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.
Ramasami and 7 ors. Vs. Chandra Kotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad693
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. Exhibit A, dated 4th November 1897, was executed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and their deceased father and brother in favour of the plaintiff and the third 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 third defendant. On 28th June 1906 the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and their father executed Exhibit 1 in favour of the third defendant undertaking to pay the balance due in respect of Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1 during a period of ten 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 third defendant; and reliance is placed upon two decisions of this Cou...
P.K. Soundaraja Mudaliar and anr. Vs. P. Vencoba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.206
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 re-heard the appeal and dismissed it. The representatives of the first 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 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 land. In this case, the landlord when he gave a patta to the plaintiff reserved the right to the trees as it clear from Ex. I. The trees on the land had been purchased by the mit...
K.M.K.R.K.R. Ramanathan Chettiar by His Agent Rama Iyer Vs. P.L.V.V.R. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.216
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 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 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 Muesli. 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 dealt with by him acco...
Peri Ramasami and ors. Vs. Chandra Kottaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.297
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. Exhibit A dated 4th November 1897 was executed by the defendants Nos. 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 Nos. 1 and 2 and their deceased father in favour of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. On 28th June 1906 the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and their father executed Ex. 1 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 as Barte...
Sree Rajah Rao Venkata Kumara Mahipathisurya Rao Bahadur Garu, Rajah o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.345
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The plaintiff is the Rajah of Pithapuram. 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 : (1919)36MLJ203 and (3) that the Government has unauthorisedly levied penal assessment under Act III of 1905.2. The plaintiff (appe...
Ramalinga Adaviar and anr. Vs. Meenakshisundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad177; 85Ind.Cas.261; (1924)47MLJ833
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The short and simple question in this Second Appeal is whether on a proper construction of the terms of the document, Ex. A., the provision is penal for the payment of the whole of the balance remaining due in default should be made in the payment of any instalment for a period of six months after the date fixed for payment. The plaintiffs are the stake-holders of a chit fund and the defendants for the purpose of this appeal may be referred to conveniently as holders of one chit. The document was executed by the defendants in relation to the first chit to which they became entitled as the bidders that offered to pay the highest amount of premium. The chit holders were 10 in number and each chit was of Rs. 400 per year. The total amount pooled being Rs. 4,000 the defendants at the auction agreed to a deduction of Rs. 1,500 as premium, and out of the balance of Rs. 2,500 deducting the sum of Rs. 400 payable by them for that chit and a further sum of Rs. 100 which...
P. Baba Sah Vs. V.M. Purushothama Sah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ932
Charles Gordon Spencer, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastri permitting the plaintiff in C.S. No. 275 of 1924 to sue in forma pauperis. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies. In Appasami Pillai v. Somasundara Mudaliar ILR (1902) M 437 it was held that there was no appeal under the Letters Patent against an order of a single Judge, refusing to give leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Although the Civil Procedure Code does not provide for appeal against orders made under Order 33, Rule 7, an appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a single Judge sitting on the original side with certain exceptions, which do not include the present kind of order. It is argued that the order of the learned Judge was merely an order upon an interlocutory application, which was a step towards obtaining a final adjudication and that it does not finally dispose of the plaintiff's right to bring the suit, as it was always...
Ramaswami Nayakar and anr. Vs. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ922
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question raised in this Second Appeal relates to the principle on which damages should be awarded for trespass on land and the proper measure of such damages. The plaintiffs-appellants, are the owners of about 2 acres of land, on which and several other adjoining lands a cattle-fair used to be held annually. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs would appear to have been content to let this land, for the purpose of the fair, receiving the sum of Rs. 50 as rent every year. But from about the year 1911, the plaintiffs refused to let the land on the same rent. For the years 1911 and 1912 the plaintiffs obtained, in a decree ex parte, damages against the defendants, at Rs. 300 per annum, for trespass on the suit land, consisting in their using the land for the cattle-fair, without any agreement with the plaintiffs and without their permission. In the first two suits, the plaintiffs have claimed from the defendants damages at the rate of Rs. 300 per annu...
Kancherla Pushkaramba Being Minor by Father and Guardian Predikete Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ112
ORDER1. In this case a notice in the form. No. 6-A appended to Order 4.1, Schedule 1, Civil Procedure Code, made by the High Court was received by the 1st respondent (1st petitioner) on 21st December, 1923 and the 2nd respondent (2nd petitioner) on 5th January, 1924. A memo of cross-objections was filed on nth February, 1924. The respondent's Vakil claims that he is in time as he has not yet received a notice fixing the date of hearing and it is only within 30 days from the receipt of such a notice that he was to file his memorandum of objections. In framing Order 41-A and Form 6-A fixing time for appearance, Order 41, Rule 22 seems to have been overlooked. Order 41, Rule 12 requires that a day for hearing should be fixed and even if we can construe Order 41-A as making this unnecessary, there must be some rule guiding the litigants as to how Order 41, Rule 22 should be complied with. There is no rule saying that the day fixed for appearance shall be regarded as the day fixed for heari...
G. Krishnaswami Aiyar, High Court Vakil and anr. Vs. T.V. Swaminatha A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad385; (1925)48MLJ36
Charles Gordon Spencer, Officiating C.J.1. The question that comes up for our decision in appeal is whether Vakils have a right of audience in the Insolvency Court at the Presidency Town of Madras. We have heard full arguments from Mr. G. Krishnaswami Aiyar and Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar on behalf of the Vakils and from Mr. Grant and Mr. Sidney Smith for the Advocates. The whole question has been dealt with in their arguments exhaustively and in every aspect.2. Vakils appear and plead on the Original Side of the High Court at Madras, notwithstanding that the Charter of 1800 authorized only three classes of practitioners, namely, (1) Bona fide practitioners of the law in the old Court of the Recorder, which was thereby abolished; (2) Barristers-at-Law in England or Ireland; and (3) Attorneys or Solicitors admitted in one of the Courts at Westminster or otherwise capable of acting as well in the character of Advocates as of Attorneys, and that the Charter went on to 'declare that no other...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »