Chennai Court December 1925 Judgments
Appana Prakasa Rao Vs. Yelamarti Ramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1082; (1926)51MLJ358
Phillips, J.1. The first objection taken by the appellant (Ist defendant) is to the Subordinate Judge's finding that the plaintiff paid Rs. 2,000 in discharge of the mortgage, Ex. B, on the ground that the mode of payment proved is at variance with the mode set out in the plaint. It is alleged that the plaintiff put forward the case of cash payment and that the proof was 'by adjustment of a debt'. There is nothing in the plaint, nor in the sale-deed obtained by the plaintiff to justify the statement that cash payment and cash payment only was intended. The finding therefore must be accepted.2. Accepting the finding, it is then argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee paid off by him. A long argument has been addressed to us as to the rights of a mortgagee and the assignee of a mortgagee to discharge an encumbrance or keep it alive, but in the present case it is unnecessary to enter into that question for the present case is concluded by ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahammad Schamnad Vs. Jainabi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.105
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this appeal is that the District Munsif should have granted an adjournment to enable the 4th defendant to give evidence in the case. No written application was made for an adjournment to the District Munsif, but an oral application is said to have been made by the 4th defendant's Vakil on the ground that the 4th defendant was away in Delhi. The District Munsif refused to grant the adjournment and in appeal this point, it is urged, was pressed before the (Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge has not adverted to it in his judgment. Though he sent down an issue to be tried by the District Munsif, he did not allow the 4th defendant to be examined with regard to some of the points in the case. I am not quite satisfied that the 4th defendant had sufficient excuse for not appearing before the District Munsif on the day the case was taken up for trial and further I think his evidence will not be of much use in deciding the meanings of words in constr...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnatha Rowther Vs. Karunji Andi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad538
1. Plaintiff is 1st defendant's son. Second defendant is 1st defendant's brother's son. They are members of an undivided Hindu family. Defendants 1 and 2 usufructuarily mortgaged the suit properties to 3rd defendant who hypothecated his rights to 4th defendant. 5th defendant purchased the properties in execution of the decree obtained by the 4th defendant on his mortgage. The properties have been found to belong to a temple of which the plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 are the dharmakarthas and pujaris. As pujaris they are entitled to appropriate for their own purposes what remains of the income of the suit properties after meeting the puja and other expenses of the temple. The only question for decision in the case is whether the plaintiff can alone maintain the suit. The District Munsif decided in favour of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge, relying on a decision in Thandavaraya Pillai v. Shanmugam Pillai [1909] 32 Mad.167 reversed the judgment of the District Munsif and dismissed...
Tag this Judgment!Avudai Ammal and ors. Vs. Ramalinga Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1163; 97Ind.Cas.314
Ramesam, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal is whether the son's daughter of a Hindu is entitled to preference to brother's daughter's sons in the matter of succession to his property. The 3rd defendant is the son's daughter and the respondents are the brother's daughter's sons. This question was not raised in the Courts below, but the second appeal is admitted as a pure question of law and for the same reason I have allowed it to be argued.2. The contention for the appellants briefly is that both the rival claimants are bandhus and no preference should be given to male bandhus over female bandhus but that the order should be determined in accordance with the principles applying to bandhus in general. Mr. K.V. Krishnaswami Aiyar, who appeared for the appellants, argues that all older cases in which it is laid down that male bandhus are entitled to preference over female bandhus whatever the nearness in degree may be have lost their weight in view of the recent decision of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Ayitha Alias Thaniya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad670; (1926)50MLJ659
Devadoss, J.1. Cr. Appeal No. 339 of 1925 - This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tellicherry who quashed the conviction of the accused by the Second Class Magistrate of Vayitri under Section 30 of the Madras Planters' Labour Act (1 of 1903) on the ground that the contract executed by the appellant did not contain his discriptive marks as required by law. The contention of the Public Prosecutor is that the omission to mention the descriptive mark of the accused was not a wilful omission but an oversight and that omission should not be held to invalidate the contract. The question is whether the omission to enter any particulars required by the rules vitiates the contract or makes it unenforci-ble under the Act. The argument of the Public Prosecutor is that the omission to give the descriptive marks of a Labourer is such a negligible thing that it cannot be held to invalidate a contract. He argues 'could it be said that a per...
Tag this Judgment!Challa Abbireddi and ors. Vs. Challa Venkatareddi (insolvent) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.351; (1926)51MLJ60
1. The first respondent herein was adjudicated an insolvent in I.P. No. 46 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of Guntur. As he failed to apply for discharge within the time fixed, his adjudication was annulled. The petitioners are some of the creditors and they applied to the Distinct Court to have the order of annulment reviewed. The learned Judge thought that the petitioners had a good case on the merits but declined to grant the review as he thought that he had no power to review an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. The petitioners have preferred this revi-'sion petition against his order.2. Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920) says:Subject to the provisions of this Act the Court, in regard to proceedings under this Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction.3. The Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction has power to review its ord...
Tag this Judgment!Challa Abbireddi and ors. Vs. Challa Venkata Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad175
1. The 1st respondent herein was adjudicated an insolvent in I. P. No. 46 of 1920 on the file of the District Court of Guntur. As he failed to apply for discharge within the time fixed his adjudication was annulled. The petitioners are some of the creditors and they applied to the District Court to have the order of annulment reviewed. The learned Judge thought that the petitioners had a good case on the merits, but declined to grant the review as he thought that he had no power to review an order made in the exercise of insolvency jurisdiction. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition against his order.2. Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, Act V of 1920, says:Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court, in regard to proceedings under this Act, shall have the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction.3. The Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction has power to review its o...
Tag this Judgment!V. Rama Rao Vs. Chellayya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1208; 97Ind.Cas.580
Phillips, J.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the tender made by the defendant of Rs. 950 on the 24th of August 1919 was within the time allowed by, the compromise entered into between him and the plaintiff. The compromise petition is dated 24th June 1912, and recites thatif within 23rd August 1919, i.e., within two months from this date, defendant should pay to plaintiff....Rs. 950. Otherwise, the full amount of Rs. 1,500 should be recovered with interest at 1 percent, per mensem from this date....2. That compromise was put into Court by the parties on 27th June and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The question now is whether the date, 23rd August 1919, was the date within which the payment had to be made, or whether the payment had to be made within two months from the date either of the compromise or of the decree thereon. It is certainly not at all free from ambiguity and the only way in which the question could be settled is to ascertain th...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee Vs. A. Ramalingappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad554; 94Ind.Cas.456; (1926)50MLJ361
Murray Court Trotter, C.J.1. The Chief Justice: The preliminary point is taken in this case that no appeal lies because the pronouncement appealed against was not a judgment but an order. The words have been the subject of great controversy in these Courts and I certainly do not propose to attempt to go through the welter of conflicting decisions, with many of which 1 may say I do not in the least agree. It seems to me that the matter is left in a state in which all this Court can do is to take the principle underlying the Full Bench case in Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar (I990) 21 MLJ 1 and apply it as best as it can to the actual matter before it. In this case the learned Judge directed that certain persons who appeared in the first instance on the record as defendants should be added as plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff having given up his cause of action and thereby adversely no doubt affected the position of the defendants who were transposed, because, if he obtained a decree, in t...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver of South Kanara Vs. Bastiao Souza and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad836; 95Ind.Cas.300
1. There is nothing in the Provincial Insolvency Act or in Mariappa Pillai v. Raman Chettiyar [1919] 42 Mad. 322, to prevent the creditors and, therefore, the Official Receiver, from proceeding under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act if they wish; and the fact that they have another remedy under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act does not deprive them of their right of suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The appeal must be allowed and the lower Court is directed to admit the appeal and hear it.3. Costs up to date will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »