Chennai Court April 1925 Judgments
(Diwan Bahadur) Govindoss Chathurbhujadoss and Co. Vs. Sukdevadoss Ram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad326
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The appeal arises out of suit filed by the respondents against the appellants for the recovery of Rs. 65,255-2-3 claimed in respect of 135 bales of Japan twist alleged to have been sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that the bales of twist mentioned in the schedule and amounting to 135 in number were sold and delivered to the defendants on the dates and at the prices mentioned in the schedule, that Rs. 9,115-5-0 was paid for 15 bales and that the balance of Rs. 65,255-2-3 claimed is due.3. The case for the defendants is that there was no sale and delivery as alleged in the plaint and that the contracts were merely wagering contracts and as such are unenforceable. They state that they, the plaintiffs, and certain other merchants formed a group and it was agreed between them that the transactions had among them should be on the footing that no deliveries should be required but havala chits passed on, that patt...
Tag this Judgment!(Sekkhu) Musthabu Alias Appu Ravuthan Vs. Nani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad536
Phillips, J.1. The first objection taken by the appellant is that the application to execute the decree on behalf of the legal representatives of the decree-holder ought not to have been made to the Court which was executing the decree but to the Court which passed the decree. This question is concluded by a decision of the Full Bench in this Court in Swaminatha Ayyar v. Vaidyanatha Sastri [1905] 28 Mad. 466; and also in Amar Chandra Banerjee v. Guru Prosunno Mukerjee [1900] 27 Cal. 488; and Tameshar Prasad v. Thakur Prasad [1903] 25 All. 443; Sham Lal Pali v. Modhu Sudan Sircar [1895] 22 Cal. 558. All these cases were decided under Civil P.C. of 1882, and there has since been an alteration in Sections 88, 244, 232 and 234 of that Code. It is questionable whether these decisions are correct under the new Civil P.C., and I may observe that in the Pull Bench decision in Madras, the learned Chief Justice did not come to a determination without considerable hesitation, and one of the Judge...
Tag this Judgment!M.R. Ry. Manavikrama ZamorIn Raja Avl. of Calicut Vs. P. Venkatagiri P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad849
Phillips, J.1. In this case the appellant-plaintiff demised the suit property to Krishnan Nayar and Kunju Nayar on Adimayavana right on 7th April 1898. In 1900 the lessees assigned their right to the first defendant and the father of the second defendant. The lease contains a provision that on the expiry of every 12 years a renewal fee of Rs. 125 shall be paid by the lessee and further documents exchanged between the parties. Accordingly the assignees brought a suit in 1913, for renewal fee. It was then held that the Adimayavana lease being inalienable the plaintiffs in that suit could not obtain a valid assignment and, therefore, their suit was dismissed. The plaintiff now brings the present suit in 1918, to recover possession of the suit properties from the assignee and their representatives. The facts are all recited in the plaint and the first prayer in the plaint is:That a decree may be passed directing the defendants to surrender the schedule items to the plaintiff by virtue of t...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.Ry. Manavikram ZamorIn Raja Avergal of Calicut Through K. Srinivas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.245
Odgers, J.1. In this case the appellant-plaintiff demised the suit property to Krishnan Najar and Kunju Nayar on Adimayavana right on 7th April 1908. In 1900, the lessees assigned their right to the first defendant and the father of the second defendant. The lease contains a provision that on the expiry of every 12 years a renewal fee of Ks. 125 shall be paid by the lessee and further documents exchanged between the parties Accordingly the assignees brought a suit in 1913 for renewal of the Adimayavana lease and for the acceptance of the renewal fee It was then held that the Adimayavana lease being inalienable, the plaintiffs in that suit could not obtain a valid assignment and, therefore, their suit was dismissed. The plaintiff now brings the present suit in 1918 to recover possession of the suit properties from the assignees and their representatives. The facts are all recited in the plaint and the first prayer in the plaint is 'that a decree may be passed directing the defendants to...
Tag this Judgment!Sekkhu Musthabu Alias Appu Ravuthan Vs. Nani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.377
Phillips, J.1. The first objection taken by the appellant is that the application to execute the decree on behalf of the legal representatives of the decree-holder ought not to have been made to the Court which was executing the decree but to the Court which passed the decree. This question is concluded by a decision of the Full Bench in this Court in Swaminatha Ayyar v. Vaidyanatha Sastri 15 M.L.J. 116 and also in 4mar Chundra Banerjee v. Guru Prosunno Mukerjee 14 Ind. Dec. 321 and Tameshar Prasad v. Thakur Prasad A.W.N. (1901) 99 Sham Lal Pali v. Modhu Sudan Sircar 11 Ind. Dec. 372. All these cases were decided under C.P.C. of 1882 and there has since been an alteration in Sections 88, 244, 232 and 234 of that Code. It is questionable whether these decisions are correct under the new C.P.C. and I may observe that in the Full Bench decision in Madras, the learned Chief Justice did not come to a determination without considerable hesitation and one of the Judges was of opinion that Sec...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Peramasami Rayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad183a
1. The general point raised the letter of reference is, at what stage, in an enquiry or trial, is an accused person entitled under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code to ask the Court to furnish him with copies of statements made by prosecution witnesses to the police in the course of investigation. The wording of the section fixes the stage as ' when any witness is called for the prosecution.' It will be observed, however, that the purpose of furnishing the copy is to contradict the witness. This obviously implies that the witness has already made a statement which is open to contradiction, and, therefore, the stage at which the copy is to be furnished is the stage when the witness has made a statement which lays him open to contradiction by his former statement to the Police. We cannot subscribe to the contention that, before cross examination is opened at all, the accused is entitled to copies of all statements made by prosecution witnesses at the police investigation, that i...
Tag this Judgment!V. Thirumalachariar Vs. Athimoola Karayalar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad256
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff against 7 defendants I understand that the suit is for specific performance of a contract entered into by the husband of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff. The suit is also in the alternative for the value of the land The deceased was one Nambi Kone. The 1st defendant is his widow, the 2nd defendant his nephew, 3rd defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant, Defendants 4 to 6 are the sons of a brother of the 2nd defendant and 7th defendant is the daughter of the deceased. These persons are all said to have in their hands certain Assets of the deceased Nambi Kone under some arrangement made in his lifetime, called a settlement The suit was called on for trial on the 29th October lt923, before the Subordinate Judge Mis. N.S. Natesa Aiyar. The Defendants 1 and 7 and Defendants 2 to 6 had different vakils on the record When the case was taken up, the vakil for the plaintiff was not there and neither of the vakils for the defendants was th...
Tag this Judgment!Arulanandam Pillai Vs. Malaya Pillai Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad401
Phillips, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff-appellant seeks to enforce a mortgage on the plaint land which originally was in occupation of the first defendant and which was afterwards sold in a rent sale to the third defendant and by him transferred to the second defendant. The fourth defendant is the landlord.2. The mortgage was not effected with the permission of the landlord and consequently under Section 125 of the Estates Land Act it is not binding on a purchaser in a revenue sale. The second defendant is, therefore, in no way bound by the mortgage unless it is established that the revenue sale was invalid. The plaintiff made certain allegations in his plaint to the effect that the sale was invalid because it was conducted collusively and fraudulently, that there was no proper notice by beat of tom-tom and that his mortgage right was not announced at the time of the sale or in the sale proclamation.3. When the issues were framed, Issue No. 2 was framed on this allegation as follows:...
Tag this Judgment!V. Tirumalachariar Vs. Athimoola Karayalor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.776
ORDEROdgers, J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff against seven defendants. I understand that the suit is for specific performance of a contract entered into by the husband of the 1st defendant and the plaintiff. The suit is also in the alternative for the value of the land. The deceased was one Nambi Khone, the 1st defendant is his widow, the 2nd defendant his nephew, 3rd defendant is the son of the 2nd defendant, defendants No. 4 to 6 are the sons of a brother of the 2nd defendant and the 7th. defendant is the daughter of the deceased. These persons are all said to have in their hands certain assets of the deceased Nambi Khone under some arrangement made in his lifetime, called a settlement. The suit was called on for trial on the 24th October 1923 before the Subordinate Judge, Mr. N.S. Natesa Iyer The defendants No. 1 and 7 and defendants Nos. 2 to 6 had different Vakils on the record. When the case was taken up, the Vakil for the plaintiff was not there and neither of the Vakils f...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Radhakrishna Aiyar Vs. Vinayakaswamiar (Minor), by Guardian, T.A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)49MLJ664
Spencer, J.1. An objection was raised to the execution of a decree in a suit for rent under Madras Act 1 of 1908 in which the petitioner did not appear and defend himself against the plaintiff's claim, the ground of the objection being that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The defence of want of jurisdiction is one that should have been raised at the trial of the suit itself. After the passing of the decree, the defendant's only course was to apply under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to have the ex parte decree against him vacated and the suit re-heard. An objection to the jurisdiction of the Court that tried the suit is not one of the questions arising between the parties to the suit and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree which are allowed by Section 47. Civil Procedure Code, to be dealt with in execution [vide Zamindar of Ettiyapuram v. Chidambaram Chetty ILR (1920) M 675 and Kalipada Sarkar v. Hari Mohan Dalai ILR (1916) C 627....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »