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.
Perigi Venkobacharlu Vs. Sanji Radhabayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.912; (1924)47MLJ640
Ramesam, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has used the evidence in O.S. No. 6 of 1920 as evidence in this case on the application of the plaintiff though it was opposed by the defendant. This procedure is opposed to law and vitiates the whole trial as irregular. The appellant contends that he has been prejudiced by the irregularity and we cannot say he was not for the Subordinate Judge states he perused the whole of the evidence so admitted and actually refers to the evidence of two witnesses in his judgment.2. The decree is set aside and the suit remanded for fresh trial to be disposed of according to law. Costs to abide result. The Court-fee paid by the appellant will be refunded....
Kasivasi Chidambara Swamigal Vs. Ramakrishna Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad863; (1924)47MLJ683
Devadoss, J.1. The main question argued in this second appeal is whether the contract entered into by the guardian of a minor for the sale of immoveable property belonging to the minor could be specifically enforced. The plaintiff contracted to buy a portion of the minor's property for Rs. 1,150. Two months after, the property was sold for Rs. 1,500 to the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff has brought the suit for the purpose of enforcing specific performance of the contract in his favour and the 3rd defendant resists the suit. The District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff and the Subordinate Judge has reversed the judgment and has dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The question in this case is whether the contract by the guardian on behalf of the minor could be specifically enforced. Mr. Patanjali Sastri who appears for the appellant relies upon the case reported in Ramajogayya v. Jagannadhan (1918) 36 MLJ 29 : ILR 42 M 185. In that case the opinion of the majority was that n...
Hazarat Kibulai Sayyed Gulam Gouse Sha Sahib Kadiri Vs. Dost Mohammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.666; (1924)47MLJ745
ORDER1. Parameswaran Munpee v. Narayanan Nabudiri : (1916)31MLJ279 is a direct authority for the view that a suit once instituted by two or more plaintiffs duly authorised under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, does not abate in consequence of one of the plaintiffs dying during the continuance of the suit.2. It seems to us that the case of one of two or more appellants dying after the filing of an appeal against a decree in a suit of the nature referred to in Section 92 is an a fortiori case of abatement not resulting from the death of a party.3. The observations in Chhabile Ram v. Durga Prasad ILR (1915) All 296 to the effect that it is necessary that there should be two persons interested in the trust and holding the Advocate-General's sanction for carrying on the litigation have not been accepted by the Bench which decided the case in Parameswaran Munpee v. Narayanan Nambudiri : (1916)31MLJ279 and in view of the strict interpretation which has been put upon the expression ' institu...
H.K. Sayyad Gulam Gouse Vs. Dost Mohammad Khan Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad244
ORDER1. Parameswara Munpee v. Narayanan Nambudri (1917) 40 Mad. 110 is a direct authority for the view that a suit once instituted by two or more plaintiffs duly autherised, under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code does not abate, in consequence of one of the plaintiffs dying, during the continuance of the suit.2. It seems to us that the ease of one of two or more appellants dying after the filing of an appeal against a decree in a suit of the nature referred to in Section 92 is I an a fortiori case of abatement, not resulting from the death of a party.3. The observations in Chhabile Rum v. Durga Prasad (1915) 37 All. 296 to the effect that it is necessary that there should be two persons interested in the trust and holding the Advocate-General's sanction for carrying on the litigation, have not been accepted by the Bench, which decided the case in Parameswaran Munpee v. Narayanan Nambudri (1917) 40 Mad. 110 and in view of the strict interpretation which has been put upon the oppression ...
P. Venkobacharlu Vs. S. Radabayamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad858
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. Ha 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. Lachimiammal (1912) 14 M.L.T. 189, Ramakrishna Naidu v. Krishnaswami Naidu (1918) 36 L.L.J. 641 and Muthu Pillai v. Vedavyasa Chariar (1920) 12 L.W. 277. In the first of these cases the decision in the first ...
Manjunath Shanbhuga Vs. Sannayya Alias Naraina Holla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.205
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant is a transferee of the suit properties from the original mortgagors. He seeks to redeem a usufructuary mortgage (Ex. A) dated the 16th of June 1875 executed to the first defendant's father. There was a prior mortgage over the same properties (Ex. B) dated the 24th January 1872 for Rs. 320. By means of Ex. D dated the 20th August 1877, this was transferred to the first defendant's father. Exhibit B does not contain any personal covenant.2. The only question arising in this second appeal for decision is whether the plaintiff is bound to pay the first defendant interest under the mortgage, Ex. B, from the year 1877 up to the time of redemption. The lower Appellate Court has held that the first defendant is entitled to get interest on the strength of the decisions in Kirat v. Debi Singh (1904) A.W.N. 268 and in Abdul Qayyum v. Sadr-ud-din Ahmed Khan 2 A.L.J. 23 It is unnecessary to discuss the applicability of these decisions to the facts of this...
Manjunath Shanbhaga Vs. Samayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad852
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff appellant ie transferee of the suit properties from the original mortgagors. He seeks to redeem, a usufructuary mortgage (Exhibit A.) dated the 16th of June, 1875, executed to the 1st defendant's father. There was a prior mortgage over the same properties (Exhibit BJ dated the 24th January, 1872 for Rs. 320. By means of Exhibit D, dated the 20th of August, 1877, this was transferred to the 1st defendant's father Exhibit B does not contain any personal covenant.2. The only question arising in this second appeal for decision is whether the plaintiff is bound to pay the 1st defendant interest under the mortgage Exhibit B, from the year 1877 up to the time of redemption. The lower appellate Court has held that the 1st defendant is entitled to gee interest on the strength of the decisions in Kirat v. Debi Singh (1905) 27 All. 308 and in Abduqayyam v. Sadr-ud-din Ahmed Khan (1905) 27 All. 403. It is unnecessary to discuss the applicability of these decisions...
Chellakutti Naicken Vs. Vengappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad366
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that the mortgage, in question is an anomalous mortgage, and, therefore the provisions of Section 98 of the Transfer of Property Act apply and reliance is placed upon the case reported as Pate Muhamad v. Davood (1915) 39 Mad. 1010 for the purpose of construing the document as an anomalous mortgage. Beading the suit document as a whole, it is quite clear that) the parties intended to create an ordinary possessory mortgage. The only condition added is that should the mortgagor fail to pay the mortgage amount within a certain time the transaction should be treated as a sale. Adding a clause of this kind to an ordinary possessory mortgage would not make it an anomalous mortgage. The clause puts a clog on the equity of redemption. That by itself would not convert an ordinary possessory mortgage or a usufructuary mortgage into an anomalous mortgage. The case, Pate Muhamad v. Davood (1915) 39 Mad. 1010 is distinguishable on the fac...
T. Anjaneyulu Vs. P. Chinna Subbiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad860
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in this second appeal is that; the guardian of the plaintiff was guilty of gross negligence and that he is therefore entitled to reopen the ease decided against him. The plaintiff's guardian sued the father and his four sons for a debt due, according to her allegation, by the whole family. The debt was ostensibly borrowed, for the expenses of the marriage of the 4th defendant, one of the sons of the 1st defendant, in the previous suit. She got a decree against the father, the 1st defendant and the suit was dismissed against the sons. The plaintiff now wants to raopen the case and get a decree against the defendants 3 and 4, on the ground that they executed Exhibit A, under whiah they 'undertook to share the liability. Exhibit A was not produced in the previous suit. Mr. Lakshmanna strongly relies upon this fact and contends that the omission to produce Exhibit A, in the previous suit, amounts to gross negligence. But it must be remembered that the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›