Chennai Court July 1925 Judgments
Kuppuswami Mudaliar Vs. Chockalinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad181; (1925)49MLJ788
Phillips, J.1. The facts of this case are stated in the Lower Appellate Court's judgment. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation applyingArticle 142. There were three items of property in the suit and although an appeal is preferred as regards all the three it is not now pressed as regards the third item, as admittedly the suit is barred byOrder 21, Rule 63, so far as that item is concerned. As regards the other two items the appellant's contention is thatArticle 144 and not Article 142 is applicable to this case. It is not disputed that ifArticle 142 is applicable, Article 144 cannot be invoked, as it is merely a residuary Article. The argument is thatArticle 142 has no application to suits for possession based on title, but that it refers only to suits basedon possessory title, that is to say, that if a man has title and is in possession and is dispossessed, it is open to him to sue underArticle 142, because he was in possession, for the restorati...
Tag this Judgment!Kanaparthi Srinivasa Rao and ors. Vs. Kanaparthi Venkatanarasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad119
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam on C.M.P. No. 1249 of 1922.2. In O.S. No. 45 of 1920, the plaintiffs-minors appeared by their next friend and he exonerated the 1st defendant. The minors now apply to have the matter re-opened. No one appears for first defendant.3. The point for determination is whether the learned Judge's concluding remark as justified:Even if it be held that my predecessor ought to have made some enquiry before allowing the next friend to give up 1st defendant, I think as a successor I cannot re-open the suit.4. It must be held that his predecessor should have acted under Order 32, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code and should have recorded the leave of the Court. Then can the present Judge re-open the suit which is thus found to have been improperly decided ?5. The Court has a special responsibility to safeguard the interests of the minor plaintiffs. See Doraisami Pillai v.Thungasami Pillai (1904) 27 Mad. 377 a...
Tag this Judgment!S.A. Muthayan Chettiar Vs. P. Panchavarna Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad926
Beasley, J.1. The facts of this case are sufficiently and fully set out in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and it is not necessary for me to re-state them now. This case is governed by the authority of the decision in Kunjunni Nair v. kunjunni Nair [1911] 1 M.W.N. 79 and the material passage in the reported case appears at page 80. It is as follows:It is impossible to argue as a matter of law apart from special agrement that default in the payment of the prize-money does not relieve the subscriber from liability to pay future subscriptions. Such a termination of liability can ony be on the ground that the whole contract is put an end to.2. This decision seems to me to be a decision directly in point and, therefore, I must allow this petition with costs and reverse the finding of the Subordinate Judge. The decree will, therefore, be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs in the lower Court....
Tag this Judgment!Kaman Mada and ors. Vs. Malli and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad159; (1925)49MLJ538
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek for revision of the decree of the District Munsif, Kollegal, in O.S. No. 153 of 1922 on the following ground:The petitioners are defendants and judgment-debtors in a pauper suit. In assessing the costs the Court has ordered them to pay Rs. 175 as Court-fee on the plaint which would be correct if the old Court Fees Act were applicable. But if on the day the plaint was filed the new Act was applicable, then the fee, chargeable on the value of one year's maintenance, would be considerably less. 2. The point for determination is, therefore, when was the plaint filed.3. The application to sue as a pauper was presented under Order 33, Rule 3 on 23rd December, 1921, when the old Act was in force. The applicant was allowed to sue as a pauper under Order 33, Rule 7. on 30th June, 1922, when the new Act was in force. The application was then numbered and registered and deemed the plaint in the suit under Order 33, Rule 8. The petitioners plead that it would onl...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkatakrishnier Vs. Secretary of State and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad408
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the Secretary of State for India in Council and the President. District Board, Ramnad, for certain declarations and for recovering damages. The plaintiff is the hakdar of the Mangammal Chatram and of certain inam lands at tached to it. Through the said lands passes a District Board Road No. 11, namely, the road from Thenkasi to Madura. The dispute between the parties relates to the eastern avenue of trees on the side of the said road. The dispute between the parties relates to the ownership of the ground of the avenue and of the trees. On a perusal of the pleadings in the case it is clear that the plaintiff says that he is the owner of the ground and avenue and as the result of it also of the trees growing on it. He also as a corollary claims the right to plant fresh trees at any place he likes on the avenue either in substitution of fallen trees or at other places. The defendants claim that the aven...
Tag this Judgment!(Manem) Ayyanna Vs. Pulavarti Veerabhadram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad62
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in Small Cause Suit No. 324 of 1922.2. The petitioner sued to recover Rs. 402-11-6. Defendants 1 and 2 who were immediately liable remained exparte, and the suit was contested by the 3rd defendant who had executed a letter of guarantee, Ex. C. The learned Judge has found him liable under this letter and question for determination is whether inasmuch as the letter begins with 'Manem Ayyanna and Dontu Setti Basavalingam offer respects,' continues 'In case money is not realised....We agree to pay the said amount' and is signed only by Manem Ayyanna. Manem Ayyanna can be held responsible or whether on the other hand it should be held that Manem Ayyanna only contracted to be held responsible in ease Dontu Setti Basavalingam also signed the letter. The learned Judge lays down the law on the point as follows:In a case of this kind, the person that actually executed the document would be liable unless ...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Pillai Vs. Alagirisami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad232
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit obtained a mortgage decree and in execution, certain property was sold. Under the decree, the share of the 1st defendant alone was made liable; but by some mistake or other, the sale proclamation proclaimed the whole property for sale and the sale certificate certified that the whole property has been sold. In accordance with the sale certificate, the plaintiff applied for delivery of possession. As there was some obstruction, his petition was dismissed. A subsequent petition to remove the obstruction was also dismissed as being out of time. Plaintiff now brings this suit not to recover the whole property but to recover the half-share of his mortgagor after effecting a partition.2. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is in effect a suit to obtain the same relief as that asked for by him in execution and as the relief was refused and he has not brought the suit within one year of the date of refusal, the suit is barred...
Tag this Judgment!Manem Ayyamma Vs. V. Pulavaith Veerabhadaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.771
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in S.C.S. No. 324 of 1922.2. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 402-11-6. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who were immediately liable remained ex parte, and the suit was contested by the 3rd defendant who had executed a letter of guarantee, Ex. C. The learned Judge has found him liable under this letter; and the question for determination is whether inasmuch as the letter begins with 'Manem Ayyamma and Dentu Setti Basavalingam offer respects,' continues, 'In case moneys is not realised * * * * *we agree to pay the said amount,' and is signed only by Manem Ayyamma, Manem Ayyamma can be held responsible or whether, on the other hand, it should be held, that Manem Ayyamma only contracted to be held responsible in case Dentu Setti Basavalingam also signed the letter. The learned Judge lays down the law on the point as follows:In a case of this kind the person that actually executed the document would be lia...
Tag this Judgment!Papakannu Errappa Reddi and ors. Vs. Mutcheli Peddamuniswami Setti and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad161; (1925)49MLJ560
Phillips, J.1. The facts found in this case which, I must accept, are as follows:- The appellants were tenants under the plaintiffs of the suit lands. During the tenancy they defaulted in the payment of the kist due to the superior landlord and the lands were brought to sale and purchased, some by the 6th defendant himself, and some by the 6th defendant's father-in-law Lakshmana Reddi. Both the Lower Courts have found that these sales were brought about by the fraud of the defendants and have accordingly given a decree for recovery of the lands from the defendants with arrears of rent.2. In appeal here it is argued that this suit should have been brought in a Revenue Court inasmuch as it was necessary for the plaintiffs to set aside the revenue sale. Reliance is placed on the ruling in Ramanathan v. Ramaswami ILR (1914) M 60. That ruling, however, very clearly and carefully differentiates the case reported in Gouse Moideen Sahib v. Muthialu Chettiar : AIR1914Mad657(1) , where it was he...
Tag this Judgment!S. Samu Asari Vs. Kullappan Asari's wife Anachi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad37; (1925)49MLJ554
Ramesam, J.1. When the second appeal was taken up I at first felt a doubt whether a second appeal lay, because the suit is to recover Rs. 270, being the price of jewels belonging to plaintiff's deceased daughter which the plaintiff claims as her heir on the ground that the marriage of the deceased was in the Asura form.2. The learned vakil for the respondent took up my suggestion and argued the preliminary objection. He relied on Chhedi v. Gulabo ILR (1905) A 622 in support of his objection. This decision no doubt seems to support him. It relies on two earlier decisions in Kapalee Bewah v. Keshram Kooch (1869) 11 WR 93 and in Moheshur Mondul v. Koilash Nath Mandul (1880) 7 CLR 71. I may at once observe that the decision in Moheshur Mondul v. Koilash Nath Mandul (1880) 7 CLR 71 is really irrelevant. For, in that case, the title was established by a prior judgment and the suit was merely for possession of specific moveable property. It is now well established that the question whether a ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »