Chennai Court August 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.
Sinnappa Naidu Vs. Sinnamma Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad201
Jackson, J.1. In this case, the petitioners' plaint was time-barred when the Court rose and he pursued the District Munsiff to his club, where he declined to receive it, after 6-30 p.m. I am now asked to treat it, as if he had received it, because in the light of Din Ram v. Hari Das (1912) 34 All. 482 and Sathaya Padayachi v. Soundarathachi A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 448, he might have received it.2. This cannot be done. The District Munsiff was within his discretion, in refusing to receive a plaint at his club and it is impossible to consider at this stage what might have happened if he had exercised his discretion in another way the petition is dismissed....
T.M. Narayanan Nambudhri and anr. Vs. K. Ravunni Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad260
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the decree in A.S. No. 25 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam (O.S. No. 326 of 1917, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ottapalam).2. Plaintiffs sue to recover Rs. 2,917-3-2 due under two hypothecation deeds executed to them in 1905 by one Pappi Antarjanarn. The lower Appellate Court decreed the suit for Rs. 1,235-6-9 and defendants 2 and 3 appeal. Defendants 2 and 3 were the minor sons of a Nambudhri, defendant 1, since deceased. He was an idiot and deaf. Pappi Antarjanam is his second wife and step mother of defendants 2 and 3. The plaint sets forth that at the time when she executed these mortgages, Pappi Antarjanam was the 'manager' (sic) of the defendants' mana on her own behalf and as guardian of the three defendants. The defendants in their written statement besides alleging fraud contended that Pappi Antarjanam had no authority to execute any document whatever. The minors were not under her guardianship....
In Re: Sami Goundan (Accused)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad315; 85Ind.Cas.37
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. I am asked to quash the proceedings now pending before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Udamalpet. They have taken a course which to me appears very curioua; and I think it may be useful to state the facts, which have given rise to this application, which is made on behalf of the accused. He attended a cattle show, at Tiruppur, and came back to his village, on or about the 11th June, 1923. Ha then presented a complaint to the Village Munsiff of Thenkumarapalayam, stating that at Tituppur he lost a revolver, and, owing to the fact that there was a huge crowd in the place, he was unable to give the information to the Police at Tiruppur. The Village Munsiff forwarded the complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Udamalpefc, who in his turn transmitted it to the Sub-Inspector, Tiruppur. The latter officer investigated the case and arrived at the conclusion that no theft had been committed and that the information given was false. Under Section 173, Criminal Proc...
A. Latchamma Vs. S. Subharagudhu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad343
Jackson, J.1 This appeal is from the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kistna at Bllore in Appeal Suit No. 210 of 1921, preferred against the decree of the Court of the Additional District Munsiff of Tanuku, in Original Suit No. 79 of 1919.2. One Venkanna died leaving three daughters. They came to an oral agreement by which Latchamma and Atchamma each took three acres of his property and Chellamma 5 acres and odd. Chellamma has died and her share is in the possession of her step-son, first defendant. Latchamma, claiming a right as survivor of Chellamma, sues for Chellamma'a share (she has sold 1-80 acres which are subject of a connected suit. Original Suit No. 78 of 1919). The Subordinate Judge had dismissed the suit and Latchamma appeals.3. The question for determination is whether when the three sisters made their agreement they cut off the right of survivorship among themselves. The only evidence of the agreement is the statement of Latchamma as plaintiff's first witne...
Kallepalli Pallayya (Died) by Legal Representative Middirala Ramanamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Mad859; 84Ind.Cas.970
Jackson, J.1. Appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coconada in Appeal No. 17(a) of 1924 in C.M.P. No. 1390 of 1921 of the Court of the District Munsif of Ramachandarpur.2. Petitioner applied to set aside the sale of property sold under the decree in O.S. No. 554 of 1912 of the Coconada District Munsif's Court. So far as his share is concerned, the two Courts allowed the application. Counter-petitioner appeals.3. The petitioner had been exonerated from the decree, but nevertheless his property was sold and there must admittedly be restitution unless his application can be shown to be time-barred. The sale was in 1.915 and the application in 1921. There qan be no doubt in the light of Rajagopala Aiyar v. Eamanujachariar : AIR1924Mad431 that Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies and petitioner will be time-barred unless he had pleaded and established facts which save him from the bar. I agree with the appellant that he cannot set up a neAV case in appeal but the point for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›