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.
Kanchinadham Suryanarayanamurthi Vs. Bandi Satyanarayanamurthi and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.521; (1925)48MLJ150
Devadoss, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance by the plaintiff. The first point urged in the second appeal is that the lower Court was wrong in finding that there was default on the part of the plaintiff. The appellant's contention is that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the default was on the part of the first defendant. The contract was entered into on the 20th August, 1919, and an advance of Rs. 100 was paid on that day. The contract was that the balance was to be paid by 31st August, 1919. On the 30th August, 1919, plaintiff sent a registered notice through his vakil to the defendant imposing certain conditions, which were not in the contract of sale, Ex. A. In that he said that the property should be divided by metes and bounds before the expiry of 24 hours from that date. The notice was sent on the 30th August, 1919 and it was not humanly possible to have the property divided by metes and bounds within 24 hou...
K. Suryanarayanamurthi Vs. B. Satyanarayanamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad211
Devadoss, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance by the plaintiff. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the lower Court was wrong in finding that there was default on the part of the plaintiff. The appellant's contention is that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that the default was on the part of the 1st defendant. The contract was entered into, on the 20th August, 1919, and an advance of Rs. 100 was paid on that day, the contract was that the balance was to be paid by 31st August, 1919. On the 30th August, 1919, plaintiff sent a registered notice through his vakil to the defendant imposing certain conditions, which were not in the contract of sale Exhibit A. In that, be said that the property should be divided by metes and bounds before the expiry of 24 hours from that date. The notice was sent on the 30th August, 1919, and it was not humanly possible to have the property divided by metes and bounds, within ...
Madras and Southern Maratha Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. Jayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad304
Spencer, C.J.1. The plaintiff-respondent is a little girl of seven years of age who was run over by a locomotive engine at Wallajah Road Railway Station and lost her right arm and her right leg. She has been awarded Rs. 3,500 damages and costs in the Court of First Instance by Coutts-Trotter, J. The Railway Company has appealed.2. The facts are clear that the plaintiff, who lived with her father in the village of Ammur adjoining Wallajah Road Station, crossed the line in order to go to her grandmother's house and that she was returning with a basket full of grass when she was knocked down by the Engine of the Ranipet train which had left its carriages standing by the platform after uncoupling and had gone up 'the line, eastwards, tender foremost to the point then reversed, and was running down, head foremost, along the loop line towards the engine shed where it had to water, when the accident happened. The plaintiff herself states that on her way home she crossed by the way leading to ...
Secy. of State for India Vs. Nandyappa Shetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad447
1. Two questions arise in this Appeal : the first is whether time was of the essence of the agreement between the parties. We think that the District Munsif was right in answering this question in the affirmative. The ruling relied on, by the Subordinate Judge, in Jamshed Khodaram v. Burjorji Dhunjibhai (1916) 40 Bom. 289 is not in point. In that case, the conduct of the parties showed that neither of them considered the time limit agreed on to be an essential term of the contract, Here, on the other hand, there is every thing to indicate that both parties considered time to be of the essence of the contract. We cannot, therefore, uphold the finding of the Subordinate Judge.2. The second question is one of fact and is raised by the third issue in the suit. The District Munsif answered it in favour of the defendant; but his finding was reversed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge. This being a question of fact, the finding of the latter would be binding on us, were it based on a proper c...
Ramappa Nayudu Vs. Sambooranathachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad774; 87Ind.Cas.117
1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Civil Revision Petition arise from the dismissal by the lower Appellate Court of Appeal No. 158 of 1919, for default of appearance of the guardian of the first appellant, who was then a minor but has now become a major. An application was made, soon after the dismissal for default, by the paternal uncle of the minor for the removal of the guardian on the ground of fraud and negligence, for appointing him as a new next friend and for setting aside the order of dismissal and rehearing the appeal, on the ground that the guardian on record had acted with gross negligence, in getting the appeal dismissed for default. It was alleged that the guardian had so allowed the appeal to go by default, because there were criminal proceedings between him and the minor and civil litigation between him and the minor's grand-mother with reference to the minor's estate.2. The learned Judge, in disposing of the matter on affidavits, held that there was no sufficient gr...
Banathoor Krishnan Nambudripad Vs. Kunkan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad914
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for possession of property held by the 1st defendant on -what is called karam kozhu tenure. It is conceded that karam kozhuis the same as karamkari. The cause of action alleged is forfeiture consequent upon an alienation made by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, the alienation being an otti mortgage. The lower Court held that the alienation would not create a forfeiture in case of land held on karamkari tenure. It also held that if there was forfeiture, the appellant has waived that forfeiture by the receipt of rent. It was also of opinion that alienation by way of an otti does not amount to an out-and-out alienation and cannot create forfeiture. All these three points have been touched upon in argument by the learned Vakil for the appellant. It has been held in Zamorin Raja Avergal of Calicut v. Unikat Karnavan Samu Nair A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 290 and Ayyakutti v. Krishna Patter A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 274 that the land h...
K.M.P.R.N.M. Firm Vs. M. Somasundaram Chetti and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad161; (1924)47MLJ844
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a reference under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act made on a difference of opinion between the learned Chief Judge on the one hand and the 2nd and the 3rd Judges on the other.2. The suit is for the balance due for the price of piece-goods sold. The plaintiffs are a firm of traders carrying on business at Coral Merchant Street, Georgetown, Madras, and the defendants are also traders carrying on business in another portion of the City, Godown Street. The defendants have raised the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. The decision of this issue turns upon the question whether the sale was a credit sale as contended for by the plaintiffs or it was a cash transaction as alleged by the defendants.3. The contract is not in writing and the parties have agreed that according to the usage of the trade, certain terms are implied in contracts of this description and that those terms are:(1) that the price charged is that payable on the expiry of 70 days f...
Sundarappier and ors. Vs. Krishnaswamy Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad320
Jackson, J. 1. This revision petition comes very late and though the case was decided exparte, I should not ordinarily interfere ; but it appears to me that the Special Small Cause Judge has clutched jurisdiction in contravention of Article 43-A of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaint sets forth that the plaintiff delivered 9 sovereigns to the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant being perfectly aware of the fact, illegally, forcibly, and fraudulently, having no legal title or valid claim to be in possession of the same, wrested them from from 1st defendant. This amounts to an offence under Ch. 17. of the I.P.C. 2. The Court finds that it was not incumbent on the plaintiff to prefer a criminal complaint and he could not have figured as a complainant. Why he could not is not explained. In the circumstances the order of the lower Court must be held to have been passed without jurisdiction and I reverse it. 3. One vakil's fee is allowed in this and Civil Rev...
R.K. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and Co. Vs. Shaw Wallace and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad736
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application by the defendants, for bringing the decree into conformity with the judgment and for making the Official Assignee pay the costs of the action personally and for other reliefs. In my judgment Reported in : AIR1925Mad292 I held that the defendants were entitled to the costs of the action. Mr. Rajagopalan, who appears for the defendants, contends that the decree is not in conformity with the judgment, inasmuch as the decree contains the words, 'from and out of the estate of the 1st plaintiffs, adjudicated insolvents, in his hands.' It is urged that when the Official Assignee is a party to a suit, the proper order to make is to make him pay the costs personally. Mr. Rajagopalan relies upon Boreman v. Wilson 28 Ch. 53 School Board for London v. Wall Brothers (1891) 8 Moor. 202 Hill v. Cooke-Hill (1916) W.N. 61 and also Suresh Chander Gooyee In re 23 C.W.N. 431. These cases do not support the contention of the defendants. It is in the discretion of the C...
K.M.P.R.N.M. Firm Vs. M. Somasundaram Chetty and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.299
Venkatasubha Rao, J.1. This is a Reference under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act made on a difference of opinion between the learned Chief Judge on the one hand and the 2nd and 3rd Judges on the other.2. The suit is for the balance due for the price of piece-goods sold. The plaintiffs are a firm of traders carrying on business at Coral Merchant Street, George Town, Madras and the defendants are also traders carrying on business in another portion of the City, Godown Street. The defendants have raised the plea that the suit is barred by limitation. The decision of this issue turns upon the question whether the sale was a credit sale as contended for by the plaintiffs or it was a cash transaction as alleged by the defendants.3. The contract is not in writing and the parties have agreed that according to the usage of the trade, certain terms are implied in contracts of this description and that those terms are:(1) that the price charged is that payable on the expiry of 70 days from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »