Chennai Court October 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.
Vasudeva Nayudu Vs. Venkalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad504
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note executed by all the 3 defendants. The 3rd defendant was found not to be a partner in the chit fund business carried on by Defendants 1 and 2. His defence was not only that he was not a partner but that he was only a surety in executing the promissory note and that the suit was barred by time. During the course of the trial in the 1st Court the document Ex. B was produced by the 2nd defendant. This evidenced an arrangement between the defendants as to how certain debts of a partnership that existed between Defendants 1 and 2 and the father of the third defendant should be discharged. Ex. B was discovered, according to the plaintiff to contain an acknowledgment of the third defendant's liability which the District Munsif accepted and on which he decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge it was held that Ex. B should not have been allowed to have been set up in this fashion before the District Munsif but that the plai...
Tiruvengadatha Aiyangar Vs. L. V. Tiruvengadam Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1136
Odgers, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the learned District Judge of Madura dismissing a petition by a minor who attained majority. Under Section 34 (c) and (d), Guardian and Wards Act, the petitioner asks for a proper scrutiny of the accounts submitted by the guardian or ex-guardian. I use this expression because the order made by the previous District Judge was that the guardian would be discharged subject to his furnishing proper accounts. The guardian has since submitted his accounts and the District Judge does not say they are improper.2. The learned District Judge regards the case in Nabu Bepari v. Shek Mahomed 5 C. W. N. 207 as a direct authority in support of the objection taken on behalf of the guardian that no such order can be made under Section 34 when once the ward has attained majority. The learned vakil for the petitioner points to Govindabatta v. Narayanabatta [1906] 29 Mad. 424 as an authority of this Court as directly contrary to Nabu Bepari v. She...
In Re: Mennakanti Rosayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.534
Curgenven, J.1. The fact that the President of the Bench was among those who thought the accused were not guilty was no reason why on their being found guilty by a majority of the Bench, he should not vote on the question of sentence. That being so, his casting vote settled the sentence at Rs. 25 instead of Rs. 10 and so far as I can see the procedure in doing so was perfectly legal. The criminal revision case is dismissed....
Panchakshara Chetty Vs. Pattammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad865
ORDER1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a plaintiff (respondent 1) for recovery of maintenance, past and future, and for other incidental reliefs. The learned Subordinate Judge has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 55 per mensem, besides a lump sum as arrears of maintenance due for seven years and ten months prior to the date of suit.2. The two main contentions pressed in this appeal are, that the rate of maintenance awarded to the plaintiff is excessive and that the claim for past maintenance is unsustainable. In the memorandum of appeal it is conceded that the plaintiff could be given maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 a month, though, in the written statement, not more than Rs. 91 a month was stated to be the proper rate of maintenance awardable to the plaintiff. It is pretty clear from the evidence that the defendant's family is in affluent circumstances, possessing considerable landed property and also carrying on some lucrative ...
Chinnakannu Padayachi Vs. Paramasiva Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1135; 101Ind.Cas.89
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff who sued for redemption of the plaint-mentioned mortgage which was effected in favour of defendant 1's father. Both the lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that he had no subsisting interest in the properties in question in order to entitle him to redeem the mortgage. The properties in question were sold in Court auction in execution of a simple money-decree in O. S. No. 164 of 1902, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Cuddalore, on 23rd April 1908: vide Ex. 5. The purchase was in the name of defendant 2 and it has been found by the lower appellate Court that that purchase was benami for defendant l's father who was the mortgagee. The provisions of Section 99, Transfer of Property Act would apply to this purchase as it was made before the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 came into force. There is no doubt that the purchase in Court auction by defendant 1's father in the name of...
Kandappa Achari Vs. Singara Chari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad433
1. The petitioners in this case are hereditary blacksmiths of the mirasi village of Agaram. They sued in the District Munsif's Court, Conjeeveram, to eject the defendants from certain land which they said was the emoluments of their office. Defendants 1 to 4, who are the mirasidars of the village, contended that the land was not the emoluments, but that the melwaram only was emoluments, and that the kudivaram vested in the mirasidars. The District Munsif held that his jurisdiction was ousted by Section 21 of Madras Act 3 of 1895. This has been upheld by the District Court and the petitioners now come up in revision against that order.2. After the District Court's order, the petitioners sued in the revenue Court of the Sub-Collector, Chingleput. He decreed the claim, and Defendants 3 and 4 appealed to the District Collector, who held that, in view of proviso (2) of Section 13 (1) of Act 3 of 1895, the Sub- Collector had no jurisdiction and, therefore, reversed that decision. The petitio...
Sivanarayana Pillai Vs. Muthukumara Sthapathiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1084
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff has brought this suit for possession of the suit property on the ground that the alienation in favour of the defendant by his deceased brother Kanakasabapathi Asari, is not binding on him. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge gave a decree for the moiety of the plaint property. The defendant has preferred this second appeal. The contention of Mr. T. M. Ramaswami Aiyar is that the defendant is entitled to the whole of the property inasmuch as on the date of the alienation the value of the alienor's share was considerably more than the value of the property conveyed to the defendant. The admitted facts are: The plaintiff had a brother Kanakasabapathi Asari. The defendant obtained a decree against Kanakasabapathi Asari in 1915 and purchased the property in execution of the decree. Then not being able to obtain possession of the property he brought a suit O. S. No. 228 of 1918, against Kankasabapathi Asari, and obt...
(Apturu) Seenayya Reddi Vs. (Apturu) Mangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1159
Odgers, J.1. There is a preliminary objection that no appeal lies as this is a remand order by the learned District Judge on a point which is not preliminary. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for maintenance and the first issue was: 'Is the plaintiff entitled to maintenance,' which he found against. The learned District Judge reversed that decision, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to maintenance, and sent the case back to the District Munsif to decide the other points in issue. I think there is no doubt that under the ruling in Raman Nair v. Krishnan Nambudripad A. I. R. 1922 Mad. 505 this is a preliminary point. There is no ground, it seems to me, after that Full Bench ruling for saying that a preliminary point depends in any way on the degree of importance it may assume in the hearing of the case. Mr. Justice Coutts-Trotter ( as he then was) defines a preliminary point as a point which, when decided in the way in which it is in fact decided, determines the result of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›