Chennai Court November 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.
Sayyed Abdul Hawk and ors. Vs. Tumuluri Vaikuntam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ318
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a partnership transaction. The facts may be thus stated. The 1st defendant, T. Vaikuntam, a resident of Tuni in the Godavari District, the 1st plaintiff, Sayyed Abdul Hawk, a merchant of Anakapalli, Vizagapatam District and a third person named Meru Khan, who belongs to a place called Kohibara somewhere in Northern India, entered into a partnership in 1904 for the purpose of dealing in assafoetida. Rs. 6,000 was contributed as capital by the defendant and Rs. 3,000 by Merit Khan and the 1st plaintiff and the defendant were the working partners. The whole stock of assafoetida was purchased and it had to be sold gradually and money realised by the sales. In 1906 Merit Khan died. Immediately after the death of Meru Khan, his father Hajee Mulla Ramzan came down and obtained Ex. A from the defendant. It is dated 15th August 1906. The date of this document as given in the chronological list of the Subordinate Judge's judgment and as printed in t...
Sayyad Abdul Hawk and ors. Vs. Tumulury Vaikuntam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad491
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a partnership transaction. The facts may be thus steated. The 1st defendant, T. Vaikuntam, a resident of Tuni in the Godavary District, the 1st plaintiff, Sayyed Abdul Hawk, a merchant of Anakapalli, Vizagapatam District, and a third person named Meru Khan, who belongs to a place called Kohibara somewhere in Northern India, entered into a partnership in 1904 for the purpose of dealing in assafoetida. Rs. 6,000 was contributed as capital by the defendant and Rs. 3,000 by Meru Khan, and the 1st plaintiff and the defendant were the working partners. The Whole stock of assafcetida was purchased and it had to be sold gradully and money realized by the sales. In 1906 Meru Khan died. Immediately after the death of Meru Khan, his father Hajee Mulla Ramzan came down and obtained Ex. A from the defendant. It is dated 15th August 1906. The date of this document as given in the chronological list of the Subordinate Judge's judgment and as printed in t...
(Paitchaikala) Mangamma Vs. Nallamti Peda Ammanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad660
Curgenven, J.1. In the suit out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises an award was filed and the first defendant applied to have the award set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that this application was made more than ten days after the award was filed, and that it was therefore out of date. In coming to this conclusion, he has failed to apply the provision in Section 12 (4) of the Limitation Act that in computing limitation for this purpose the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. It is admitted that, if this be done, the 1st defendant's application would be within time.2. I think it is clear that the learned Subordinate Judge's error consisted in a failure to realise that the time taken to procure a copy was a relevent factor, and not as the petitioner here has endeavoured to argue, that he merely overlooked the circumstance that four days were so occupied. His error, in other words, was an error in applying the law of limitation and...
Katikaneni Venkataramanayya Rao Garu and ors. Vs. the Secretary of Sta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.648
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' claim is barred by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 119 of 1914. The learned District Judge has held that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in the previous suit. It is urged by Mr. Venkatarayaliah that the decision in O.S. No. 119 of 1914 does not restrict the right to 163-93 acres and that even if it be held to have restricted the right to that extent it was unnecessary for the decision in that case to have so restricted it and, therefore, such decision cannot operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. In the plaint in the previous suit the plaintiffs claimed the right to irrigate all their wet lands whatever the extent thereof might be, (vide para. 7 of the plaint) and prayed that their right to the use of the Ogeru water free of charge for the irrigation of all their wet lands, whatever the extent thereof may be, by means of the irrigation works now maintained by ...
Pitchaikala Mangamma Vs. Nallamati Peda Ammanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.514
Curgenven, J.1. In the suit out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises an award was filed, and the 1st defendant applied to have the award set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that this application was made more than 10 days after the award was filed, and that it was, therefore, out of date. In coming to this conclusion, he has failed to apply the provision in Section 12(4) of the Limitation Act that in computing; limitation for this purpose the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. It is admitted that; if this be done, the 1st defend' ant's application would be within time.2. I think it is clear that the learned Subordinate Judge's decision., consisted in a failure to realise that the time taken to procure a copy was a relevant factor, and not, as the petitioner here has endeavoured to agree, that he merely overlooked the circumstance that four days were so occupied. His error, in other words, was an error in applying the Law of Limita...
Ko. KA. Bashikar and anr. Vs. Thandrinatha Srinivasa Thathachariar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad551; 102Ind.Cas.328; (1927)52MLJ541
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They are Thengalai Vaishnava Brahmins. The respondents belong to the Vadagalai Vishnava sect and are the dharmakarthas of the Devarajaswami temple in Conjeevaram. In the Devarajaswami temple there is a shrine of Manavala Mahamuni a saint, who is held in very great veneration by the Thengalai sect but whom the Vadagalais do not worship. An utsawam is performed in honour of Manavala Mahamuni which falls in the month of October or November and lasts for about 10 days. This shrine is within the Devarajaswami temple and is enclosed by walls. There is a gateway by which worshippers obtain access to the shrine and outside this gate is the prakaram of the temple. The case for the plaintiffs is that during the festivals a pandal is to be put up and it was the duty of the trustees of the Devarajaswami temple to erect the pandal, that in 1915 and 1916 the trustees did not put up the pandal pleading want of funds in the Devasthanam and they s...
Narayanaswami Mudali Vs. Mangayarkarasiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1148
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. In 1907 the respondent in this case obtained an order under Section 488, Criminal P. C., against her husband, the present petitioner, for the payment of a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 6. It appears that she remained away from him until 1910 and that from that year until 1924 the parties lived together. After leaving her husband again in the latter year she filed an application for arrears of maintenance. The order which the learned Third Presidency Magistrate passed on that application on 14th July 1926 runs thus:The order of 1907 cancelled itself when the petitioner rejoined counter-petitioner. It cannot be enforced now. The application is dismissed.2. I had occasion to hold recently in Kavagammal v. Pandara Nadar A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 376 that an order for maintenance once passed, remained in force until it was cancelled, notwithstanding that the applicant might have returned in the meanwhile to live with her husband, and that it was the business of the husb...
A.L.P.R. Periakaruppan Chetti Vs. R.M.A.R. Arunachalam Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ571
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The 2nd defendant is the adopted son of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is an attaching creditor who obtained a decree against the 2nd defendant and attached the. 2nd defendant's interest in the house and ground now in dispute, alleging that the property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and that the 2nd defendant? is entitled to a,,half share therein. The plaintiff's case is that the property is his self-acquisition and that the 2nd defendant has no interest. He filed a claim which was disallowed and hence the suit out of which this appeal arises.2. The plaintiff adopted the 2nd defendant in the year 1914, when he was about 10 years old. The finding of the Subordinate Judge which is amply supported by the evidence is that the only property which the plaintiff and his brothers got from their father was a thatched house and that all the other properties to which the plaintiff is now entitled a...
Mahomed Abdul Rahman Marakayar, Mantapam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad434
ORDERWallace, J.1. It is not the procedure in this Court to interfere in revision merely because the evidence before the lower Court has not been according to the Referring Officer, properly appreciated. The law does not, in my view, contemplate that a revision case can be argued as if it were an appeal, on the facts and the evidence called to prove such facts. There must be some substantial error of law to justify the Court exercising its exceptional powers of revision. None such is put forward here.2. It will be understood that I have not gone through the evidence, or decided that there are not good grounds and reliable evidence on which counter-petitioner may be called upon to show cause against an order under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code.3. The reference is discharged....
Chellaswami Konar Vs. Korusal Sangama Kayakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad935
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition has applied to this Court for revising and setting aside the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad dismissing an election petition filed by the petitioner for setting aside the election of the respondent as a member of the Taluq Board of Sivakasi to represent the Sattur circle.2. The learned Advocate-General who appeared for the petitioner argued that having regard to the grounds of the petition this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and set aside the order. It has been held in this Court in a number of cases that this Court has jurisdiction to interfere in proper cases. But I do not propose to discuss the question in what cases this Court would or should interfere in revision. It may generally be stated that in cases of gross miscarriage of justice this Court as the Court of supervision would have the requisite power. There can also be no doubt that though the statutory tribunal to give a a final...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »