Chennai Court February 1925 Judgments
Hathoor Gramathil Valia Manayilparkum Okkilikkara Siddayya and anr. Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1264; (1925)49MLJ379
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry passed on a petition by the defendants to set aside an ex parte decree passed against them. The defendants filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 16th August, 1922. The present application is to set aside the order passed on the previous application and also to set aside the ex parte decree. After the application was filed both parties filed a joint affidavit in which the defendants consented to take oath and the plaintiff agreed to abide by the oath of the defendants. On the date when the oath was to be taken by them, the plaintiff and the defendants appeared and they were asked to go and bathe before taking the oath. The defendants came back after the bath but the plaintiff did not return in consequence of which the oath was not taken and the Commissioner made a return to that effect. The Sub-ordinate Judge heard the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Muthu Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Ahmed Ibrahim Alim Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1276
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has set aside various orders on the ground that they were passed without jurisdiction. We understand that the Question has since again been raised in this very suit before the same Judge and that he has come to a different conclusion in view of certain recent decisions of this Court. We are, however, not concerned with this. There is an obvious point in this case to which unfortunately his attention was not drawn. If the decree in question was a preliminary decree the subsequent proceedings now impeached would be merely proceedings in the suit. If, on the other hand, the decree was final, they would be proceedings in execution. It is not seriously disputed that the Court which heard the applications and made the orders which are said to be invalid was a Court which had jurisdiction to execute the decree. The question therefore, that has to be decided is, was the decree, dated 12th January 1916 in O.S. No. 4 of 1913 preliminary or fin...
Tag this Judgment!Bathoor Gramathil Valia Manayilparkam Okkilikara Siddayya and anr. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.577
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry passed on a petition by the defendants to set aside an ex parte decree passed against them. The defendants filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on 16th August 1922. The present application is to set aside the order passed on the previous application and also to set aside the ex parte decree. After the application was filed both parties filed a joint affidavit in which the defendants consented to take oath and the plaintiff agreed to abide by the oath of the defendants. On the date when the oath was to be taken by them, the plaintiff and the defendants appeared and they were asked to go and bathe before taking the oath. The defendants came back after the bath but the plaintiff did not return in consequence of which the oath was not taken and the Commissioner made a return to that effect. The Subordinate Judge heard the parties an...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Muthualagappa Chettiar Vs. Ahmed Ibrahim Alim Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.789
1. The learned Subordinate Judge has set aside various orders on the ground that they were passed without jurisdiction. We understand that the question has since again been raised in this very suit before the same Judge and that he has come to a different conclusion in view of certain recent decisions of this Court. We are, however, not concerned with this. There is an obvious point in this case to which unfortunately his attention was not drawn. If the decree in question was a preliminary decree, the subsequent proceedings now impeached would be merely proceedings in the suit If, on the other hand, the decree was final, they would be proceedings in execution. It is not seriously disputed that the Court which heard the applications and made the orders which are said to be invalid, was a Court which had jurisdiction to execute the decree. The question, therefore, that has to be decided is, was the decree dated 12th January 1916 in O.S. No. 4 of 1913 preliminary or final? It contains a d...
Tag this Judgment!Balaram Paramsukdass Firm Vs. Gudiyatam Govinda Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1232; (1925)49MLJ200
Phillips, J.1. In this case the respondent entered into a contract with the defendants for the purchase of silver to be delivered at Bombay on the 25th of February, 1918. The plaintiff did not apply for delivery on that date and accordingly on the 28th of February the defendants wrote Ex. B in which they stated that the respondent, having been unable to pay the money due under the contract, had offered to pay interest at per cent and had failed to take delivery in spite of repeated requests. The respondent was, therefore, asked to take delivery and pay the money. The last sentence in the letter is : ' Failing immediate payment of the said amount and obtaining delivery of the goods, my clients will institute a suit against you.' A reply to this letter was sent on the 2nd of March--Ex. D--in which the respondent pleaded a custom according to which he was not bound to take delivery until eight days after the contract date, i.e., Pournami day. The defendants then treated the contract as at...
Tag this Judgment!Y.A. Venkataramiah Vs. M. Subbireddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1173; 90Ind.Cas.1056
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Anantapur, declining to set aside an election on the ground of violation of the rules. The petitioner's allegation in the petition was that one of the voters, instead of marking a cross against the name of the candidate, wrote his name (the candidate's name), in the space provided and that this was against the rules governing elections. The learned Judge held that it would be inexpedient, to construe too strictly the rules, regulating the conduct of unlettered persons like many of these voters. One of these rules regulating the conduct of election is that the voter should only place his mark against the name of the candidate for whom he wants to vote, but should not write his own name, or the name of the candidate; for, by doing so, the very object of the secret ballot will be lost. It is essential that, in the case of secret ballot, it should not be known for whom a particular voter recorded his vote. I...
Tag this Judgment!R. Duraiswamy Iyer Vs. C.S. Balasundaram Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.420
Wallace, J.1. The District Munsif has not decided whether 'summons was not duly served' as he was bound to do under Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act. A mere assertion of his ignorance of the decree by the petitioner and acceptance of that by the Court will not give the Court jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte decree. It has to decide also whether the summons was not duly served. This order was, therefore, made without jurisdiction and is hereby set aside and the case sent back for fresh decision.2. Costs upto date will abide the result. Refund of Court-fee on the civil revision petition is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Chennama Naidu and ors. Vs. Venkatammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1023; (1925)49MLJ186
Devadoss, J.1. The only point urged in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance secured under Ex. A at the rate at which paddy was selling on the date of the plaint. Both the Courts have given a decree for the amount ,of paddy payable to her at the rate prevailing on the date of the plaint. Mr. Ramanath Shenai, on behalf of the appellants, urges that Ex. A provides for payment of money in lieu of the payment of maintenance in kind, and his client is entitled to pay maintenance; at the rate mentioned in Ex. A. On the other side, it is contended that the document provides for payment of maintenance in kind and that the value of the paddy is given only for the purpose of ascertaining the value for registration purpose and that there is no option to the defendant to pay maintenance in money at the rate mentioned in the document. The recital in the document is ' to deliver that paddy worth Rs. 39 for' every year, 3 podies of Sambali paddy without moisture a...
Tag this Judgment!Naiwale Sulaiman Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Munra Venkatanarayana Garu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad146
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. He is now dead and his legal representatives have been brought on record. Plaintiff's suit was one for contribution against two persons who were, along with others, judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 358 of 1904 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Masulipatam. A joint decree was passed against the two defendants by the Court of first instance. On appeal the Subordinate Judge departed from the usual rule of passing general decrees against the two defendants because he was under the impression that there was only one judgment-debtor in the said O.S. No. 358 of 1904 and the others were all his legal representatives. The report submitted by the Subordinate Judge shows that in this assumption he was wrong. It follows therefore that the joint decree against the two defendants should not have been passed by the lower Court. So far as the 1st defendant is concerned the lower Court's decree is modified and the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Chinnamma Naidu and ors. Vs. Venkatammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.996
Devadoss, J.1. The only point urged in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to get maintenance secured under Ex. A, at the rate at which paddy was selling on the date of the plaint. Both the Courts have given a decree for the amount of paddy payable to her at the rate prevailing on the date of the plaint. Mr. Ramanath Shenai on behalf of the appellants urges that Ex. A, provides for payment of money in lieu of the payment of maintenance in kind, and his client is entitled to pay maintenance at the rate mentioned in Ex. A. On the other side it is contended that the document provides for payment of maintenance in kind and that the value of the paddy is given only for the purpose of ascertaining the value for registration purpose and therefore it is said that there is no option to the defendant to pay maintenance in money at the rate mentioned in the document. The recital in the document 'is to deliver that paddy worth Rs. 39 for every year, 3 podies of Sambali paddy wi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »