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.
P. Kanakasabapathy Mudaliar Vs. Hajee Oosman Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad192; (1924)47MLJ791
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. This suit was dismissed upon a demurrer, as the learned Judge was of opinion that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. No evidence was taken on either side. From the allegations in the plaint it appears that the plaintiff, a godown-keeper in the employment of a Mahomedan firm, styled Messrs. Oosman Hassan & Co., was credited with a bonus of Rs. 3,500 out of the profits of the firm in consideration of the good services rendered by him and of the fine profits made by the firm. The plaintiff alleged that this bonus was carried to his credit in the firm's books in 1919 and that in 1920 he was allowed to draw out of it Rs. 420, but that the defendants refused, in spite of his demand, to pay the balance.2. The question of law is whether on the facts alleged the entry in the firm's books constituted a completed gift, and whether the defendants were trustees or depositees as regards the undisbursed amount of the bonus. Section 5 of the Indian Trusts Act says ...
K.M.K.R.K.R. Ramanadhan Chettiar by His Agent, Rama Aiyar Vs. P.L.V.V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ759
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts of this case are not disputed. In execution of a decree against the 2nd respondent his properties were brought to sale on the 27th of June, 1922, and the auction-purchaser deposited 25 per cent of the sale proceeds in the District Munsif's Court at Tiruppur. On the 1st of July, 1922 an insolvency petition was filed against the 2nd respondent and the Official Receiver was appointed interim Receiver on the 4th July, 1922. The balance of the purchase-money was deposited on the nth of July, 1922 and the 2nd respondent was adjudicated an insolvent on the 15th of September, 1922. In the meanwhile, the sale proceeds of the 2nd respondent's properties were forwarded to the Official Receiver by the District Munsif. On the 26th of July, 1922 an application was filed before the District Judge of Coimbatore by the creditor who attached the properties and brought them to sale for the re-transfer to the District Munsif's Court of Tiruppur, of the sale proceeds to be dea...
Sree Raja Rao Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Surya Rao Bahadur Garu, Rajah o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad415; (1924)47MLJ784
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the Rajah of Pittapur. The defendant is the Collector of Godavari representing the Government. The subject of this suit are certain puntas used as paths by men and cattle in the village of Mummidivarappadu which forms part of the Palivela Estate acquired by purchase and testamentary disposition by the plaintiff's predecessors. No members of the village community that use these paths in exercise of their communal rights have been made parties to the suit. The inclusion of the Government as a party can only be justified on one of three theories (1) that the pathways were excluded from the permanent settlement and belong to the Government (2) that the Government is the custodian of the communal rights of the public in respect of these paths, vide Venkatarama Sivan v. Secretary of State for India (1918) 36 MLJ 203 that the Government has unauthorisedly levied penal assessment under Act III of 1905.2. The plaintiff (appellant) does not admit t...
Peri Ramasami and ors. Vs. Chandra Kottayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ840
Devadoss, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff on mortgage bonds dated 4th November, 1897 and 28th January, 1902. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suits. On appeal the Subordinate Judge passed decrees in favour of the plaintiff. Ex. A, dated 4th November, 1897, was executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and their deceased father and brother in favour of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. Ex, A (1) was executed on 28th January, 1902 by defendants 1 and 2 and their deceased father in favour of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. On 28th June, 1906 the defendants 1 and 2 and their father executed Ex, I in favour of the 3rd defendant undertaking to pay the balance due in respect of Ex. A and Ex. A (1) during a period of 10 years from 15th March, 1906. The first point urged for the appellant is that Exs. A and A (1) were discharged by payment to the 3rd defendant; and reliance is placed upon two decisions of this Court reported in Barber Maran v. Ra...
V. Manickam Pillai Vs. Mahudam Bathummal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad209; 85Ind.Cas.499; (1925)48MLJ152
Wallace, J.1. This is a petition for the revision of the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin setting aside on certain conditions the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for default of appearance. The allegations in the petition to set aside the dismissal were that the plaintiff is a Mahomedan woman, whose husband had lately died and who therefore could not appear in Court; that on the day of hearing, 6th April, 1922, the plaintiff's Vakil appeared before the Court and asked for an adjournment, apparently because the witnesses had not been served and had not turned up, although batta had been paid for process, that on the adjournment being refused, the Vakil reported no instructions and the suit was then dismissed for default of appearance.2. That an order of dismissal for default of appearance was the proper order in such circumstances has been now clearly laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in this very case, the question referred to it being whether when a pleader has instr...
Ammathayi Ammal Vs. Sivarama Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad334; 85Ind.Cas.272; (1925)48MLJ74
1. The plaintiff brought the suit on a hypothecation bond executed in his favour by the defendant. A preliminary decree was passed on 6th November, 1916. Four months' time was allowed for payment. The plaintiff applied for a final decree on 5th November, 1919. His application was dismissed, for non-payment of batta, on 10th January, 1920. He applied again for the passing of a final decree on 10th September, 1920. The defendant contended that the application for the final decree was barred by limitation under Article 181. The District Munsif disallowed the objection of the defendant and passed a final decree. The defendant appealed and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal. He now prefers this Second Appeal.2. It is contended by Mr. T. S. Ramaswami Aiyar, who appears for the appellant, that Article 181 of the Limitation Act applies to applications for the passing of a final decree. It is well settled that Article 181 applies to an application by the plaintiff for the passing of a f...
(Bava C.) Vythelinga Mudaliar and ors. Vs. R. Mahadeva Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad659
1. A scheme was framed to regulate the affairs of the temple known as Tiruvalur Tyagarajaswami Koil. A Board of control was constituted consisting of five members. There was a vacancy in the office of the superintendent of the temple and on 9th February 1924, the Board appointed one Swaminatha Mudaly as superintendent. One Mahadeva Iyer presented a petition to the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvalur and' the relief he asked for is contained in the following paragraph:For the above reasons I pray that this Honourable Court will be pleased to cancel the said appointment and either direct the trustees to appoint a new fit and proper person or itself appoint a fit and proper person for the said post.2. The Subordinate Judge upon this petition made an order on 31st March 1924 from which we take the following passage:It is, therefore, desirable not to have him any more as the temple superintendent and I would, therefore, call upon the members of the Board to remove him from that place and see tha...
Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Subramanian Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad248
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts of this case are not disputed. In execution of a decree against the respondent, his properties were brought to sale on the 27th of June, 1922, and his auction-purchaser deposited 25 per cent, of the sale-proceeds in the District Muasiff's Court at Tiruppur. On the 1st of July, 1922, an Insolvency Petition was filed against the 2nd respondent and the Official Receiver was appointed interim Receiver, on the 4th of July, 1922. The balance of the purchase-money was deposited on the 11th of July, 1922, and the 2nd respondent was adjudicated an insolvent, on the 15th of September, 1922. In the meanwhile, the sale-proceeds of the 2nd respondent's properties were forwarded to the Official Receiver by the District Munsiff. On the 26th of July, 1922, an application was filed before the District Judge of Coimbatore by the creditor, who attached the properties and brought them to sale for the re-transfer to the District Munsif's Court of Tiruppur of the sale-proceeds,...
P. Ramaswami and ors. Vs. Chandra Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad261
Devadoss, J.1. These appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff on mortgage bonds, dated 4th November, 1897 and 28th January, 1902. The District Muusiff dismissed the plaintiff's suits. On appeal the Subordinate Judge passed decrees in favour of the plaintiff. Exhibit A, dated 4th November 1897, was executed by the do fondants 1 and 2 and their deceased father and brother in favour of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. Exhibit A(1) was executed on 28th January, 1902, by defendants 1 and 2 and their deceased father in favour of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. On 28th June, 1906, the defendants 1 and 2 and their father executed Exhibit I in favour of the 3rd defendant undertaking to pay the balance due in respect of Exhibit A and Exhibit A (1) during a period of 10 years from 15th March, 1906. The first point urged for the appellant is that Exhibits A and A (1) were discharged by payment to the 3rd defendant; and reliance is placed upon two decisions of this Court rep...
P.K. Soundararaju Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Venkoba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad490
Devadoss, J.1. This matter once came up, in Second Appeal No. 1311 of 1918. The learned Judges, who heard it, remanded the case to the lower Court, on the ground that the District Judge had not considered whether any custom was established, which took the case out of the operation of Section 12 of the Estates Land Act. The District Judge has reheard the appeal and dismissed it. The representatives of the 1st defendant have preferred this Second Appeal. It is proved that there is a custom prevalent in certain mittas of the Salem District for the trees to be enjoyed separately from the land. It is not unusual for pattas for the trees to stand in the name of one person and the patta for the land to stand in the name of another. The holding with regard to the trees seems to have no relation to the holding as regards the lacd. In this case, the landlord, when he gave a patta to the plaintiff, reserved the right to the trees, as is clear from Ex. I. The trees on the land had been purchased b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »