Chennai Court October 1925 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.
(Mylavarapu) Rangayya Naidu Vs. Basana Simon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad594
1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiffs obtained a decree far redemption in the Court of she Districts Munsif of Vizagapatam and the decision was confirmed on appeal. The defendants, who represent the mortgagees, contend that the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable: first because the plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the suit and they are estopped from asserting that their vendor had any title to convey to them; and secondly because the term of the mortgage has not expired and the suit is premature.2. The lands in dispute were the property of one Anga Narasimhulu who died in 1901 leaving a widow Rangamma and two daughters. After his death the widow put forward Anga Ramaswami as having been adopted to her deceased husband. On 6th April 1902, she executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 1,000, in favour of the 1st defendant. The mortgagor under this document was her adopted son Ramaswami, represented by his guardian, the adoptive mother. On 2nd May 1906, another usufr...
Mylavarappa Rangappa Naidu Vs. Basanna Simon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.639
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for redemption in the Court of the District Munsif of Vizagapatam and the decision was confirmed on appeal. The defendants, who represent the mortgagees, contend that the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable, first, because the plaintiffs have no locus standi to maintain the suit as they are estopped from asserting that their vendor had any title to convey to them; and secondly, because the term of the mortgage has not expired and the suit is premature.2. The lands in dispute were the property of one Anga Narasimhulu who died in 1901 leaving a widow Rangamma and two daughters. After his death the widow put forward Anga Ramaswami as having been adopted to her deceased husband. On 6th April 1902 she executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 1,000 in favour of the first defendant. The mortgagor under this document was her adopted son Ramaswami represented by his guardian the adoptive. mother. On 2n...
Sri Mahant Prayaga Doss Jeevaru Vs. Pachella Doraiswami Iyengar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.899
1. The only point urged in this appeal is that the suit is of a small cause nature and no second appeal lay inasmuch as the amount of the claim was less than Rs. 500. It is urged that when the objection was taken before the learned Judge who decided the second appeal, he overruled it. We consider the learned Judge is perfectly right in overruling the objection as the main issue in the case related to the question of title. No doubt a Small Cause Court is entitled to decide a question of title if it arises incidentally. But where the plaint and the written statement show that the issue to be fought out and decided is one of title, we think the suit cannot be considered to be one of small cause nature.2. There is no other point raised in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
In the Matter of Mr. B. Minuswami Naidu Vs. A., B.L., High Court Vakil
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad568; (1926)50MLJ399
Victor Murray Court Trotter, C.J.1. The charges framed, if they were substantiated would prove no more than negligence on the part of the Vakil's clerk. It is only fair to the Vakil to say that he has throughout accepted civil responsibility for his clerk's negligence to the extent of any proved loss in consequence of it by the client. But it has been laid down clearly in England in the case of G.M.C. (in the proceedings against Mr Mayor Cooks, a Solicitor) 86 Law Times, 468, and also by a Bench of this Court in a judgment delivered on the 7th December, 1923 In the Matter of Dr. T.C.K. Kunup, Bar-at-Law, Advocate, High Court, Madras, the Court consisting of the then Chief Justice, Phillips, and Ramesam, JJ. that negligence by itself is not professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of moral delinquency. Of that there is no suggestion here, and we arc therefore able to say that there is no case to investigate, and that no reflection adverse to his profession...
Pedda Sanjivi Reddy and anr. Vs. Kondasari Koneri Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad521; (1926)50MLJ460
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, J.1. The Chief Justice: The plaintiffs in this case brought a suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution and for defamation. The defendant presented a petition to the Deputy Magistrate of Adoni praying that the plaintiffs and some others should be bound over under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate on receipt of the petition sent it to the police for enquiry and report. The police reported, after enquiry and after hearing what the petitioner had to say, that there was no foundation for the allegations in the petition. Thereupon the Magistrate dismissed it and refused to take any action under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. This Civil suit is the outcome of those proceedings.2. No difficulty arises with regard to the claim for malicious prosecution. The short and sufficient answer to such a claim is that the plaintiffs were not in fact prosecuted. But the claim for defamation raises a question of some little importance.3. ...
Vermulapalli Seetharamamma and ors. Vs. Maganti Appiah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad457; (1926)50MLJ689
Odgers, J.1. The question in this case is whether an alienation by a de facto guardian is valid under the Hindu Law. The person in question is the maternal uncle of the plaintiff and of course is neither the natural nor the legal guardian. The District Munsif dismissed the suit which was a claim for a declaration that the alienation made during the minority of the plaintiff did not bind him. The Subordinate Judge reversed this decision holding that the alienation made by the maternal uncle was a void transaction.2. It has been argued at length for the respondents that a de facto guardian is unrecognised in the Hindu Law. It may be at once said that, if there is such a recognition I am satisfied that the recognition is more or less modern and possibly, to some extent, the recognition, if it is legally recognised at all, has come about by necessity. The earliest case, as far as I know is the well-known case in Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Kunweree (1856) 6 MIA 393 wh...
Chavakula Ammanna Vs. Chavakula Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad916; (1926)51MLJ426
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit by a reversioner during the life-time of a widow for a declaration that an adoption alleged to have been made by the latter is not valid and binding on the reversioners. The District Munsif held that the objection raised by the plaintiff to the validity of the adoption failed, which view was upheld by the Subordinate Judge. A certain person called Somanna executed on the 26th April, 1891 Ex. I which is a document in favour of one Danalakshmi, his daughter-in-law, whereby he gave her certain property the effect of which will be discussed later and a power or consent to her to adopt. The words are:As you asked me for my consent in order to adopt a boy for the prospering of our family, I have given my consent, so that you may adopt at your pleasure, whomsoever you may like, whenever it is necessary, from among the sons of your brother, or the sons of my brothers, or their daughters' sons or their sons' sons.2. Somanna died on the 28th August, 1891 without havi...
(Muhammad) Mohideen Maracayar Vs. Ramanadhan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad217
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram dismissin the appellant's petition for setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no interest in the properties, he having sold them to Velu Pillai before the date of auction sale. The properties were sold as those belonging to the appellant. If the properties did not belong to him, the decree-holder could not have brought them to sale in execution of his decree and the Court could not have sold the properties as those belonging to the appellant. It cannot therefore be said that, when he applies under Rule 90 of Order 21 to have the sale set aside on the ground of irregularity in publishing and conducting the sale, his interests are not affected. Rule 90 is wide in its terms. It says:The decree-holder or any person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, or whose interests are affected by the sale, may...
Govinda Nadan Vs. A.Y.R.M.R.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad224
Odgers, J.1. I postponed judgment on the 15th September in order to give the appellant's vakil an opportunity of satisfying me that the District Judge went into the question of the nature of the accounts in the case in spite of its not being raised by the parties as it is not in the grounds of appeal to the lower appellate Court. The learned vakil now states that he is unable to get information on the point.2. The suit is brought by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 795 odd, which is said to be due to him from the defendant, a money-lender. The course of business between the parties was apparently that the plaintiff should draw money whenever he wanted it and should also deposit money with the defendant. The plaintiff has not produced any accounts of his own. He relies on a copy of the defendant's accounts, Exhibit A. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff had proved his case as he held that a settlement had taken place on either the 14th or the 17th of December 1913. The District J...
In Re: Mr. B. Muniswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.685
1. The charges framed, if they were substantiated, would prove no more than negligence on the part of the Vakil's clerk. It is only fair to the Vakil to say that he has throughout accepted civil responsibility for his clerk's negligence to the extent of any proved loss in. consequence of it by the client. But it has been laid down clearly in England in the case of G.M.C. in the proceedings' against Mayor Cooke, a Solicitor (1889) 33 Sol. J. 397 and also by a Bench of this Court in a judgment, delivered on the 7th December, 1923, in the matter of Dr. T.C.K. Kurup, Barat Law, Advocate, High Court, Madras, the Court consisting of the then Chief Justice, Phillips and Ramesam, JJ., that negligence , by itself is not professional misconduct; into that offence there must enter the element of moral delinquency. Of that there is no suggestion here, and we are, therefore, able to say that there is no case to investigate and that no reflection adverse to his professional honour rests upon Mr. Mun...