Chennai Court January 1925 Judgments
Obla K. Subbier and ors. Vs. C.M. Venkatachalapathi Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.580
Charles Gordon 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 plaintiffs' godown at Madura. The defendants paid an, advance of Rs. 1,250. The price at which the goods were to be sold was Rs. 13-2-0 per bundle that is, at the rate of 89 bundles 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 pride and take delivery of the goods. The terms are contained in a letter (Ex. A) written by the plaintiffs' agent to the defendants. The defendants accepted 3 bales 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 give notices in their letters Exs. D, G, G1 and G2 but the defendants failed to take delivery. The Subordinate Judge awarded ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Chettiar (Minor) and ors. Vs. P.G. Sundaresa Sastrigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1201; (1925)49MLJ366
1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Srirangam who directed two pleaders not to appear for the defendants in two suits pending in his Court as the plaintiff objected to their appearance inasmuch as they had appeared for him in previous suits against the defend-ant in which the subject-matter was the same as in the suits now pending. The first contention of Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Aiyar is that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. It is argued that the pleaders are not parties to the suits and that they have no right of appeal against such an order and therefore the order is without jurisdiction and is not covered by Rule 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice.2. The District Munsif purported to act under Rule 277 which is in these terms:Except when specially authorised by the Court, or by consent of the party, a pleader who has advised in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, or has drawn pleadings ...
Tag this Judgment!Challa Laksmakka Vs. Challa Bala Rangappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad388
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) instituted this suit for the recovery of the suit properties on the ground that they belonged to her deceased husband who obtained, them for his share in a partition between himself and his three brothers, one of whom was the father of the defendant. The defendant's ease is that the defendant's father and the plaintiff's husband were given a joint share while the other two brothers took each a separated share and on account of , the death of the plaintiff's husband the properties survived to him and that she has no right to them. The necessary issue for trial was first recorded by the District Munsif as follows : ' Whether the plaintiff's husband was divided from defendant's father and whether defendant has, therefore, no right to resist plaintiff's suit ' Some time after, this issue was amended by the District Munsif in the following form:' Whether plaintiff's husband was not divided from other members of his family. ' As the amended issue...
Tag this Judgment!Ayyamperumal Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad879
1. The appellant in this case has been convicted of the murder of his wife and has been sentenced to death by the Acting Sessions Judge of Ramnad. The prosecution case is that the accused called. out his wife, who was sleeping in her mother's house, took her to his house at about 5 A.M. in the morning and murdered her. The evidence for the prosecution mainly consists of the evidence of the mother of the deceased, who says, she saw the accused standing in front of her house calling out his wife; and there is also the evidence of P.W. 12 who saw the accused going towards his house in the morning and of P.W. 12 of his going away from the house sometime after. Another witness seems to have 'heard the cry' Ayyo, Appa.'2. The witnesses have not adhered to the statements made by them under Sections 288 and 164, Criminal Procedure Code. The mother now states that she did not know who it was that called her daughter though she has told that it was the accused who took her away, in her previous ...
Tag this Judgment!Challa Lakshmakka Vs. Challa Bala Rangappa Minor by Mother and Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.285
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) instituted this suit for, the recovery of the suit properties on the ground that they belonged to her deceased husband who obtained them for his share in a partition between himself and his three brothers, one of whom was the father of the defendant. The defendant's case is that he defendant's father and the plaintiff's husband were given a joint share while the other two brothers took each a separated share and on account of the death of the plaintiff's husband the properties survived to him and that she has no right to them. The necessary issue for trial was first recorded by the District Munsif as follows: 'Whether the plaintiff's husband was divided from defendant's father and whether defendant has, therefore, no right to resist plaintiff's suit' Some time, after, this issue was amended by the District Munsif in the following form: 'Whether plaintiff's husband was not divided from other members of his family?' As the amended issue stand...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnappa Reddi and ors. Vs. Thiruvengada Pillai and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1179; 90Ind.Cas.509
1. The Madras Court of Small Causes passed a decree in plaintiffs' favour for Rs. 1,386-10-9 and costs and Vakil's fee Rs. 60 against the assets of the deceased Angusamy, if any, in the hands of the defendants. This decree was transferred to the District Munsif's Court at Tiruvallur. The plaintiffs attached some property as the assets of Angusamy in the hands of the defendants. The defendants Nos. 1 to 8 applied to the District Munsif of Tiruvallur for releasing the property from attachment on the ground that the properties were the joint family properties of the defendants Nos. 1 to 8 and Angusamy and that they were entitled to them by right of survivorship after the death of Angusamy, The District Munsif allowed the petition, and on appeal by the decree-holders, the District Judge set aside the order of the District Munsif and upheld the attachment so far as the share of Angusamy was concerned. Against this order the present appeal is filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 9. The first conten...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ayyaperumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.50
1. The appellant in this case has been convicted of the murder of his wife and has been sentenced to death by the Acting Sessions Judge of Ramnad. The prosecution case is that the accused called out his wife, who was sleeping in her mother's house, took her to his house about 5 A.M. in the morning and murdered her. The evidence for the prosecution mainly consists of the evidence of the mother of the deceased, who says, she saw the accused standing in front of her house, calling out his wife and there is also the evidence of P.W. No. 12, who saw the accused going towards his house in the morning and of P.W. No. 13 of his going away from the house sometime after. Another witness seems to have heard the cry 'Ayyo, Appa.'2. The witnesses have not adhered to the statements made by them Tinder Sections 288 and 164, Cr.P.C. The mother now states that she did not know, who it was that called her daughter though she has told that it was the accused who took her away, in her previous statement. ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. P.G. Sundaresa Sastrigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.300
1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Srirangam, who directed two Pleaders not to appear for the defendants in two suits pending in his Court as the plaintiff objected to their appearance inasmuch as they had appeared for him in previous suits against the defendant in which the subject-matter was the same as in the suits now pending. The first contention of Mr. K.V. Krishnaswamy Iyer is that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. It is argued that the Pleaders are not parties to the suits and that they have no right of appeal against such an order and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction and is not covered by Rulr 277 of the Civil Rules of Practice.2. The District Munsif purported to act under Rule 277 which is in these terms: 'Except when specially authorised by the Court, or by consent of the party, a Pleader who has advised in connection with the institution of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, or has drawn pleadin...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnamurthi Aiyar Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1065; (1925)49MLJ93
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Papanasam who convicted the petitioner under Section 504, Indian Penal Code, confirmed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tanjore. The Magistrate inquired into the complaint preferred by the complainant and framed a charge under Sections 352 and 504. At the time of writing the judgment he discovered that the occurrences were different and that the charges under Sections 504 and 352 could not be tried together and finding the illegality of the charges, he struck out the charge framed, and framed a charge under Section 504 alone against the accused and asked the accused whether the, prosecution witnesses were to be recalled and examined and whether he had any defence witnesses to examine. The accused stated that he did not want to examine witnesses and the Magistrate convicted him under Section 504.2. It is contended before me that this procedure is irregular. Under the Criminal Procedure Co...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee Vs. Aiyu Dikshithar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1925
Reported in: (1925)48MLJ530
Phillips, J.1. The only question that has been argued in this appeal is the fourth point in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, namely, whether the suit is barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Expl. 4 to Section 11. So far as the first portion is concerned it is quite clear that this is not a matter coming under Section 47, for it does not relate to the execution of any decree and it is not seriously contended that this suit should have been brought under Section 47 as an execution petition. The second portion is the point chiefly relied on, namely, that this suit is barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in that there was a prior decision in execution proceedings to which the 2nd plaintiff, the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant were parties, when it was held that the suit property was liable to be attached in execution of a decree against the 2nd defendant. So far as that point is concerned it is concluded by the order as between the parties...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »