Chennai Court September 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.
(Mada Pedda) Subbanna and ors. Vs. Kurnam Dhandra Bayamma Alias Rama B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad640
Devadoss, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs, for setting aside the decree, in O.S. No. 374 of 1915 on the ground of fraud. The District Munsif decreed the suit, as regards items 2 and 8 of the plaint on the ground that the decree in the previous suit was vitiated by fraud and that it was not binding on the plaintiffs. The Subordinate Judge of Kurnool has reversed that decree and has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The Second Appeal related only to items 2 and 3 of the plaint.2. Mr. C.S. Venkatachariar for the appellants contends that the decree in the previous suit was vitiated by fraud, inasmuch as the plaintiff brought a suit false to his knowledge, that the 3rd defendant trespassed upon the property belonging to him. It is conceded by him that where a judgment has been obtained by perjured evidence, a subsequent suit will not lie to sot aside that judgment. This point was set at rest by the Full Bench decision in Kadirvelu Nainar v. Kuppuswamy Naicker (1918) 41 Mad. 743. In that...
Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Gundapu Gopalkrishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad949; 85Ind.Cas.1003
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendants, the M. & S.M. By. Co., Ltd. are the appellants. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 597 and odd being the price of a bale of yarn entrusted to the defendants and the amount of loss sustained by him on account of the non-delivery of the bale at Chirala. The bale in question was sent from Salt Cotaurs to Chirala under Risk Note Form 'B.' The bale was loaded in a closed waggon which was sealed on both sides and its loss was discovered after the arrival of the train at Bitragunta Railway Station. The District Munsif, holding that the loss of the bale was not due to the wilful neglect of the defendant company, or its servants, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The Subordinate Judge held that the wilful neglect of the defendant Company was proved and reversed the decree of the District Munsif.2. It is clear from the authorities brought to my notice that the consignment having been made under a Risk Note ...
(Chairman Of) Municipal Council Vs. Vatteni Kesava Menon and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad943
Devadoss, J.1. This is one of those unfortunate cases which ought not to have been brought into Court. The plaintiff sues for damages for wrongful dismissal without proper notice. The 1st defendant was the Chairman of the Society for promoting the education of women. The 2nd defendant is the Chairman of the Municipal Council of Calicut. The plaintiff's case is that he was appointed as the permanent 1st assistant master of the girls school at Calicut on a salary of 50 and was given an allowance of Rs. 10 so long as he acted for the head mistress, he was dismissed from the service without proper notice and he is, therefore, entitled to be paid damages. The 1st defendant disclaims all connection with the Society and the 2nd defendant pleads that the plaintiff has no claim against the Municipal Council as he was not taken into its service. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit but gave a decree for eleven days' salary which the 2nd defendant admitted he was entitled to. On app...
Hali Ghallappa Vs. Jayanthi Chennayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1049
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The only point argued before me is the question of limitation; the facts relating to that question may be thus briefly stated : Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are brothers. At a time when they were joint and undivided, the plaintiff had executed a mortgage bond to the 3rd defendant on which a decree had been obtained by him against the plaintiff for Rs. 1,047. On a statement made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that in a partition the mortgage decree had fallen to their share and that, if the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs. 825 they would accept it in full discharge and get the decree cancelled, the plaintiff paid Rs. 825 to them on the 12th of December 1912 and filed a petition for recording satisfaction of the decree. This petition for entering satisfaction was, on 3rd defendant's objection, dismissed on the 21st of May 1916. The appeal against that order filed by the plaintiff was rejected on the 14th of November 1916. When the 3rd defendant,...
Allampati Venkatasubbiah Vs. Chutti Venkatasubbamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.857
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. My learned brother and myself were divided in opinion as to the decision in this appeal, I being for allowing the appeal and my learned brother for dismissing it. The question was argued as to whose judgment should prevail.2. It has been a uniform and invariable rule of this Court to apply Section 98 of the C.P.C. and to give effect to that judgment which confirms the decree of the lower Court when the difference of opinion arises in appeals governed by Section 96 of the Code; the practice has been equally uniform to give effect under Section 36 of the Letters Patent to the judgment of the Senior Judge when the Judges of the High Court are divided in opinion when hearing appeals Tinder Section 15 of the Letters Patent.3. Following this course, it is obvious that the judgment of my learned brother should prevail But Mr. A. Krishnaswami Iyer, the learned Vakil for the appellant, has contended that the question has to be re-considered in view of the observations of ...
Halli Ghallappa Vs. Jayanthi Chennayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.378
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The only point argued before me is the question of limitation, the facts relating to that question may be thus briefly stated: Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are brothers. At a time when they were joint and undivided, the plaintiff had executed a mortgage bond to the 3rd defendant on which a decree had been obtained by him against the plaintiff for Rs. 1,047. On a statement made by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that in a partition the mortgage decree had fallen to their share and that, if the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs. 825 they would accept it in full discharge and get the decree cancelled, the plaintiff paid Rs. 825 to them on the 12th of December 1912 and filed a petition for recording satisfaction of the decree. This petition for entering satisfaction was, on 3rd defendant's objection, dismissed on the 21st of May 1916. The appeal against that order filed by the plaintiff was rejected on the 14th of November 1916. When the 3rd defendant i...
M.C. Nagasami Iyer Vs. N. Ramasami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.212
Davadoss, J.1. The first point urged; for the appellant in this second appeal is that the purchase by the 1st defendant enured for the benefit of the plaintiff as well, and that he is, therefore, entitled: to a decree, so far as his share is concerned. The finding is that both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant defaulted to pay the Government revenue, in consequence of which the Revenue Authorities brought the plaintiff's properties to sale, and it was sold in auction. The contention of Mr. Anantakrishna Iyer for the appellant is that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are co-owners, that by the default of the co-owners the property was sold, that taking advantage of his position as such the 1st defendant bought the property and that, therefore, Section 90 of the Trusts Act applies to this case. In the first place I am not satisfied that the word, 'co-owner' applies to the case of joint pattadars who are raiyatwari tenants. The plaintiff, is the owner of specific items of property, a...
Chunaughat Kalliam Kutti Amma Vs. Kallingal Tarvad Karunawan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1166; 87Ind.Cas.402
Wallace, J.1. Civil Revn. Petns. Nos. 383 & 384 of 1922 : These petitions relate to two suits : Original Suits Nos. 17 and 18' of 1919, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Calicut. They are suits by Stanithamma Mootha Panikkar to redeem property demised on kanom to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff died on 24th February, 1919, and the suit would, in the ordinary course, have abated on 24th August, 1919, under the law then in force. The plaintiff's successor Vibekerana Mootha Panikkar made no application to be brought on record to continue the suits. He granted melcharths to the present petitioner authorizing him to take such steps as were necessary to recover the property. The petitioner, on 19th August, 1919, filed petitions. Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 263 and 264 of 1919, in the lower Court under Order 22, Rule 10, to be brought on record and continue the suits. These were dismissed both in the first Court and in the appellate Court and the petitioner seeks for revision of that or...
Solaimalai thevan Vs. Sinnathambi Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.119; (1925)49MLJ331
Jackson, J.1. On 1st March, 1922, at 9 A. M., the plaintiff bought 120 maunds of salt from the defendant, which were separated and packed in 60 of the plaintiff's own gunny bags. He took away 35 bags and left 25 in the custody of the defendant. That evening the excise-man made the defendant pay Rs. 150, enhanced salt duty on the 60 bags, which he had sold Having heard that the duty of excise was increased from the commencement of March 1st to recompense himself the defendant sold the 25 bags to other persons. Subsequently, the excise-man, who was acting under a misapprehension, refunded the excess duty to the defendant. The plaintiff sued for the value of his 25 bags of salt, on the date, when they were taken from him by defendant. The short point for determination is whether defendant was justified in selling these 25 bags. The Subordinate Judge finds, without giving any reason for his finding, that the defendant had a lien for the excess duty payable on the 25 bags left in his custod...
In Re: Gam Mallu Dora Alias Malayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad690
Spencer, Offg.C.J.1. The six appellants before us form the third batch of persons tried for complicity in the Vizagapatam-Grdavari rebellion which broke out in August, 1922. The Agency Additional Sessions Judge has convicted them all of offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 143, 147 and 148, Indian Penal Code, and ha has convicted only the first and third appellants of an offence under Section 397, and the rest of offences under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and has sentenced the 1st accused to death and the other five to transportation for life.2. The first thing to be considered is whether the charge is in order both, as regards the unrepresented appellants, accused 2 to 6, and as regards the first appellant, although his vakil has not raised the defence that the conviction of his client is bad for misjoinder; nor does it appear that misjoinder of charges was made the ground of any objection when the appeals of the batches already disposed of were heard. There are eig...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »