Chennai Court January 1925 Judgments
Appaswami Chettiar Vs. N. Balakrishna Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ603
Madhavan Nair, J.1. I am asked in this Civil Revision Petition to set aside an order by which the learned City Civil Judge has disallowed a claim under Order 21, Rule 61 of the Civil Procedure Code. The decree-holder, in execution of the decree in Suit No. 6974 of 1922 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, attached house and ground No. 250 in Swami Pandaram Street, Chintadripet, Madras, along with other properties, as properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. The claimant, who is the petitioner before me, filed objections to the attachment under Order 21, Rule 58 on the ground that he was in possession of the above house and ground, that it had been duly conveyed to him by its owners and that he had been in, possession of it in his own right ever since the sale. The learned City Civil Court Judge, holding that ' he was not satisfied with the bona fides of his claim or of the sale in his favour,' dismissed his petition.2. I think the order of the learned Judge is wrong an...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Khajamyan Rowther Vs. Appavu Pillai (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad126
ORDER1. We deal first with the preliminary point raised in the ground of Appeal No. 21, that the action of the lower Court in allowing the plaintiff at a late stage in argument to withdraw his claim for melvaram, and in having permitted him to bring a fresh suit thereon was altogether illegal and unjust.2. The facts, as we have ascertained them, are that after a prolonged trial, in the course of the plaintiff's arguments after the defendant bad been heard, the plaintiff on 25th September, 1920, presented a petition asking for permission to withdraw this claim in respect; of the melvaram right in the suit lands with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the same, and that the petition was granted. In the plaint the claim had been stated in very general language and the relief asked for was a decree for partition and possession and a permanent) injunction restraining the defendant from entering on the plaintiff's share. In the body of the plaint, however, the plaintiff's right is de...
Tag this Judgment!Appaswamy Chettiar Vs. N. Balakrishna Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad588; 87Ind.Cas.189
Madhavan Nair, J.1. I am asked in this Civil Revision Petition, to set aside an order by which the learned City Civil Judge has disallowed a claim under Order 21, Rule 61, Civil Procedure Code. The decree-holder in execution of the decree in Suit No. 6974 of 1924, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, attached house and ground No. 2/50, in Swami Pandaram Street, Chintadripet, Madras, along with other properties, as properties belonging to the judgment debtor. The claimant, who is the petitioner before me, filed objections to the attachment, under Order 21, Rule 58, on the ground that he was in possession of the above house and ground that it had been duly conveyed to him by its owners and that he had been in possession of it in his own right, ever since the sale. The learned City Civil Court Judge, holding that 'he was not satisfied with the bona fides of the claim or of the sale in his favour' dismissed his petition.2. I think the order of the learned Judge was wrong and m...
Tag this Judgment!Sankara Narayana Pillay Vs. Gangammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad631; 87Ind.Cas.1
Madhvan Nair, J.1. The first auction purchaser of certain properties sold in execution of the decree, in O.S. No. 219 of 3919, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tutioorin, is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. He purchased the property for Bs. 2,600 and deposited 25 percent, of that amount, but failed to deposit the balance in time. The sale was, therefore, set aside and a re-sale was ordered. At the re-sale, the same property fetohed only Rs. 1,400. The judgment-debtor then applied under Order 21, Rule 71, for the recovery of the difference of Bs. 1,200 from the appellant (first auction-purchaser), on the ground that the re-sale which resulted in the sale of the property, for a smaller amount, was caused by his failure to complete the purchase in time and that, therefore, he is responsible for paying her this difference in price. Both the lower Courts upheld the contentions of the judgment-debtor.2. In this appeal, the appellant has urged 'only t...
Tag this Judgment!N.M. Khajamiyan Rowther Vs. Appavu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.642
ORDER1. We deal first with the preliminary point raised in the ground of Appeal No. 21, that the action of the lower Court in allowing the plaintiff at a late stage in argument to withdraw his claim for melvaram, and in having permitted him to bring a fresh suit thereon was altogether illegal and unjust.2. The facts, as we have ascertained them, are that after a prolonged trial, in the course of the plaintiff's arguments after the defendant had been heard, the plaintiff on 25th September 1920 presented a petition asking for permission to withdraw his claim in respect of the melvaram right in the suit lands with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the same, and that the petition was granted. In the plaint the claim had been stated in very general language and the relief asked for was a decree for partition and possession and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering on the plaintiff's share. In the body of the plaint, however, the plaintiff's right is describ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerasami Pillai Vs. V.S.T.N. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad894; 92Ind.Cas.819
Coutts-Trotter, C.J.1. This case, has been in a state of confusion from the outset and it is only at the very last moment of it that our attention is drawn to a point that I am not sure we did find for ourselves and which would have rendered about two-thirds of the argument unnecessary. I do not blame the Bars they had to pick out the facts from a tangled mess of documents and oral evidence. The judgment of the learned Judge is so confused that it is almost impossible to discover what he did find and what he did not. However in the view we take of this case, it is unnecessary to scrutinize the findings of fact of the learned Judge, because, to all intents and purposes, we may accept them. The facts are quite simple. The plaintiff is a Natttukottai Chetti who lives somewhere in the Ramnad District and has a branch business conduted in his absence by an agent at Palni. During most of the material time in the suit that agent was the 4th defendant. A debt had been incurred by the 1st and 2...
Tag this Judgment!Achratlal Kesavlal Mehta and Co., by Proprietor Achratlal and Kesavlal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1145; (1925)49MLJ189
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit instituted in the Madras Small Causes Court, and the only question raised is whether the suit can be entertained by the Madras Court.2. The plaintiffs are a firm of merchants at Madras and the defendants are residents of Ahmedabad. The defendants' firm was engaged by the plaintiffs as their Adat agents for the purpose of purchasing 80 bales of Ahmedabad dhoties from manufacturers at Ahmedabad and sending them to Madras. Ex. 1 is the deed of agreement which regulated their relationships inter se. The suit is for the recovery of the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiffs in respect of the several dealings between the parties.3. The defendants besides denying the plaintiffs' allegations on the merits also set up the plea that the suit should not be entertained by the Small Causes Court at Madras and that it should be instituted at Ahmedabad. They relied for this purpose on Clause 8 of Ex. 1, deed of agreement mentioned ab...
Tag this Judgment!Lanka Tulasamma Vs. Guntupalli Venkata Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1125; (1925)49MLJ220
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is that raised by the twelfth paragraph of the memorandum of appeal. This was a suit brought by Narasayya's widow to reclaim certain properties and choses in action as being part of her husband's estate though actually in the hands of the defendant, the plaintiff in the adoption suit. The son-in-law, to use a term that will cover him in both the suits, has admitted at page 322 of the record that he adopted a course of business which resulted in his mixing up moneys which he contends are his own with moneys which in some cases he himself says are, and in other cases which are alleged by the other side to be, moneys belonging to the estate of Narasayya. It also appears from page 316 of the record that there are the gravest reasons to suspect, as the learned Judge suspected, that the son-in-law after the death of his father-in-law had suppressed documentary evidence in the shape of account-books which might have ...
Tag this Judgment!(Obla K.) Subbier and ors. Vs. C.M. Venkatachalapathi Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1290
Spencer, J.1. The contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants was for the sale of 25 bales of yarn to be delivered at the plaintiff's godown at Madura. The defendants paid an advance of Rs. 1,250. The price at which the goods were to he sold was Rs. 13-2-0 per bundle, that is, art the rate of 89 bundle to the bale, Rs. 1,050 per bale. No time was fixed for performance, but the terms of the contract were that the plaintiffs were to intimate the arrival of the bales from the Madura Mills and that the defendants next day were to bring the price and take delivery of the goods. These terms are contained in a letter (E.A.) written by the plaintiffs agent to the defendant. The defendants accepted 3 bales out of the total consignment of 25 bales, and the present suit relates to the remaining bales. As regards 7 of the remaining bales, the plaintiffs gave notices in their letters Exs. D, G, G1 and G2, but the defendants failed to take delivery. The Subordinate Judge awarded damages to th...
Tag this Judgment!Achratlal Kesavalal Metha and Co. Vs. Vijayam and Co. by Proprietor G. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.1019
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a suit instituted in the Madras Small Causes Court, and the only question raised is whether the suit can be entertained by the Madras Court.2. The plaintiffs are a firm of merchants at Madras and the defendants are residents of Ahmedabad. The defendants firm was engaged by the plaintiffs as their Adat agents for the purpose of purchasing 80 bales of Ahmedabad dhoties from the manufacturers at Ahmedabad and sending them to Madras. Exhibit I is the deed of agreement which regulated their relationships inter se. The suit is for the recovery of the amount alleged to be due to the plaintiffs in respect of the several dealings between the parties.3. The defendants besides denying the plaintiffs' allegations on the merits also set up the plea that the suit should not be entertained by the Small Causes Court at Madras and that it should be instituted at Ahmedabad. They relied for this purpose on Clause 8 of Ex. I, the deed of agreement m...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »