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.
Nalluli Pandarathil Karnavan Raman Menon Vs. Collector of Malbar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad904
Krishnan, J.1. In this case, the Secretary of State and three parsons who purchased the lands which were the subject-matter of S.A. No. 1025 of 1921, in which judgment has just now been delivered, are the plaintiffs. They sue to recover possession of the lands from the defendants, on the ground that the defendants' lease had been terminated, by a proper notice to quit and they are entitled to possession. The decree was asked to be given, in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 4. The lower Courts have granted the decree askad for and the 1st defendant appeals.2. It is contended on his behalf that his tenancy has not been properly terminated, by a proper notice to quit and that therefore he was not bound to surrender possession. The argument is that the notices, as issued by the Government, Exhibits O and P, were not issued by the party entitled to 89ue notices, as by the time they were issued, the Government had parted with all its rights to plaintiffs 2 to 4 and they were the proper parties to i...
T. Sathyanarayanamoorthy Vs. M. Ramireddy and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad856
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam, in A.S No. 327 of 1920, preferred against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, in E.P. No. 92 of 1919, in O.S. No. 80 of 1910.2. The sole point for determination in this appeal is whether the learned District Judge has correctly held that the statement made by the appellant Exhibit A, amounted to an acknowledgment of liability, within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, so as to save the bar of limitation.3. The statement is as follows:The debt due to the creditor, K. Basava Reddi was a mortgage-debt. It ripened into a decree. It was in O.S. No. 80 of 1910, on the file of the Ellore Sub-Court. He gave me a letter that ha would proceed against the mortgaged properties only and would not proceed against my person.4. At the end of the same statement, he says 'These debts are due by me along with others, but they wers paid by me alone. I therefore owe no ...
Akshia Pillai Vs. Govindarajulu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad778; (1924)47MLJ549
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against an appellate order setting aside a Court sale.2. The Principal District Munsif of Chingleput in C.M.P. No. 453 of 1920 dismissed the application of the present respondents under Order 21, Rule 90, holding that there was no evidence of fraud or irregularity. On appeal the District Judge found that the judgment-debtors had no cause for complaint on the score that lots 1 and 2 were sold for a low price, nor were they adversely affected as regards the remaining lot 3. There was therefore no substantial injury. He records no finding as to fraud apparently agreeing with the lower Court that there was no proof. He thus practically confirms the order under Order 21, Rule 90. But in his sixth paragraph he finds that the lower Court's orders on M.P. No. 230 of 1917 were not brought to the notice of the Court which directed the sale and inasmuch as the sale was in contravention of the orders under M.P. No. 230 of 1917, which were final, the sale must be set aside. Thi...
Aksma Pillai and Vs. Govindarajulu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.975
Jackson, J.1. The District Munsif of Chingleput in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 453 of 1920 dismissed the application of the present respondents under Order XXI, Rule 90, holding that there was no evidence of fraud or irregularity. On appeal the District Judge found that the judgment-debtors had no cause-for complaint on the score that lots Nos. 1 and 2 were sold for a low price, nor were they adversely affected as regards the retnaining lot No. 3. There was, therefore, no substantial injury. He records no finding as to fraud, apparently agreeing with the lower Court that there was no proof. He thus practically confirms the order under Order XXI, Rule 90. But in his 6th paragraph he finds that the lower Courts' orders on M. P. No. 230 of 1917 were not brought to the notice of the Court which directed the sale and inasmuch as the sale was in contravention of the orders on M.P. No. 30 of 1917, which were final, the sale must be set aside. This is to break fresh ground. The Judgment-d...
Mulki Narayana Kammathi and ors. Vs. Kolathingal Kuni Moyi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad866
Reilly, J.1. The plaintiffs allege that they sold 25,000 cocoanuts to defendants at Rs. 41 a thousand, that the defendants agreed to remove the cocoanuts from plaintiffs' warehouse within 4 days, that the defendants did not remove them and therefore plaintiffs after notice to defendants sold the cocoanuts by auction at Rs. 35 a thousand. Plaintiffs sued defendants for the amount of the loss on the re-sale. Defendants denied the sale to them, but the Subordinate Judge made a decree for plaintiffs as sued for. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 pray for revision.2. It is urged before me that there was no completed contract between the parties but only negotiations for the sale of the cocoanuts and that, even if defendants agreed to buy 25,000 cocoanuts at Rs. 41 a thousand from plaintiffs, those cocoanuts were never ascertained and appropriated to the sale from among the cocoanuts in plaintiffs' warehouse. But on examining the record, I find that there is evidence, not only that defendant 4, on behal...
Karnati Munayya Vs. Mitta Krishnayya, Minor by His Guardian, Mitta Bal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.949; (1924)47MLJ737
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. The plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed in the lower Court, appeals. The suit was brought to set aside a transaction of sale entered into by the plaintiff's guardian during his minority. The plaintiff's guardian was his mother and it appears that his maternal uncle, Narayya, assisted his mother in business transactions. The sale deed (Ex. VII), which is attacked, is a sale of a house in Proddatur for Rs 4,300 in which the minor has a one-third share. Owing to the death of his father, after division had taken place between the plaintiff's step-brother on one side and the plaintiff and his father on the other side, during the lifetime of the father, the plaintiff's share of the house, at the time of the sale, was two-thirds. The price being Rs. 4,300, two-thirds of this amounts to Rs. 2,866. The Judge has found that there was justifiable necessity for about half the sum, Rs. 770 being due upon a mortgage incurred by the plaintiff's father, Rs. 93, being due...
K. Munayya Vs. M. Krishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad215
Spencer, O.C.J.1. The plaintiff whose suit was dismissed in the lower Court appeals. The suit was brought to set aside a transaction of sale, entered into by the plaintiff's guardian during his minority. The plaintiff's guardian was his mother and it appears that his maternal uncle, Narayya, assisted his mother in business transactions.2. The sale deed, Exhibit VII, which is attacked, is a sale of a house in Proddatur for Rs. 4,300, in which the minor has an one-third share. Owing to the death of his father, after division had taken place between the plaintiff's step mother on one side and the plaintiff and his father on the other side, during the lifetime of the father, the plaintiff's share of the house, at the time of the sale, was two-thirds. The price being Rs. 4,300, two-thirds of this amounts to Rs. 2.886.2. The Judge has found that there was justifiable necessity, for about half the sum, Rs. 770 being duo upon a mortgage incurred by the plaintiff's father, Rs. 93 being duo on a...
In Re: Puvanur Athamu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad239
ORDER1. This revision ease has been presented very long after the conviction and a preliminary objection is taken that many of the petitioners had the right of appeal and have not chosen to exercise it, within the time allowed by law. We have been asked in their cases to treat the Criminal Revision Petition as an appeal; but considering the length of time, which has elapsed since the conviction in October 1921, we are not prepared to do so.2. Ordinarily, this Court will not permit a Criminal Revision Petition to be heard, when the petitioner has had an opportunity of appealing and has not exercised it. But in the present case, where the effect of not allowing the revision case, in the ease of these who might have appealed and did not, would be to sustain a sentence of 8 and 10 years' imprisonment in their cases; whereas for reasons to be given, we are of opinion that, in most of these cases, only the conviction under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, can stand in law, under which the sen...
A.V.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. V.M. Muthukaruppan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1011
1. This suit was brought for the removal of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from the management of the temple of Ayyanar Karuppannaswami and Mutharasakulanthaswami and for framing of a scheme. This is a small temple in Vitalapuram alias Vijiaramaberi of Ettiyapuram Zamindari in the Ramnad District with properties yielding a moderate income of about Es. 400 per annum. The Subordinate Judge's Court passed a decree in accordance with the prayers in the plaint, and the 1st defendant appeals.2. Two main points have been argued at the hearing of this appeal. The first is whether the plaintiffs are sufficiently interested in the temple to maintain this suit. It appears from the evidence that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs have contributed to its funds and it is not denied that the 1st plaintiff is a worshipper at the temple. It has also been found that all the plaintiffs belong to the Vysia Kasukara Cbetty community, which community has a peculiar interest in worshipping at this shrine. These facts ar...
In Re: Pavanur Athamu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.283
ORDER1. This revision case Has been presented very long after the conviction and a preliminary objection is taken that many of the petitioners had the right of appeal and have not chosen to exercise it within the time allowed by law. We have been asked in their cases to treat the criminal revision petition as an appeal but considering the length of time which has elapsed since the conviction in October 1921, we are not prepared to do so.2. Ordinarily the Court will not permit a criminal revision petition to be heard when the petitioner has had an opportunity of appealing and has not exercised it. But in the present case where the effect of not allowing the revision case in the case of those who might, have appealed and did not, would be to sustain a sentence of 8 and 10 years' imprisonment in their cases, whereas for reasons to be given, we are of opinion that in most of these cases only the conviction under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, can stand in law under which the sentence was ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »