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.
S.M.S. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Sinnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad266; 85Ind.Cas.312
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. Questions of some difficulty have been raised and argued in this second appeal. The facts, though somewhat complicated may be very briefly sat out. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this second appeal obtained a money decree against one Subbiah Pillai and others and in execution of the decree procured the attachment of the suit property in October 1913. The defendant, who had previous to such attachment got a mortgage of the suit property from the said Subbiah Pillai, filed a suit on the mortgage in November, 1913, and obtained a preliminary decree in December, 1913, To this suit, the plaintiff was not made a party. The plaintiff, however, in pursuance of the attachment obtained by him, brought the property to sale and purchased it himself in April, 1914.The 1st defendant, on the other hand, proceeded with his mortgage decree and at the sale held by the Court', purchased, the property himself in March, 1916. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit, from whic...
Gadigi Mudappa and ors. Vs. Seernali Parameswara Bhat and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.303
1. The appellants before us were adjudicated insolvents 'by an order of the District Judge, dated the 14th March 1924. The petition in insolvency was filed on the 13th November 1922 by a creditor to whom about Rs. 20,000 was due by the insolvents. Various adjournments were obtained on the ground that the debtors were settling with their creditors. One of these orders of adjournment was made on the 4th of February 1924. It is specifically mentioned in it that 'No further adjournment will be granted beyond the 25th February to which date this (that is, the petition) is finally adjourned.' It is clear that the procedure prescribed by Section 24 of the Provincial Insolvency Act was followed and the learned Judge gave a finding that the insolvents committed an act of insolvency. As regards this, there can be no doubt, because Ex. A which is a notice issued by the debtors previous to the filing of the petition, contains a statement that the debtors were unable to pay their debts. It would, h...
Kattamanchi Krishna Reddi Vs. Thota Ramakrishnayya Chetty Alias Ramakr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.873; (1924)47MLJ667
Ramesam, J.1. In this appeal, the 2nd defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff, the respondent. The suit was filed to declare the sale of the Shrotriem village of Vasudevapuram in May, 1911, for arrears of revenue, void on the ground that it was made during plaintiff's minority and therefore opposed to Regulation X of 1831.2. The plaintiff alleged that the village originally belonged to the plaintiff's family as joint family property and that it fell to plaintiff's father's share in a partition. When the father died in 1905, the plaintiff became sole owner. The 2nd defendant admitted that the village belonged to the joint family consisting of plaintiff's father and others but denied the partition and that the plaintiff became the sole owner in 1905. The first issue was framed with reference to this plea.3. In appeal, he wishes to argue that the property did not belong exclusively to plaintiff's family. According to his present suggestion, the plaintiff's family owned only 3 14ths s...
Sardar Khan Sahib Vs. Athanlla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad174; (1924)47MLJ926
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. These cases were tried before Mr. Pinto, while he was the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri; but before the trial was over, he was transterred to Salem as the Treasury Deputy Magistrate. Mr, Pinto's successor at Dharmapuri granted the accused a de novo trial. The District Magistrate has now ordered the transfer of these cases to the file of Mr. Pinto at Salem on the groundthat the balance of convenience is strongly in favour of the small amount of work still to be done being done by Mr. Pinto at Salem, rather than the whole case should be heard again by a new Magistrate at Dharmapuri. 2. It has been assumed by the District Magistrate that Mr. Pinto could go on with the trial of the cases from the point where he had left it. In the decision reported in Jago Singh v. Emperor 53 IndCas 820 it has been held by a Bench of the Patna High Court, in similar circumstances, that when on the transfer of a Magistrate, a criminal case pending before him is taken up by...
K. Krishna Reddi Vs. T. Ramakrishnayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad253
Ramesam, J.1. In this appeal, the 2nd defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff the respondent. . This suit was filed to declare the sale of the Shrotriem village of Vasudevapuram in May, 1911, for arrears of revenue, void on the ground that it was made during plaintiff's minority and therefore opposed to Regulation X of 1831.2. The plaintiff alleged that the village originally belonged to the plaintiff's family as joint family property and that it fell to plaintiff's father's share in a partition. 'When the father died in 1905, the plaintiff became solo owner. The 2nd defendant admitted that the village belonged to the joint family consisting of plaintiff's father and others but denied the partition and that the plaintiff became the sole owner in 1905. The first issue was framed with reference to this plea.3. In appeal, he wishes to argue that the property did not belong exclusively to plaintiff's family. According to his present suggestion, the plaintiff's family owned only 3-14th...
G. Sirur Vs. A.M. Bhamia
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad330; 85Ind.Cas.410
Spencer, O.C.J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Coutts-Trotter, J, passing a decree in the plaintiff's favour for Rs. 3,144 and odd found to be due, on account of shares sold by the plaintiff to the defendant upon the Madras Stock Exchange. The defendant raised two defences to the suit; first that the transaction in question was a dealing is differences and thus partaking of the nature of a wagering contract and secondly, that part of the contract was entered into by the defendant's clerk outside the Stock Exchange and so not according to the rules and regulations and therefore irregular and not enforceable.2. The plaintiff and the defendant are both members of the Madras Stock Exchange. The onus in cases of this sort of proving that there was a mutual understanding' that shares should not be delivered lies upon the defendant, who asserts the same. When, as here, both parties are themselves stock-brokers, that onus is greatly increased, for the reason that it is of the natu...
Kattamanchi Krishna Reddy Vs. Thota Ramakrishnayya Setty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad288
Ramesam, J.1. In this Appeal, the second defendant is the appellant and the plaintiff the respondent. The suit was filed to declare the sale of the shrotriyam village of Vasudevapuram in May 1911, for arrears of revenue, void on the ground that it was made during plaintiff's minority and therefore opposed to Regulation X of 1831.2. The plaintiff alleged that the village originally belonged to the plaintiff's family as joint family property and that it fell to plaintiff's father's share in a partition. When the father died in 1905, the plaintiff became sole owner. The second defendant admitted that the village belonged to the joint family consisting of plaintiff's father and others but denied the partition and that the plaintiff became the sole owner in 1905. The first issue was framed with reference to this plea.3. In appeal, he wishes to argue that the property did not belong exclusively to plaintiff's family. According to his present suggestion, the plaintiff's family owned only 3/14...
Sardar Khan Sahib Vs. Attaulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.254
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. These are petitions for revising the order of the District Magistrate of Salem transferring G.C. Nos. 113A and 113 of 1923 from the file of the Dharmapuri, Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the file the Treasury Deputy Magistrate, Salem.2. These cases were tried before Mr. Pinto, while he was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharmapuri, but before the trial was over he was transferred to Salem as the Treasury Deputy Magistrate. Mr. Pinto's successor at Dharinapuril granted the accused a de novo trial. The District Magistrate has now ordered the transfer of these cases to the file of Mr. Pinto at Salem on the ground 'that the balance of convenience is strongly in favour of the small amount of work still to be done being done by Mr. Pinto at Salem rather than the whole case should be heard again by a new Magistrate at Dharmapuri.' It has been assumed by the District, Magistrate that Mr. Pinto could go on with the trial of the cases from the point where he had left it....
(Subadar) Naimathulla Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Abdul Razack Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1268
Beasley, J.1. The point in this case is whether the District Munsif was right in giving the plaintiff permission to withdraw the suit and to institute a fresh suit. The order of the District Munsif which is dated 9th October 1922 states:The affidavit discloses grounds for the grant of the prayer, but as the petition is filed at the last stage the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs. I allow this petition on condition that, in case the petitioner institutes a fresh suit, he will do so only after paying the defendant's costs. In case the suit is not filed, no costs need be paid.2. The order under which the withdrawal is granted is Order 23, Rule 1, Schedule 1, Civil Procedure Code, which states:(1) At any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants, withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim.(2) Where the Court is satisfied : (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect; or (b) that there are other sufficient groun...
N.M. Rayulu Aiyar and Nagasami Aiyar and Co. Represented by N.M. Nagas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad974; (1925)49MLJ1
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for non-acceptance of goods agreed to be sold to defendants by plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The plaintiffs and defendants are merchants of Madura dealing in yarn and cloth. On 20th August, 1918, Ex. A was executed for the purchase of 50 bales (each of 20 bundles) of ' double deer yarn (Palukka)' at Rs. 21 per bundle, the defendants being represented by broker K.M. Nagasami Iyer. Ex. I is the corresponding entry in defendants' Chitta of the same date. Rs. 100 was paid as earnest money and Rs. 25 was to be paid as advance for each bale. Ex. B is the letter of plaintiffs, dated 24th August, 1918, acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 1,250 as advances and promising to intimate the arrival of the bales from Bombay. It shows that the bales contracted for were out of the bales ordered for by the plaintiffs' Bombay firm from the dyeing factory at Pedlad.3. The plaintiffs got Pedlad yarn fro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »