Chennai Court January 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
T. Kuppusamy Pillai Vs. S. Mahommad Kasim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad566
Odgers, J.1. This is a case in which it is important to look at the plaint. The plaintiff entered into a lease with Defendants 1 and 2 in 1907. These two persons are said to have since become in-solvents and are not represented in second appeal. In 1913 Defendants 1 and 2 sub-leased to the 3rd defendant. The plaint sets out that Defendants 1 and 2 were in enjoyment of the plaintiff's property as tenants and that the 3rd defendant is in enjoyment of the premises as a partner of Defendants 1 and 2. It may at once be said that this case of partnership was given up in both the lower Courts and was not pressed before me here. The plaint then goes on to ask for 'losses on account of rent from January 1916 to 15th December 1918' when the plaintiff sold the property to a stranger Paragraph? of the plaint runs as follows:The plaintiff claims relief in this suit for losses on account of rent and for damages for use and occupation at Rs. 50 per month.2. The material issue settled in the case is: ...
T. Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. S. Muhammad Kasim Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1926
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.308
Odgers, J.1. This is a case in which it is important to look at the plaint. The plaintiff entered into a lease with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in 1907. These two persons are said to have since become insolvents and are not represented in second appeal. In 1913 defendants Nos. 1 and 2 sub-leased to the 3rd defendant. The plaint sets out that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in enjoyment of the plaintiff's property as tenants and that the 3rd defendant is in enjoyment of the premises as a partner of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It may at once be said that this case of partnership was given up in both the lower Courts and was not pressed before me here. The plaint then goes on to ask for 'losses on account of rent from January 1916 to 15th December 1918' when the plaintiff sold the property to a stranger. Paragraph 7 of the plaint runs as follows:The plaintiff claims relief in this suit for losses on account of rent and for damages for use and occupation at Rs. 50 per month.2. The material issue set...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Said Ali Kutti and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ559
Jackson, J.1. Appeal by Government against acquittal of accused in C.C. No. 163 of 1926 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Magistrate of Tirur. Accused was prosecuted by the Ponnani Taluq Board for failure to take out license under Schedule VII (c), Madras Act XIV of 1920, for a shed in which he stored or otherwise dealt with fish. Accused is admittedly a forwarding agent who collects packages of fish and consigns them elsewhere. A day or two may elapse before consignment when accused keeps the fish in a rented shed. Is this storing or otherwise dealing with? The Sub-Magistrate answers the question in the negative without arty argument. The case is not parallel with that of Emperor v. Wallace Flour Mill Co.ILR (1904) 193. where it was held that oil stored for the lubrication of a machine on the premises was not stored within the mischief of Section 394, City of Bombay Municipal Act. When goods are kept in a shed of godown with a view to their subsequent consignment it is the best illu...
Thirukonda Ellarayan Vs. Nakonda Rangaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad816; (1926)50MLJ612
Wallace, J.1. The original suit in this case was a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The suit property was mortgaged usufructuarily to the defendant on 29th August, 1904. In the mortgage was also a personal covenant to pay. The defendant sued on 2nd August, 1912 in O.S. No. 430 of 1912 and got a preliminary decree for sale on 14th October, 1913 and a final decree on 25th February, 1914. No action was taken by him under the final decree. On 2nd September, 1912, pnedente lite the same mortgagor mortgaged the property to the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff sued in O.S. No. 289 of 1918 and got a decree for sale in 1918, brought the property to sale and bought it in Court auction. He now sues to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiff was not a party to the suit of 1912, but the defendant contends that, as his mortgage was pendente Iite and the plaintiff, therefore, has no higher rights than his mortgagor, and as the mortgagor did not choose to redeem under the decree of 1913, the mortgagor a...
Visvanatha Iyer Vs. Chimmukutti Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad650
Spencer, J.1. The 5th defendant, who is a Malabar jenmi, gave a kanom of certain property to Defendants 1 and 2 and they on the 6th March 1917, mortgaged the rights of the 1st defendant to Defendants 3 and 4 under Ex. A. The plaintiff who is the appellant is the assignee of the rights of Defendants 3 and 4. The 5th defandant filed a suit for redemption of the kanom, O.S. 52/19, against Defendants 1 and 2 without making Defendants 3 and 4 parties and he got a decree for redemption and paid the money into the hands of Defendants 1 and 2 before the present suit was instituted. The appellant sued on his mortgage in 1921 and the District Munsif gave him a personal decree against his mortgagors, Defendants 1 and 2, and also against their possessory interest in the property for what it might be worth.2. It is argued in second appeal that the plaintiff should have been given something more than what he has got. He wants a decree against the 5th defendant for what is due to him under his mortga...
Spencer, Kt. Viswanatha Iyer Vs. Chimmukutti Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.3
1. The 5th defendant, who is a Malabar jenmi, gave a kanom of certain property to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and they on the 6th March 1917, mortgaged the rights of the 1st defendant to defendants Nos. 3 and 4 under Ex. A. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, is the assignee of the rights of defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The 5th defendant filed a suit for redemption of the kanom O. S. No. 52 of 1919 against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 without making defendants Nos. 3 and 4 parties and he got a decree for redemption and paid the money into the hands of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 before the present suit was instituted. The appellant sued on his mortgage in 1921 and the District Munsif gave him a personal decree against his mortgagors defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and also against their possessory interest in the property for what it might be worth.2. It is argued in -second appeal that the plaintiff should have been given something more than what he has got. He wants a decree against the 5th defendant for w...
Kesar Singh Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad881; 95Ind.Cas.651; (1926)51MLJ16
Spencer, J.1. I have had the advantage of seeing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. On the questions of fact I have nothing to add to what he will state beyond expressing my entire agreement with his conclusions. On the two questions of law arising out of the 5th and 6th points I wish to express my concurrence with his opinion. His opinion on the 5th point agrees also with that of Ramesam, J., in Anne Brahmayya v. Chelasami Rattayya (1922) 20 L.W. 503. I agree with them in respectfully dissenting from the view expressed by Oldfield, J., in Viswasundara Rao v. Somasundara Rao I.L.R. (1920) M. 876 to the effect that the class of sapindas, whose consent should be obtained by a widow in order to supply the authority lacking in consequence of her husband having died without authorising her to adopt a son, is limited to agnates. In the judgment of Seshagiri Aiyar, J., in Kristnayya v. Lakshmipathi I.L.R. v M. 650 : 30 M.L.J. 265 (P.C.) the Smrithi of Yajnavalkya, whic...
In Re: Muniyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad243
1. The appellant was charged with the offences of robbery and murder. The Sessions Judge tried both the charges together, the first with a jury, and the second with jurors sitting as assessors. In doing so, he overlooked Rule 238 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which lays down that in a case of this nature, the charges should be tried separately.2. On the charge of robbery, the jurors found that an offence under Section 404, Indian Penal Code, had been committed. The evidence was that, shortly after the murder, the murdered girl's jewellery was discovered in the possession of the appellant. The Judge told the jury that, if it had been removed from her person after her death, the offence committed was one under Section 404, Indian Penal Code. That was not a proper direction. The question for consideration was whether the murder had been committed for the purpose of stealing the jewels. If it had been committed for that purpose, the offence was one under Section 392, Indian Penal Code...
Ratna Mudaliar and anr. Vs. C. Vijiaranga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad762; 95Ind.Cas.581
Odgers, J.1. The point in this appeal is the status of the four brothers, plaintiff, 5th defendant, 6th defendant and the deceased brother, Parthasarathy. The District Munsif held that there was no evidence of any division between them and that, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to bring this suit on the mortgage bond executed to the deceased Parthasarathy by Defendants 1 to 4. The District Judge differing from him held that there was no nucleus of family property, that the 5th defendant went away to Madras to earn a living by brokerage, etc., and that the 6th defendant commenced a contracting business while the deceased Parthasarathy and plaintiff remained in the family house and started a cloth shop, built up a business and acquired property, and that the plaintiff and Parthasarathy by combining money, brains and labour and living together and having everything in common 'became a joint family' It appears to me that this expression of the learned District Judge ' became a joint f...
The Tanjore Permanent Fund Ltd. Represented by Its Secretary Vs. T. Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad705; 95Ind.Cas.339; (1926)50MLJ479
ORDERPhillips, J.1. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff was the Secretary of the 1st defendant Company and was validly dismissed from office by the Directors of the Company with effect from the 16th May, 1918. A meeting of the Company was subsequently held on 24th June, 1918, at which this dismissal order was cancelled. That meeting was adjourned to the 30th of June and on the 30th the question was again considered and the resolution of the 24th June was cancelled. The. subsequent proceedings of the Company show that the resolution of the 30th June was considered valid and was acted upon thereafter. The plaintiff has obtained a decree on the ground that the resolution of the 30th June was irregular and illegal since it was re-opening at an adjourned meeting a question already decided at a previous stage of the meeting and was a matter brought forward without proper notice. The law generally is that at an adjourned meeting a resolution which has already been determined a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »