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.
S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. V.S. Gopalachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad185
Devadoss, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of certain jewels described in Schedule A to the plaint and certain articles described in Schedule B. His case is that he deposited with the defendant's son for safe custody the jewels mentioned in Schedule A, and that he left in the house, which he occupied along with the defendant's son, the articles mentioned in B schedule, when he vacated it, on the 14th December, 1918. The defendants deny the deposit, as well as the allegation that the B schedule properties were left in the house, occupied by the defendant's son. The defendant's son seems to have died on the 6th December, 1918, and his wife, the 1st plaintiff's sister, died on the 18th December. The learned City Civil Judge has dismissed the suit, on the ground that Article 48 of the Limitation Act applied, and the suit having been brought more than 3 years from the date of the alleged deposit was barred by limitation.2. M...
K. Latchayya Subudhi Vs. V. Seetaramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad257
Devadoss, J.1. The point argued in this appeal is that the learned Judge was wrong in excluding from consideration, Exhibit A, relied on, by the plaintiff in support of his claim. The plaintiff is the appellant here. The learned District Judge, though he held that he could not exclude Exhibit A, from the record, held that inasmuch as it was a copy of a copy, he could not hold that the contents of the document were relevant. The document, Exhibit A, purports to be a copy of a document in the Taluq office. The plaintiff, who claimed to have had a grant of the land on darkast, in the year 1894, relied upon Exhibit A, as evidence of the grant in 1894. This document was put in evidence, in the proceedings previous to the institution of the suit. In the plaint, he relied upon this document and, when it was produced in Court and filed, no objection was taken by the defendant to its reception, on the ground that it was not a proper copy. The plaintiffs succeeded in the first Court and the defe...
S. Ananda Rao and ors. Vs. Venkatadri Appa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad258
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, Exhibit 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 pr...
Subbaroya Pillai and anr. Vs. Govindaswamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad494
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a very typical case. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 5 of 1921 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tiruturaipundi would appear to have died on the 8th of January 1921.2. No application for continuing the suit or bringing of the legal representatives of the plaintiff on record was made within 90 days therefrom. The deceased plaintiff left only two minor children and their widowed mother. It was only on the 29th of April 1921 that an application was made by the mother, as next friend of the minor sons of the deceased plaintiff, for bringing them on record, as legal representatives. The application was not in terms, for setting aside the abatement, which had automatically resulted in the meantime, on the expiry of ninety days, after the death of the plaintiff. Curiously enough, this application seems to have been headed, as 'under Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code.' I imagine that the mistake must have been caused by the learned vakil, wh...
S. Krishnaswamy Iyengara and anr. Vs. V.S. Gopalachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.1026
Davedoss, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is, one of limitation. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of, certain jewels described in schedule A to the plaint and certain articles described in schedule B. His case is that he deposited with the defendant's son for safe custody the jewels mentioned in schedule A and that he left in the house which he occupied along with the defendant's son the articles mentioned in the schedule when he vacated it on the 14th December 1918. The, defendants deny the deposit as well as the allegation that the B schedule properties were left in the house occupied by the defendant's son. The defendant's son seems to have died on the 6th December 1918 and his wife, the 1st plaintiff's sister, died on the 18th December. The learned City Civil Judge has dismissed the suit on the ground that Article 48 of the Limitation Act applied, and the suit having been brought 'more than 3 years from the date of the alleged deposit was barred by limitation.18. Mr. B...
Konchada Latchayya Subudhi Vs. Velupula Seetharamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.921
Devadoss, J.1. The point argued in this appeal is that the learned Judge was wrong in excluding from consideration Ex. A relied on by the plaintiff in support of his claim. The plaintiff is the appellant here. The learned District Judge though he held that he could not exclude Ex. A from the record, held that inasmuch as it was a copy of a copy he could not hold that the contents of the document were relevant. The document, Ex. A purports to be a copy of a document in the taluk office. The plaintiff who claimed to have had a grant of the land on dharkast in the year 1894 relied upon Ex. A as evidence 'of the grant in 1894. This document was put in evidence in the proceedings, previous to the institution of the suit. In the plaint he relied upon this document and when it was produced in Court and filed, no objection was taken by the defendant to its reception on the ground that it was not a proper copy. The plaintiff succeeded in the First Court and the defendants appealed to the Distri...
Subbaraya Pillai and anr. Vs. Govindasamy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.905
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. This is a very typical case. The plaintiff, in O.S. No. 5 of 1921 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Tiruturipundi would appear to have died on the 8th of January 1921. No application for continuing the suit or bringing on the legal representatives of the plaintiff on record was made within 90 days therefrom. The deceased plaintiff left only two minor children and their widowed mother. It was only on the 29th of April, 1921, that an application was made by the mother, as next friend of the minor sons of the deceased plaintiff, for bringing them on the record, as legal representatives. The application was not in terms, for setting aside the abatement which had automatically resulted in the meantime, on the expiry of 90 days, after the death of the plaintiff. Curiously enough, this application seems to have been headed, as 'under Section 50 of the C.P.C.,' I imagine that the mistake must have been caused by the learned Vakil, who was acting for the petit...
Kuppuswami Goundan (Minor) and ors. Vs. Marimuthu Goundan Insolvent, b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad52; (1924)47MLJ487
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. The two plaintiffs, who arc minors represented by their mother, brought a suit to obtain a partition from their father, the 1st. defendant. They made their father's step-mother (2nd defendant) and her daughter (3rd defendant) and their father's uncle (7th defendant) and two mortgagee-creditors of their father (4th and 5th defendants) and two mortgagee-creditors of 7th defendant (defendants 8 and 9) parties to the suit. The plaintiffs' father was adjudicated an insolvent on December 19, 1916, and this suit was instituted on 2nd March, 1917 after the 1st defendant had become an insolvent in law. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was not maintainable after the plaintiffs' father had become insolvent. He refused to give the plaintiffs an opportunity of proving that the mortgage bonds in favour of defendants 4 and 5 were executed to secure debts not binding on the plaintiffs on account of the immorality of their father, on th...
Puttayya Alias Krishnayya Shanbaga and ors. Vs. Puttannayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad152; 84Ind.Cas.897; (1924)47MLJ608
Jackson, J.1. In A.S. No. 7 of 1922 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara from the order passed in R.E.P. No. 704 of 1921 in the Court of the District Munsif of Udipi, the Sub-Judge confirmed the order of the District Munsif dismissing an application for delivery of property under the decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1903 of his Court. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 and 6 appeal. The application was presented on 31st August, 1921, and will be time-barred unless (1) an application of 11th March, 1915, R.E.P. No. 323 of 1915 is held to have been pending beyond 31st August, 1918 and effective as keeping alive the right of execute; (2) applications R.E.P. No. 944 of 1918, R.E.P. No. 622 of 1920 against 9th defendant are held to keep the decree open as against the 10th defendant.2. It so happens that the first ground was only raised in the lower Appellate Court and this second ground was only raised in the original Court and therefore, although this is a Second Appeal each ground has been consid...
Sreemedhanidhi Swamigal by Agent H. Venkatramanachar Vs. Valai Ibrahim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad897; 83Ind.Cas.130
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this batch of second appeals is that the land-holder is entitled to claim enhanced rent by virtue of an agreement entered into with the tenants. Mr. Seetharama Rao on behalf of the appellant contends that there is nothing in the Estates Land Act which precludes the land-holder from claiming enhanced rent under a contract with the tenants. His argument is that Section 187 of the Act does not cover a case like the present, and Sections 31 to 37 contain the rules under which enhancement of rent could be granted when claimed under Section 30, and he urges that Section 24 of the Act is not a bar to such a claim. Before considering the cases relied upon by him, it is necessary to consider what the provisions of the Act are as to enhancement of rent. Section 24 is explicit in its terms. It says, 'the rent of a raiyat shall not be enhanced except as provided by this Act;' and then provision is made for enhancing the rent in certain cases, and safeguards...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »