Chennai Court September 1925 Judgments
A. Doraswami Nadar Vs. Joseph L. Mother and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad319; 92Ind.Cas.119
Odgers, J.1. These are revision petitions to revise the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin in petitions presented to him under the Madras Municipalities Act, 1920. It appears that in an election for the Tuticorin Municipality, 8th ward, which was to be held in January 1923, a nomination paper was put in for Mr. A. Doraiswami Nadar which was admittedly not signed by the candidate but the name of the candidate was written in the nomination paper by his son owing to his (candidate's absence at the time) The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the son was authorised to sign his father's signature for this purpose but it has to be observed that the signature purports to be that of the candidate and there is no indication that it is written by somebody else. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the son was in fact authorised so to sign but under the Election Rules to which reference will be made in a moment, such a signature by the agent is not recognised and,...
Tag this Judgment!Alaga Pillai Vs. Ramaswami thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad187; (1925)49MLJ742
1. This appeal is against the judgment of bur learned brother, Wallace, J., allowing Second Appeal No. 834 of 1921. The only point in this appeal is whether Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is a bar to the plaintiff's suit. It is found that the defendants were let into possession of the plaint property 40 years before the suit by the plaintiff's paternal grandfather. The plaintiff brought the suit for ejecting the defendants from the possession of the plaint property. The District Munsif of Shiyali dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation.2. On appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge of Tanjore at Mayavaram set aside the decree of the District Munsif and gave a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the property and directed him to pay Rs. 400 as compensation being the value of the house on the suit property. Wallace, J. set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restored that of the District Munsif. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal.3. Mr. Muthiah Mudalia...
Tag this Judgment!Mulkoori Gavariah (Dead) and ors. Vs. Chenna Sariah, Minor, by Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1925
Reported in: (1926)50MLJ107
1. This is a curious and in some ways rather an interesting case. The suit is really one on accounts, and the dispute arises about two entries in the account, one on the credit side and Anr. of exactly the same amount in respect of the same goods on the debit side. The facts are these: that the present plaintiffs bought goods from the business represented by the defendants to the value of Rs. 13,471 but by arrangement credit was given by the sellers to the buyers and the goods were left in the custody of the sellers, the contract being that the sellers were entitled to get their money on giving delivery of the goods. What happened was, the sale having been about the 1st February, on the 3rd February the sellers pledged these goods with the Bank of Madras as a cover for a debt of their own. The learned Judge has found and we agree with his finding that there is no evidence which can he believed that the buyers consented to this or indeed knew anything about it until late in October. Wha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Nayakar Vs. Raju Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad963; (1926)51MLJ167
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal involving title to a certain house which the plaintiff bought in Court auction. The question is whether the 8th defendant, in pursuance of a decree against whom the sale was held, was competent to mortgage the entire house as he did or as he purported to do in 1911, or whether defendants 2 to 6, who are his nephew together with his children, have also rights in the said house. It is common ground that the 8th defendant acquired the house under the will of one Poongavanam as his own separate property. The whole question in the second appeal is whether or not, after thus acquiring the suit house, the 8th defendant threw it into the common stock of the joint family consisting of himself and defendants 2 to 6 subsequent to his acquisition of it and before the family became divided in interest which event took place in 1904. Now, the District Munsif found that the 8th defendant had not thrown it into the common stock, that is to say, that he had not given up h...
Tag this Judgment!(Mulkoori) Gavariah and ors. Vs. Chenna Sariah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Mad340
1. This is a curious and in some ways rather an interesting case. The suit is really one on accounts, and the dispute arises about two entries in the account, one on the credit side and another of exactly the same amount in respect of the same goods on the debit side. The facts are these: that the present plaintiffs bought goods from the business represented by the defendants to the value of Rs. 13,471 but by arrangement credit was given by the sellers to the buyers and the goods were left in the custody of the sellers, the contract being that the sellers were entitled to get their money on giving delivery of the goods. What happened was, the sale having been about the 1st February, on the 3rd February the sellers pledged these goods with the bank of Madras as a cover for a debt of their own. The learned Judge has found and we agree with his finding that there is no evidence which can be believed that the buyers consented to this or indeed knew anything about it until late in October. ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamaya Bangaruswamy Naicker Vs. Vadamalai Trivanatha Sundaradoss theva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad135
Waller, J.1. I agree with the view of Kumaraswamy Sastri, J, in Kallian Amma Achuthan Nair (1919) 10 L.W. 174 it is undesriable on an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis to go into a complicated question of limitation. In this case the discussion of such a question has led to the delivery of a judgment six pages long.2. The order of the lower Court is set aside. The application will be disposed of on the other grounds raised.3. The costs of this petition will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Nayagar Vs. Raju Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.1051
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal involving title to a certain house which the plaintiff bought in Court auction. The question is whether the 8th defendant, in pursuance of a decree against whom the sale was held, was competent to mortgage the entire house as he did or as he purported to do in 1911, or whether defendants' Nos. 2 to 6, who are his nephews together with his children, have also rights in the said house. It is common ground that the 8th defendant acquired the house under the Will of one Poongavanam as his own separate property. The whole question in the, second appear is whether or not, after thus acquiring the suit house, the 8th defendant threw it into the common stock of the joint family consisting, of himself and defendants' Nos. 2 to 6 subsequent to hit acquisition of it and before the family became divided in interest which event took place in 1904 Now, the District Munsif found that the 8th defendant had not thrown it into the common stock, that is to say, that he had ...
Tag this Judgment!Thamaya Bangaruswami Naicker Vs. Vadamali Thirunathasundara Doss theva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.415
Waller, J.1. I agree with the view of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in Kalliani Amma v. Matathil Veetil Achuthan Nair 53 Ind. Cas. 239 : 37 M.L.J. 309 that it is undesirable on an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis to go into a complicated question of limitation. In this case the discussion of such a question has led to the delivery of a judgment six pages long.2. The order of the lower Court is set aside. The application will be disposed of on the other grounds raised.3. The costs of this petition will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!Sivan Pillai and anr. Vs. T.S. Venkateswara Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad130
Spencer, J.1. The revised decree in this scheme suit as passed on March 16th, 1906, by the learned Distsrict Judge of Tinnevelly (now Mr. Justice Phillips) provided that the trustee should hold office for a term of 7 years renewable at the will of the villagers and the Court, New trustees ware to hold office upon nomination by the villagers of Thiruvannathapuram and Thimmarajapuram, subject to the approval of the District Court. More than twice 7 years bad passed, when the matter came up again before the District Judge of Tinnevelly in November 1924. At that time, there was a mahazar dated 16bh December, 1922, signed by several villagers asking the Court to approve of the nomination of Venkatarama Aiyar. There was another mahazar dated 15th February, 1923, asking the Court to appoint. Venkateswara Aiyar, the trustee hitherto in office. While that was pending, the present petitioner and appellant, Sivan Pillai who claimed to have an interest in the trust, filed a petition supporting the...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.M. Ramasawmy Chetty Vs. V.S. Chengalroya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Mad380
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petition to revise the judgment and sentence of the 2nd Presidency Magistrate in C.C. 20052 of 1924.2. The petitioner sold his business to certain persons under a contract dated 1st October 1922. On 7th October 1922 these persons registered themselves, as a company. The company furnished a return of allotment of shares under Section 104, Act 7 of 1913. The Registrar acting under Section 104(B) called for the contract1 in writing entitling the vendor of the business to certain shares allotted otherwise than in cash. The petitioner thought that the contract entered into before the company was registered would be sufficient; but the Registrar demanded a contract entered into by the company, and since such a contract was not in writing he called for prescribed particulars under Section 104(2). Instead of furnishing these duly stamped the petitioner produced the previous contract ratified at a meeting of the directors. The Registrar held that this was not a compliance wit...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »