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.
Arab Faraj BIn Ali Banameen Vs. Jetta Meghji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad770
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages, for breach of a contract of charter-party. The plaintiff is a merchant of a place called Sharmacala, a port in the South of Arabia, on the Gulf of Aden. The 1st defendant is the owner of a vessel called Patharath. The 2nd defendant is the 1st defendant's agent and master of the vessel. The appeal was withdrawn, so far as the 2nd defendant is concerned and is pressed only against the 1st defendant, or 1st respondent. The contract of charter-party is embodied in Ex. I, dated the 23rd March 1917. According to this contract, the ship was to be loaded with cargo such as keta, planks, katia jaggery, dry ginger, coffee etc., and was to proceed to Sharmacala. The amount of freight was Rs. 2,301. Rs. 1,000 was to be paid in advance and was so paid by the plaintiff. The remaining Rs. 1,301 was to be paid, on the ship reaching the port of destination. The ship was to be loaded at Calicut, within 3 to 4 days and she was to be unloaded and...
B.N. Krishnaswami Chetty Vs. Madhappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad788
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises, in connection with the execution by the Small Causes Court at Kumbakonam, of a decree obtained by the respondents herein against the petitioner in a small cause suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Bangalore, a Foreign Court, within the territories of His Highness the Maharajah of Mysore. Execution would appear to have been ordered by the Small Cause Court at Kumbakonam, even without any notice to the judgment-debtor and without any opportunity being afforded to him, to show cause why the decree should not be executed. When foreign decrees are sought to be executed in British Indian Courts, I consider that as an invariable rule, notice ought to be issued by the executing Court to the judgment-debtor to appear and state his objections, if any, and execution should be ordered, if deemed proper, only thereafter. In this case, however, when the judgment-debtor found that execution had been ordered by the Court, he paid up in...
Arab Farai BIn Ali Banamoon Vs. Jatha Meghji and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1924
Reported in: 86Ind.Cas.751
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for breach of a contract of Charter party. The plaintiff is a merchant of a place called Shermacala, a port in the South of Arabia on the Gulf of Aden. The first defendant is the owner of a vessel called Patharath. The second defendant is the first defendant's agent and master of the vessel. The appeal was withdrawn so far as the second defendant is concerned and is pressed only against the first defendant or first respondent. The contract of Charter party is embodied in Ex. I dated the 23rd March, 1917. According to this contract, the ship was to be loaded with cargo such as keta, planks, katia, jaggery, dry ginger, coffee etc., and was to proceed to Shermacala. The amount of freight was Rs. 2,301. Rs. 1,000 was to be paid in advance and was so paid by the plaintiff. The remaining Rs. 1,301 was to be paid on the ship reaching the port of destination. The ship was to be loaded at Calicut within three to four days and she was to...
N. Srinivasachariar Vs. Bhagavathapuram S. Venkatarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: (1924)47MLJ762
Jackson, J.1. The facts are fully set out in the order petitioned against. The petitioner was a candidate for election as Councillor in Kumbakonam Municipality when the Chairman received a letter, purporting to be from him but which he repudiates as forged, withdrawing his candidature. Accordingly the counter-petitioner was deemed to be elected, and the petitioner moved the Subordinate Judge under the Rules for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election. The Subordinate Judge has held that he has no jurisdiction under these rules and hence this Civil Revision Petition. The question for determination is whether under the rules framed by Government for the decision of disputes as to the validity of an election held under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, the District or Subordinate Judge has jurisdiction to decide a dispute when the number of candidates being less than the number of vacancies, a candidate has been deemed to be duly elected under Rule 7(1) of t...
Ranga Dasan Vs. Latchuma Dasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad822; (1925)48MLJ114
1. The lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff is the Pujari or trustee of the suit temples. It has also been found that the suit property is property attached to the temples. The plaintiff's suit to recover possession has, however, been dismissed on the ground that it is barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act.2. It has been held by the Privy Council in Vidyavaruthi v. Balusami Aiyar ILR (1921) M 831 : 41 MLJ 346 that Article 134 of the Limitation Act does not apply to a case of this kind. The respondents' learned vakil seeks to distinguish the present case from the decision in Vidyavaruthi v. Balusami Aiyar ILR (1921) M 831 : 41 MLJ 346 by pointing out that in the Privy Council case the alienation by the trustee complained of was only a permanent lease and not a sale as in this case and reliance is placed upon the following passage in Subbaiya Pandaram v. Mahomed Mustapha Marcayar ILR (1923) M 751 : 1923 45 MLJ 588 in support of the distinction. The passage runs as fol...
Naduvil Madam Parameswara Bharatigal Alias Azhakapra Swamiyar Avargal, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.106; (1925)48MLJ299
ORDERRamesam, J. 1. In 1917, one Narayana Bharati alias Kappiyur Swamiyar filed a suit as Udama of the Pudukode Devaswom against certain Muhammadans for declaration and injunction in respect of a site. The matter went up on appeal before the District Court of South Malabar and was decided against the Devaswom. A Second Appeal had to be filed. On the ground that Narayana Bharati had ceased to be the head of the Devaswom and that he himself became its head, one Parameswara Bharati alias Azhakapra Swamiyar filed the Second Appeal. He was asked to state how his right accrued. He then filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2153 of 1922, dated 25th August, 1922, supported by an affidavit. In this affidavit it was alleged that the suit properties belonged to Pudukode Devaswom.2. 'The said Devaswom and all properties belonging thereto are appurtenant to and form part of the endowment of the Naduvil Madam situated at Trichur, Cochin State, and, as such, the head and trustee of the Naduvil Madam...
V.K.K.V. Gopala Nair and ors. Vs. V.K.V. Raghava Nair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad460
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for a partition of the plaint-mentioned properties and for delivery of plaintiffs' share to them, together with future mesne profits. The plaintiffs and the defendants, together with Paru Amma and her sons separated from their main tarwad and formed a branch in 1901. In that year, it was proposed to divide this branch into eight sub-tavazhis, the plaintiffs forming the first two sub-tavazhis, Paru Amma and her sons the third sub-tavazhi and the defendants forming the sub-tavazhis 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. But before the document was fair-copied (see paragraph 24 of Ex. A) the sub-tavazhis 3 (composed of Paru Anama and her sons) 6 and 7 agreed to remain joint; so also sub-tavazhis 4 and 8; and provision was made in the karar that, if these tavazhis found it inconvenient to remain joint, they might also separate, in accordance with the provision of the karar.2. Paru Amma's ...
(Javvadi Chinna) Venkataramayya and anr. Vs. Bandi Veeraswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad617
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur, in O.S. No. 26 of 1922, dated 20th February, 1923.2. The petitioners and counter-petitioner both claimed to be alianees by reversioners to the same estate. The counter, petitioner filed with his plaint in O.S. No. 26 of 1922, a genealogy showing that Subbarayudu, the grand-father of his alienors, was son of Rajayya, under whom the petitioners claim through another branch. A year and more after filing his plaint the counter-petitioner put in an affidavit to the effect that Venkiah should be inserted between Rajayya and Subbarayudu:The word was omitted by mistake.3. It was not a clerical error, for the plaint merely copied the recital in plaintiff's document, (judging from the affidavit of petitioner). But the petitioners (who are also suing on the strength of their conveyance by other reversioners) had made it plain that the grand-father of plaintiff's alienors was not Rajayya but Venkiah. I...
Naduvil Madan Parameswar Bharatigal Vs. T.P.S. Issoop Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad800
Ramesam, J.1. Order in 1917, one Narayana Bharati alias Kappiyur Swamiyar filed a suit as Udama of the Pudukode Devaswom against certain Muhammadans for declaration and injunction in respect of a site. The matter went up on appeal before the District Court of South Malabar and was decided against the Devaswom. A Second Appeal had to be filed, on the ground that Narayana Bharati had ceased to be the head of the Devaswom and that he himself became its head, one Parameswara Bharati alias Azhakpra Swamiyar filed the Second Appeal. He was asked to state how his right accrued. He then filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2153 of 1922, dated 25th August, 1922 supported by an affidavit. In this affidavit it was alleged that the suit properties belonged to Pudukode Devaswom.The said Devaswom and all properties belonging thereto are appurtenant to and form part of the endowment of the Naduvil Madam situated at Trichur, Cochin State, and, as such, the head and trustee of the Naduvil Madam for t...
Elagan Vs. Nanjappan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad919; 85Ind.Cas.964
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 3rd defendant, father of the 2nd defendant, and father of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 were three brothers. Plaintiff's uncle the 3rd defendant took a lease of the suit land in the year 1878. After the lessor's death the 3rd defendant and the 4th defendant took a lease of the same land from the lessor's widow in the year 1897. After the death of the widow, the reversioner who is the 1st defendant collected the rents for some years and then sold his rights as landlord of the suit land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, then determined the tenancy as if it was a tenancy-at-will but the lessees who were his own relations declined to quit. The plaintiff accordingly sued to recover the land together with mesne profits and damages. The suit was decreed to him but without damages by the District Munsif, but this decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed with costs by the District Judge. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff's legal represe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »