraju Ananda Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Raja Venkatadri Appa Rao Bahadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.812; (1924)47MLJ700
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this Second Appeal is whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in S.A. No. 1240 of 1911, Ex. V. Both the lower Courts have held that this decision is not binding on the plaintiff inasmuch as he was a minor at the time and his guardian, the Court of Wards, was guilty of negligence. Mr. Lakshmanna who appears for the respondent contends that it is not open to this Court to go behind their finding. But I am unable to accept that contention because the question whether there was negligence or such negligence as would vitiate the proceeding in a Court of Law is not only a question of fact but a question of mixed law and fact. What is gross negligence is not merely a question of fact but one of mixed law and fact and therefore it is quite competent to the High Court in Second Appeal to go into the question to see whether there was gross negligence on the part of the minor's guardian in the conduct of the previou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »