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.
Govinda Nadan Represented by His Agent, Govindasami Venu Udayan Vs. A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.106
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 taken 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 account, Ex. 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 17th of December 1913. The District Judge, to whom an appeal was taken, disc...
Swaminatha Odayar Vs. Thiagarajaswami Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad954; 92Ind.Cas.846; (1927)52MLJ256
1. This is an appeal from the order of our learned brother, Odgers, J. The first point urged for the appellant is that the order on execution application No. 386 of 1918 operated as res judicata in favour of the appellant and that the District Munsif was wrong in dismissing the execution application which was filed on the 6th August 1921. The District Munsif decided in E. P. No. 386 of 1918 that the application of the appellant was not barred by limitation. The District Munsif who dealt with the present application set aside the ex parte order on No. 386 of 1918 on the ground that the District Munsif who first disposed of the petition had not before him the decision of the Privy Council in Khulna Loan Co., Ltd. v. Jnanendra Nath Bose 45 Ind. Cas. 436. It is pointed out by Mr. Kuppusami Iyer, and very rightly too, that the District Munsif was not justified in setting aside the ear parte order on E.A. No 386 of 1918 as the application to set aside the ex parte order was made more than 30...
Muhammad Mohideen Maracayar Vs. Ramanadhan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.597
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram dismissing the appellant's petition for setting aside a sale under Order XXI, 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 XXI 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 sal...
Vemulapalli Seetharamamma and ors. Vs. Maganti Appiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.827
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 al all has come about by necessity. The earliest case, as far as I know, is the well known case in Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Babooee Munraj Koonweree 6 M.I.A. 393 where their L...
Kanuri Venkata Siva Rao and ors. Vs. Chittoori Rama Kristnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad246; (1926)50MLJ148
1. This revision petition arises out of a suit filed in the Court: of the District Munsif, Bezwada. The object of the suit was to obtain a declaration that the election of the defendants as members of the Panchayat Court of Bezwada was void. Pending the trial of the suit, the plaintiff applied for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon their duties as Panchayatdars. The District Munsif decided that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and proceeded to grant the injunction applied for. The resultbut for the interference of this Court__rnight have been to deprive the citizens of Bezwada for several years of the services of a Panchayat Court. Rule 64 of the rules framed by Government under the Village Courts Act provides fully for the competency of the proceedings of Panchayat Courts despite defects in their constitution or in the qualifications of their members. So that it was as unnecessary as it was undesirable for the Munsif to have passed the order ...
Guduthuru Thimmappa Vs. V. Balakrishna Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad427; (1926)50MLJ298
1. The question in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge's Court at Bellary had jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was filed so far back as 5th March, 1921, and the Subordinate Judge decided that the Court had no jurisdiction on the 7th March, 1923. The defendants raised the question of jurisdiction in issue 15. A preliminary issue like this should have been disposed of at the earliest opportunity. The learned Subordinate Judge did not do that, but after a number of witnesses were examined on commission and after the defendant took time to adduce evidence he decided this question in favour of the defendant.2. The suit is for dissolution of partnership. The plaintiff, who is a resident of Bellary, entered into partnership with the defendant, a resident of Coimbatore, for the purchase and sale of cotton. Under the arrangement they were to share the profits. It is unnecessary to consider what shares the plaintiff and defendant had in the partnership as it is a matter which has ...
Kota Subramaniam Chetty Vs. the Chairman, Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad204
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner is suing in the District Munsif's Court of Tirupathur for a declaration that his name should be inserted in the electoral roll of Gudiyatham Municipality, and for an injunction restraining the Chairman from holding an election for Councillors until the petitioner by means of this suit has. established his right to stand as a candidate. The District Munsif granted a temporary injunction ; the District Judge reversed that order and petitioner seeks. to revise the order of the District Judge and to obtain an interim order of injunction.2. It has not been suggested that the learned District Judge in his carefully reasoned order either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, except in so far as it must be held, following Achayya v. Sri Seetharamachandra Rao [1916] 39 Mad. 195 that, if an appellate Court erroneously decides th...
(Vaddadi) Butchiraju and ors. Vs. Doddi Seetharamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad377
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. The suit was for the recovery of lands which originally formed karnam service inam, and which has first been mortgaged and subsequently sold by the karnam to Defendants 1 and 2. The 3rd plaintiff is the karnam and Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are his sons. The mortgage (usufructuary) was under Exhibit II on 3-7-1907 ; and the sale was under Exhibit I on 5-4-1910. The inam was enfranchised in April 1911. The District Munsiff held that the alienations having been made before enfranchisement were invalid, that the defendants had, on the date of the suit (3-7-1920) prescribed for a mortgagee's interest ; and that plaintiffs were entitled to possession on payment of Rs. 700, Rs. 800 and Rs. 1,000 or ,Rs. 1,600. Both sides appealed, the appeal by plaintiffs relating to their liability to pay Rs. 1,600 before getting possession. The learned Subordinate Judge held that defendants had prescribed only for a mortgagee's interest ; and that plaintiffs were entitled only to redem as p...
(Kaki) Narasamma Vs. Kaki Venkataraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad534
1. This is a suit for the recovery of past and future maintenance from the plaintiff's stepson. The District Munsif awarded maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 2 per mensem if she surrendered possession of the lands at Devarapalli; or if those lands remained in her possession he decreed that she should get no other maintenance at all. She was also given a right of residence in a portion of the defendant's house.2. On appeal the Subordinate Judge fixed the amount of maintenance at Rs. 6 a month or Rs. 72 a year with the proviso that the defendants should pay only Rs. 32 a year so long as the plaintiff continued in possession of the Devarapalli lands. The plaintiff appeals against this decision and there is a memorandum of objections on the other side.3. The plafntiff's husband, before he died, executed a Will, which is Ex. A, allowing his wife a sum of Rs. 15 a month for her life besides the lands at Devarapalli and providing that the sum should be Rs. 10 a month so long as ...
(Kaji) Mahomed Ibrahim Vs. Sundaram Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1066
Viswanatha Sastri, J.1. Appeal by the legal representative of the deceased 1st plaintiff against the appellate decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga in Appeal Suit No. 66 of 1920. The suit was instituted by the deceased 1st plaintiff as hukdar of the Wallajah Nawab Jumma Kotwa Pallivasal at Sivaganga for delivery of possession of the site leased to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant denied the sole right of the 1st plaintiff to the hukdarship and management of the Pallivasal and contended that the Pallivasal and its properties were being managed by the Muhammadan community of Sivaganga through persons appointed by them. He further contended that he was only in possession of the southern portion of the site as lessee from Keelaka, Perottasi, with the permission of the then managers, that he had executed a rent deed in their favour on 14th June 1915, for a period of three years, and that he was never in possession of the northern portion. The first issue framed rela...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »