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.
Basina Appanna Vs. Peta Akkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.361; (1924)47MLJ746
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first question to be decided in this case is, is the evidence of P.W. 5 true The learned Sessions Judge has not said that he disbelieves his evidence. The witness was the Vakil of the accused himself in the proceeding in connection with which the defamatory words in question were said to have been used. No ground has been shown for rejecting his evidence. If his evidence is believed, is there sufficient material on which a conviction for defamation can stand P.W. 5 advised the accused to compromise the Civil Suit between P.W. 1 and the accused. Thereupon he replied : ' There are other reasons for the dispute. I shall disclose them in private. ' Then one Ramanujayya, who was listening to the conversation, said, ' There is nothing else. It appears that there is intimacy between P.W. i's wife and the accused and hence the accused says that P.W. 1 has been trying to trouble the accused. ' And P.W. 5 proceeds to say :--I warned the accused that he should not ...
Avudai Ammal Vs. Chinna Ramasami Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad129
Devadoss, J.1. The question argued in this Second Appeal is whether the third mortgagee is entitled to priority over the second mortgagee. There were three mortgages, one of 1900 in favour of one Veerappa Naick, Ex. B. another in 1904 in favour of the 2nd defendant Ex. 1, and the third in favour of the plaintiff in 1912, Ex. C. Veerappa Naick brought a suit and obtained a decree without impleading the 2nd defendant as a party. In order to discharge the decree, the mortgagor borrowed from the plaintiff Rs. 3,350 on 28th July, 1912, and paid the amount to Veerappa's Vakil in discharge of the decree debt. The mortgage deed Ex. C, in favour of the plaintiff was executed on 16th August, 1912, and the stamp paper for the deed was purchased on 27th July, 1912.2. Both the lower Courts have found in favour of the plaintiff's contention that he is entitled to priority over the second mortgagee.3. It has been urged before me that the plaintiff is a volunteer and that he had no subsisting interest...
B. Appanna Vs. P. Akkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad320
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first question to be, dedided in this case is, is the evidence of P.W. 5 true? The learned Sessions Judge 1 has not said that he disbelieves his evidence. The witness was the vakil of the accused himself in the proceeding in connection with which the defamatory words in question were said to have been used. No ground has been shown for rejecting his evidence. If his evidence is believed, is there sufficient material on which a conviction for defamation can stand? P.W. 5 advised the accused to compromise the civil suit between P.W. 1 and the accused. Thereupon he replied : 'There are other reasons for the dispute. I shall disclose them in private.' Then one Ramanujayya, who was listening to the conversation, said, 'There is nothing else. It appears that there is intimacy between P.W. 1's wife and the accused and hence the accused says that P.W. 1 has been trying to trouble the accused And P.W. 5 proceeds to say : 'I warned the accused that he should not g...
S. Govindasamy Odayar Vs. the Union Bank Ltd., by Its Director, Singar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-11-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.513; (1924)47MLJ678
Wallace, J.1. A preliminary point is raised by respondent, viz., whether an appeal lies. Appellant contends that the order is one under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure as he is challenging the legality of his arrest. Respondent contends that as he is only challenging the mode of executing the warrant, the case does not come under Section 47. There is no direct authority on the point. As at present advised, we incline to hold that the appeal is valid.2. On the merits we cannot see that appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He was arrested at 7 P. M. on the 25th November, 1922. He was then in custody of the Court's officers having been arrested under another decree. Appellant contends, (a) that at the time of his arrest he was attending the Court for the purposes of execution of the first decree, (b) that a judgment-debtor cannot be the subject of two arrests at the same time. As to (a) we can find no order which directed appellant ...
Rajarathna Naidu Vs. Ramachandra Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad901; (1924)47MLJ434
Wallace, J.1. The question for decision is whether the second proviso to Order 21, Rule 16, of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to a mortgage decree for sale. It applies in terms only to a decree ' for the payment of money '. The phrase in the old Code, Section 232 was ' a decree for money.' The alteration indicates that emphasis' is to be laid on the word ''payment' and that unless the decree directs payment of money, the rule will not apply. This is the view taken in the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Laldhari Singh v. Manager, Court of Wards (1911) CriLJ 639. The Calcutta High Court has consistently held the view that this proviso will not apply to mortgage decrees for sale [vide the above ruling and also Lalla Bhagun Pershad v. Halloway I.L.R. (1885) C 393 and Jagabandhn v. Haladhar (1917) CriLJ 110].2. Appellant relies on three cases of this High Court. Two of these, Vaidhianathaswami Iyer v. Somasundaram Pillai I.L.R. (1904) M 473 and Ramayya v. Krishnamurthi I.L.R. (1...
Areti Singarayya Vs. Areti Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad861; 84Ind.Cas.962; (1924)47MLJ517
Devadoss, J.1. The main question argued in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff could maintain the suit against the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is the vendee of certain property from defendants 3 to 5. Under the deed, Ex. A, he undertook to discharge a debt of Rs. 888 due by defendants 3 to 5 to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff brings the suit against the defendants alleging that the 1st defendant is a benamidar for him and that he is entitled to the amount mentioned in Ex. A. The learned District Munsif found that the 1st defendant was a benamidar for the plaintiff and gave a decree against defendants 3 to 5 and exonerated the 2nd defendant on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that inasmuch as all the parties to the transaction were before the Court, the Court was entitled to pass a decree against the 2nd defendant as well, and he modified the decree of the Court of fir...
Duraichami Tevar Vs. Adimuthu Nadan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.995; (1924)47MLJ728
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff's suit was to enforce a mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in his favour. The 2nd defendant in the case was the purchaser of this hypotheca from one Ramaswami Thevan who himself purchased it from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff's case has been dismissed by both the Lower Courts on the ground that it is barred by res judicata. The facts necessary for appreciating this ground of res judicata are mentioned in para. 3 of the appeal judgment. In 1913 the plaintiff instituted a suit against Ramaswami Thevan to recover Rs. 800. It was pleaded in that suit that there was an adjustment of accounts between the parties and in that adjustment the payment of Rs. 122 relied upon went towards the discharge of the present mortgage claim. Eventually that suit was dismissed. It was stated on behalf of the contesting defendant that since the matter of discharge of the present claim was considered in the previous suit and it was found to have been discharged, the claim c...
Muhammad Matthiar Rowthan Vs. Kasa Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.508
Devadoss, J.1. The question argued in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. The plaintiff's case is that his father entrusted v a certain amount to his paternal uncle, Peria Kadir Rowther, and that Peria Kadir Rowther was in possession of it till his death and, therefore, Peria Kadir Rowther was a trustee on his behalf, and being an express trustee he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the Law of Limitation. Both the lower Courts have found that Peria Kadir Rowther was an express trustee. Mr. Subramania Iyer on behalf of the appellant urges that Ex. A cannot create a trust as the father of the plaintiff was dead at the time when Ex. A was executed and that for the purpose of creating a trust there, must be a transfer of the right of the owner to the trustee. It is quite clear from the recitals in Ex. A that the trust was not. created by means of Ex. A but Ex. A mentions that the trust had been created by the father of the plaintiff in his favo...
Muhammad Mathar Rowthan Vs. Kasa Rowthan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad920
Devadoss, J.1. The question argued in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. The plaintiff's case is that his father entrusted a certain amount to his paternal uncle, Peria Kadir Rowther and that Peria Kadir Rowther was (sic) of it, till his death and (sic) Paria Kadir Rowther was trustee (sic) behalf and being an express trustee he is not entitled to claim the benefit of the law of limitation. Both. the lower Courts have found that Peria Kadir Rowther was an express trustee. Mr. Subramania Aiyar, on behalf of the appellant, urges that Exhibit A cannot create a trust, as the father of the plaintiff was dead at the time, when Exhibit A was executed and that for the purpose of creating a trust there must be a transfer of the right of the owner to the trustee. It is quite clear from the (sic) in Exhibit A that the trust was not created by means of Exhibit A; but Exhibit A mentions that the trusts had been created by the father of the plaintiff in his f...
Parigi Venkobacharlu Vs. Samji Radhabayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.868; (1924)47MLJ612
1. The 1st defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The appeal relates to findings on certain issues which were raised as between the 1st defendant on the one hand and 2nd and 3rd defendants on the other. The plaintiff sued for partition and the suit was dismissed. The Advocate-General appearing for defendants 2 and 3 raises a preliminary objection that no appeal lies. He argues that the findings now complained against by the appellant are not necessarily implied in the decree nor are they embodied in the decree. They have no operative force. He argues that they will not be res judicata and the appellant has no right to appeal against such findings when the decree is a decree dismissing the suit.2. The learned Vakil for the appellant refers to the cases in Ranganathan Chetty v. Lakshmiammal : (1913)25MLJ379 , Ramakrishna Naidu v. Krishnaswami Naidu (1918) 9 LW 180 and Muthu Pillai v. Vedavyasa Chariar (1920) 12 LW 277. In the first of these cases the decision in the first suit on a p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »