Chennai Court October 1925 Judgments
Nannier and anr. Vs. N.M. Rayulu Iyer, Nagasami Iyer and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad778
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit for damages for breach of contract. The defendants contracted with the plaintiffs for the purchase of 25 bales of yarn of certain quality, orders for which had already been placed by the plaintiffs' Bombay agents with the agent of Peolad Factory at Bombay. The price was Rs. 21-8-0 per box and each bale was to contain 20 boxes of 10 lbs each. The Varthamanam letter, Ex. A, is dated 27th August 1918. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants accepted delivery of 5 bales in accordance with the plaintiffs' arrival advice on the 2nd September 1918, but they afterwards did not pay for or take delivery of the remainder of the goods. The plaintiffs claim Rs. 3,405-15-8 or the difference between the contract and the market prices prevailing at the dates of the breaches. The defendants in their written statement, rely on time as being of the essence of the contract, and they say also that the plaintiff's were not justified in selling the unaccepted goods against the d...
Tag this Judgment!Bangarammal Vs. Ramanuja Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad799; 94Ind.Cas.610
Waller, J.1. In O.S. No. 8 of 1911 a scheme was drawn up for the administration of the Tiruvadandai temple. It consisted of five clauses, the last of which provided that:The scheme shall work tentatively for three years and may be mpdified hereafter by the on the motion of the trustees, the sobha or any person interested.2. Nothing further appears to have been done by anyone thereafter and the tentative scheme remained in force till 1920. In that year an application was presented to the Court for modification of the scheme, coupled with a prayer for the removal of the Defendant No. 3 from the trusteeship of the temple. In the result, the Court framed an entirely new scheme and granted the prayer for the removal of the Defendant No. 3. It is against this last part of the Court's order that she appeals. The original scheme made no provisions for the removal of a trustee and it seems to us clear that the Courts had no power to remove Defendant No. 3 except on a suit brought for the expres...
Tag this Judgment!P. Arunachala Aiyar and ors. Vs. Collector of Tanjore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad961
1. This is an appeal against an award in land acquisition proceedings. The first objection taken is, that the judgment of the District Judge is inadequate on the ground that he has not discussed the evidence in the case, but has relied on the award of the acquisition officer. The contention here is that the statements in the award, such as statements as to contents of certain documents examined by the acquisition officer are not evidence, but must be proved by the production of the documents themselves. So far as the adequacy of the judgment is concerned, it must be observed that the Judge appears to have disposed of the reference as if he were hearing objections to an award as specified in the Act and accordingly he has dealt with the evidence adduced to support those objections and has not dealt with the evidence relied on by the acquisition officer which was not specifically impeached. Appellant's contention is supported by an observation in Bommadevara Venkata v. Atmari Subbarayudu...
Tag this Judgment!The Vice-chairman, Chidambaram Municipality Vs. Ganasambandham Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.546
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to ' set aside two orders of the District Munsif of Chidambaram, one ordering the production and the other ordering the attachment and seizure of the ballot boxes in the election of a Councillor for the 4th ward of Chidambaram Municipality. There is no ground for presumption from the record at this stage of the proceedings that the District Munsif had any jurisdiction to interfere with the final election. It seems that when the final list of valid nominations was posted in accordance with Election Rule 5, the respondent found that his name had been omitted. Accordingly he filed O.S. No. 502 of 1925 in the Court of the District Munsif of Chidambaram. His remedy' would have been to refer to the matter to the Local Government under Rule 31 or to have filed an election petition under Rule 1 of the Election Dispute Rules. As Mr. Justice Wallace observes in Sarvothama Rao v. Chairman Municipal Council, Sidapet : AIR1923Mad475 it is impossible in deciding th...
Tag this Judgment!Velluri Narasinha Rao, Proprietor of Pedamamidipalli Vs. the Ryots of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.164
Devadoss, J.1. The Revenue Officer for the settlement of rents in the villages of Kalagampudi and Pedamamidipalli, Narasapur Taluk, Kistna District made a Record of Rights under Oh. XI of the Estates Land Act. The appeal of the proprietor of.... Pedamamidipalli to the Board of Revenue against the Record of Rights made by the Revenue Officer has been dismissed. He now moves the High Court to revise the order of the Board of Revenue.2. Two points arise for decision in this case (1) Has the High Court revisional jurisdiction over the orders of the Board passed under Sections 171 and 172 of the Estates Land Act? and (2) If the question of jurisdiction is answered in the affirmative, should the High Court exercise its revisional jurisdiction in this case.3. The first point has been fully argued by Mr. Ramadoss for the petitioner and Mr. Venkatarayaliah for the respondents. We have also heard the Government Pleader to whom we gave notice to appear for the Board of Revenue as it was represent...
Tag this Judgment!Magam D. Venkatesam Chetty and anr. Vs. Mothichand Gulabchand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad316; (1926)50MLJ190
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. In this case the question raised is, whether a memorandum of objections can be filed in an appeal from the Original Side. The petitioner before us filed a memorandum of objections but it was returned by the office on the ground that no memorandum of objections could be filed, relying on a decision of the Chief Justice and Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., in Bhimasena Rao v. Venugopal Mudali (1924) 48 M.L.J. 384 We find it difficult to see why a memorandum of objections should not be filed in a Original Side Appeal. Their Lordships of the Privy Council have in Sabitri Thakurain v. Savi (1920) L.R. 48 IndAp 76 to which the attention of the learned Judge does not seem to have been drawn, and which overruled the view in Sesha Aiyar v. Nagarathna Lala : (1903)13MLJ362 held that the fact that Letters Patent Appeals from judgments on the Original Side are not from one Court to another but from one judge of the High Court to two or more Judges does not prevent sections of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammai Ammal Vs. the District Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ228
1. The Official Receiver is not represented. A.A.O. No. 178, the document attacked in this case, is Ex. IX. The only evidence for the Official Receiver regarding it is P.W. 2, whose evidence strikes us as much inferior to that of P.W. 5, who is in no way related to the insolvent. The latter swears that money was paid on the mortgage. There is no evidence that about the date of mortgage Palavesa Kone was in insolvent circumstances and anxious to screen his property from pressing creditors. We consider that there is no ground for holding that Ex. IX is a transfer in fraud of creditors. Ex. IX ripened into a decree and that decree was transferred by Ex. VIII to 4th respondent. There is no finding by the Judge that Ex. VIII was not for value or in good faith. On the merits we see no reason why Exs. VIII and IX should be declared void as against the Official Receiver.2. A.A.O. No. 179 of 1923 :-The judgments on the merits in this case follows the above. If Ex. IX is a genuine mortgage then ...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammai Ammal Vs. District Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad58; 97Ind.Cas.918
1. (After dealing with the question of fact the judgment proceeded.) A legal point as to the scope of Section 53,. Provincial Insolvency Act of 1920, has been taken before us, viz., that under it the Official Receiver is not at liberty to attack a transfer from a transferee of the insolvent. The language of the section, favours this view since it is the 'transferrer' who is the insolvent. This view is supported by a ruling reported in Sudha v. Firm Nanakchand-Daulatram A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 295, and the ruling of Oldfield, J., in C. M. A. No. 159 of 1918 reported in Jagannatha Ayyangar v. Narayana Ayyangar [1919] 52 I. C. 761. We are inclined to agree with the remarks of the latter on this point in that judgment including the ground on which he distinguishes the English cases cited by him, but may point out that in both the cases In re Vansittart; Ex parte Brown [1893] 2 Q. B. 377, and In re Brall; Ex parte Norton [1893] 2 Q. B. 381; the transfer was upheld and not set aside as Oldfield, ...
Tag this Judgment!K. Narayana Iyengar and anr. Vs. A. Trippayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad366
Spencer, J.1. In O.S. No. 208 of 1916 in the District Munsif's Court, Bellary, the plaintiff sued for a declaration that a mortgage by a widow named Subbalakshmamma and a sale of a house were invalid beyond her lifetime, he being the reversioner to the estate. The mortgagee-purchaser and the decree-holder in a money suit filed against the widow were made parties. The matter was referred to arbitration by order of Court on the consent of the parties. The arbitrators went beyond the scope of reference and declared the plaintiff to be entitled to obtain immediate possession of the house during the widow's lifetime on payment of Rs. 900, which was not a matter referred to their decision through Court. The Court that tried the suit, therefore, rightly refused to embody that part of the award in its decree. In the present suit the same plaintiff has sued for possession of the house alleging that he has tendered Rs. 900 within the period provided in the award which was one year from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Meer Mohammad Noorulla Sahib Vs. Mari Nanjappa Nainivaru
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad404
Spencer, J.1. This suit was brought under Section 56 of the Madras Estates Land Act by a landholder to enforce the acceptance of a patta by the defendant, who is according to him, a ryot in one of the villages comprised in his estate. The period of limitation for such a suit is three months, after the expiration of one month from the defendant's failure to accept a patta. No question of limitation 'was raised in the Courts below, and as the District Judge says, no question can possibly arise in the circumstances. As this is not a suit for declaring the plaintiff's right to resume or assess rent-free land, it is unnecessary to apply Article 130 of the Limitation Act, nor has that article been suggested in the grounds of appeal or in the arguments. The defendant is admittedly in possession of cultivable lands other than private lands in the plaintiff's estate. He alleged at the trial that they had been granted to his grandfather by the plaintiff's predecessor, free of rent, 100 years ago...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »