Chennai Court August 1924 Judgments
Kandaswami Chetti Vs. Adimoola Chetti (Dead) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad275; 85Ind.Cas.277; (1924)47MLJ704
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff in this case attached before judgment two bulls belonging to his judgment-debtor, Veera Pillai. The defendants put in a claim petition that they had a hypothecation right over the bulls and their claim petition was allowed in their favour. The plaintiff has brought the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to execute the decree obtained by him against Veera Pillai and that the bulls are not subject to any charge in favour of the defendants. Both the lower Courts have held that the hypothecation of the bulls in favour of the defendants prevailed over the right of the plaintiff to attach the bulls and dismissed his suit. The judgment-debtor had two bulls which he hypothecated to the defendants. He sold these bulls in a shandy for Rs. 115 and purchased, four or five days after, the bulls in question for Rs. 125. Mr. Rajah Iyer on behalf of the appellant contends that the hypothecation right of the defendants does not attach to the bulls purchased by the j...
Tag this Judgment!G.K. Chengravelu Chetti and Sons. Vs. Akarapu Venkanna and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad971; (1925)49MLJ300
1. Certain questions have been submitted for our opinion under the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts. The facts which led to the reference may be briefly stated. The plaintiffs entered into a contract with the defendants on the 7th of September, 1921. It related to ten bales of yarn which the defendants agreed to sell to plaintiffs. The material portion of the contract may be reproduced:The buyer agrees to purchase the undermentioned goods at the undermentioned terms and price and accepts the seller's godown delivery and pay cash for the same. Particulars for the account : Ten bales for 400 bundles at Rs. 19-12-0 per bundle. Delivery from 1st October before 31st October, 1921. 2. The first question to be decided by us is, what is the true construction of this contract Are the promises in the nature of concurrent conditions the promise relating to the payment of the price and the promise, relating to the delivery of the goods Or, is the payment of the price by the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!D. Venkatasubbayya Vs. V. Govinda Krishna Yachandarlavaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad290
Devadoss, J.1. The point urged by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar in this appeal is that the proprietor in this case, the raja of Venkatagiri did not send up nomination lists within six weeks allowed him under Section 15 of Madras Act II of 1894. The Collector of the District found on enquiry as appears from his proceed, filed as Exhibits I:That no such formal requisition was issued from his office, and the arrangements made in the marginally noted 21 village, which fall under paragraph 2 of Section 15 of the Act are ab intio void, and are therefore hereby cancelled.2. Under Section 15 of the Act, it was the duty of the District Collector acting under Section 7 to give notice to the proprietor of his action and the proprietor shall thereupon dispense with the services of the officers no longer required and retain those, whom he might consider to be best qualified to discharge the duties of the offices and report his action within six weeks to the Revenue Officer in charge of the division. The st...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rajagopalachari Vs. M. Jamal Ayisha Bi Bi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad571
Spencer, Og.C.J.1. The appellant holds a first mortgage over the machinery type and other stock-in-trade of the Modern Printing Press which is installed in premises belonging to the first respondent. The 1st respondent has a decree for arrears of rent and for ejectment of the tenant against the 2nd respondent. 3rd respondent is a Receiver appointed in the course of the execution of the 1st respondent's decree and was directed by the Court in presence of all the parties to sell the press for the best price obtainable and meanwhile to keep it running as a going concern and to pay the rent due to the landlord. Owing to various reasons the attempt to dispose of the press as a going concern was unsuccessful and the materials were eventually sold for Rs. 10,000 which is less than the sum due to the appellant on his mortgage decree of July 10,1924. a this appeal we were asked to declare that the appellant's claim to the proceeds of the mortgaged property should be given precedence over the 1s...
Tag this Judgment!(Allabaksh Mira) Mohadeen Saheb and ors. Vs. Setti Chinna FakruddIn Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad636; 85Ind.Cas.1045
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The only question argued in this Second Appeal is as regards the maintainability of the suit. The plaintiffs who are appellants, instituted the suit, out of which this Second Appeal arises, for the removal of the defendant, from the trusteeship of a certain Muhamadan religious institution, in Tadpadri town after obtaining sanction from the Collector, under Section 93, Civil Procedure Code. The Collector's order according sanction to file a suit was not only for removing the trustee, but also for 'declaring the alienations made by him null and void'.... (Relief No. 3 in Exhibit A) 'and for recovering the trust properties from the alienees' (Relief No. 4). The plaint, however, omitted these two reliefs and asked only for the removal of the trustee, who was made the sole defendant in the suit. It was held by the lower Court that, since the reliefs asked for in the plaint, did not precisely correspond with the reliefs mentioned in the sanction order, or, in other words,...
Tag this Judgment!Vavaru Ambalam and anr. Vs. President, Taluk Board of Ramnad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad620; 90Ind.Cas.803
Devadoss, J.1. The only point argued in these Second Appeals is whether the plaintiff was entitled to levy Sarasari in respect of the lands, in the possession of the defendants. It has been held that in the case of kulamkowai lands, that is lands situated within the water-spread of the tank, if the tenant raises a nanji crop by putting up ridges all round, thereby preventing the flow of water into the tank or by retaining water, which would flow into the tank, when the level of the tank goes down, he is bound to pay Sarasari. But in this case, the finding is the lands in question are not kulamkowai lands. These lands are outside the water-spread of the tank. The question is whether what applies to kulamkowai lands should also be held applicable to lands outside the water-spread of the tank. Mr. Sundararaja Aiyangar, who appears for the respondent, contends that water, which would have flowed into the tank, has been obstructed by the defendant putting up ridges round the lands. Ha relie...
Tag this Judgment!K. Rajagopala Chariar Vs. Musammat Jamal Ayisha Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.337
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating, C.J.1. The appellant holds a first mortgage over the machinery, types and other stock-in-trade of the Modern Printing Press which is installed in premises belonging to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has a decree for arrears of rent and for ejectment of the tenant against the 2nd respondent. Third respondent is a Receiver appointed, in the course of the execution of the 1st respondent's decree and was directed by the Court in presence of all the parties to sell the press for the best price obtainable and mean while to keep it running as a going concern and to pay the rent due to the landlord. Owing to various reasons the attempt to dispose of the press as a going concern was unsuccessful, and the materials were eventually sold for Rs. 10,000 which is less than the sum due to the appellant on his mortgage decree of July 10, 1924. In this appeal we are asked to declare that the appellant's claim to the proceeds of the mortgaged property should ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhenuvakonda Venkatasubbayya Vs. Unde Rajah Sri Raja Velgoti Govinda K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.282
Devadoss, J.1. The point urged by Mr. Ramachandra Iyer in this appeal is that the' proprietor in this case the Maharaja of Venkatagiri, did not send up nomination lists within six weeks allowed him under Section 15 of the Madras Act II 1894. The Collector of the District found on enquiry as appears from his proceedings filed as Ex. I, 'that no such formal requisition was issued from his office, and the arrangements made in the marginally noted 21 villages, which fall under para. 2 of Section 15 of the Act are ab initio void, and are, therefore, hereby concelled.' Under Section 15 of the Act it was the duty of the District Collector acting under Section 7 to give notice to the proprietor of his action and the proprietor shall thereupon dispense with the services of the officers no longer required and retain those whom he-might consider to be best qualified to discharge the duties of the offices and report his action within six weeks, to the Revenue Officer in charge of the division. The...
Tag this Judgment!V. Lingayya Chetty Vs. Chengalammal Alias Ammalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad272; (1924)47MLJ776
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of our brother Kumaraswami Sastri, J. He decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that the adoption of the first defendant was invalid on the ground that he had been married at the time of the adoption. Unless the appellant (1st defendant) successfully challenges this conclusion, the other points in the case do not arise. It is admitted that the parties are Sudras.2. Apart from Sanskrit texts, the earliest opinion available in Madras is the case No. 18 of 1814 in Vol. 1 of the Select Decrees of the Sadr Adaulat, p. 101. The pundits' answer at p.106 runs thus :'Sudras may be adopted till the sixteenth year. But as it is a rule that a married boy cannot be adopted it must be understood that an unmarried boy may be adopted till he has attained the age of sixteen. These are the rules for the Sudras caste. Thus it is declared in the Dutta Mlmamsa, Dutta Chandrika and other Sastras.' The point did not arise in the case.3. The point was actually ...
Tag this Judgment!The Right Hon'ble the Secretary of State for India in Council, represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad355; (1924)47MLJ780
Jackson, J.1. S.A. No. 1352 of 1921:- Appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 396 of 1919 on the file of the District Court of Chingleput (O.S. No. 468 of 1918 on the file of the' Court of the District Munsif of Poonamallee).2. The plaintiff is a ryot holding certain lands which at the last Revenue Settlement in Chingleput District were assessed as dry. Since then, the assessment has been enhanced under orders of the Board of Revenue and the plaintiff has brought this suit against the Secretary of State for India for a declaration that such enhancement is illegal, for the recovery of the amount so levied, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from levying such enhanced rates in future. The original Court and first Court of Appeal have decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff and the defendant brings this Second Appeal.3. The lands in question are of the sort described as ' Achukattu.' They are surrounded by high bunds which in the wet season retain sufficient water...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »