Chennai Court December 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.
Palacherla Venkanna (Minor) by Guardian Y. Manikyam and ors. Vs. Yorma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.154
1. We regret we are unable to accept the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the assent of the sapindas relied on and proved is this case is not enough. At one part of his judgment he says 'The consent seems to have been obtained by the representation that the husband had given her authority to adopt.' If this sentence is the only sentence in the judgment it may be possible to argue that he meant to give a finding that the consent was obtained by such representation and no weight is to be attached to the word 'seems.' But later on he said 'for aught one knows, they might simply have relied on the representation, etc.' This later sentence shows that he had in his mind only the possibility that the consent was obtained by such representation. All that he meant to find was that the defendants did not displace such possibility. It seems to us that a finding of this kind is not enough to reject the sapindas assent.2. It is true that a sapinda's assent, to be the foundation of the ...
Timmasetti Sanjivappa and ors. Vs. Pinnu Venkatanarappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad436; (1927)52MLJ357
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I am satisfied in this case that the learned District Munsif, dismissed the application of the defendants objecting to the award on the ground that it was barred by the law of limitation without any reference even to the actual article of the Limitation Act applicable or the wording of it. This is what he states: The award was submitted on 8--12--1924 and this application is made to-day2. and then, because the application to set aside the award was made on grounds of corruption, misconduct, etc., he comes to the conclusion that the application must be made within ten days after the award is submitted, to the Court under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, and says: This petition comes in too late and so is dismissed.' The present Article 158 of the Limitation Act is in these terms: Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside an award, ten days,.3. and in the third column it is provided that the ten days should be computed from when the award is filed i...
(Vishnubhotla) Venkata Somayajulu Vs. Sista Suryanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad509; 101Ind.Cas.813
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for possession of the plaint land. Inasmuch as he alleges dispossession by the defendant the onus is upon him to prove possession and dispossession within 12 years. The Courts below have dismissed his suit and he has preferred this second appeal.2. The contention of Mr. C. V. Venkatachari for the appellant is that the lower Courts ought to have relied upon the presumption that possession follows title, and that the decision in Raja Shiva Prasad Singh v. Hira Singh [1921] 6 Pat. L. J. 478 which is also reported in 62 I. C. 1, is not correct. The Subordinate Judge in para. 7 of his judgment remarks:Relying therefore on the Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported at p. 1 in Raja Shiva Prasad Singh v. Hira Singh [1921] 6 P. L. J. 478 where it was held that in a suit for ejectment where the evidence of possession within 12 years of the suit is found to be equally valueless on both sides, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the burden of pr...
Venkataramani Ayyar Vs. Rangaswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad703
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff effected a mortgage of his property in favour of the 1st defendant and the father of Defendants 2 and 3. The 4th defendant, who got a transfer of the mortgage, and his brother mortgaged their properties, along with the mortgagee right over the plaintiff' s property, to the 5th defendant. Plaintiff has brought this suit for redemption and the first Court granted a decree for redemption against all the defendants. On appeal the Subordinate Judge exonerated the 5th defendant and granted a decree for redemption against the 4th defendant. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. It is contended by Mr. Narasimbachari for the appellant that the decree against the 4th defendant alone is not correct, and that he is entitled to a decree against the 5th defendant who has got only an encumbrancer's right over the mortgage right of the 4th defendant.3. In a redemption suit the mortgagor is entitled to make, not only the mortgagee, but all the persons who have d...
(Chinchilada) Kirishnam Raju Vs. Chintala Swami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad816
JUDGEMENTWallace, J.1. The argument put forward is that the Magistrate's uncertainty as to possession relates to the date of the alleged disturbance, 28-4-25 and not to the date of the preliminary order, 11-7-25. As to that nothing has been put before me to show that there was any change in conditions between these two dates, such that a remand of the case for a more proper order would lead to any different result.2. It is then pleaded that the Magistrate ought to have declared petitioners to be in possession, since on the statements in the original petition they took forcible possession on 28-4-25 and thus have been in possession for over two months prior to the date of the preliminary order on 11-7-25. As to this I find no admission in the petition or any finding that the present petitioners were in possession from 28-4-25 up to the date of the preliminary order. Further, the petition was put in on 8-5-25 and the two months prior to 11-7-25 were spent mostly in the Magistrate holding...
Chinnasami Pillai Vs. Pavayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1162
Waller, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that the High Court should not interfere under Section 115, Civil P. C., in a case of this kind. That was the view taken by Phillips, J., in Acha v. Sankaran A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 768 No doubt, other Judges of this Court have taken a different view, but, with all respect, I prefer to follow Phillips, J. Petitioner has other remedies open to him and it is, I think, no answer to say that the appropriate remedy is more cumbrous than that he seeks to obtain by way of revision.2. Assuming that I can interfere in such a matter in revision, I am unable to see how any question of jurisdiction arises.3. The lower Court may be wrong, but it had jurisdiction to pass the order it did. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Venkataraman Iyer Vs. Rangaswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.728
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff effected a mortgage of his property in favour of the 1st defendant and the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Fourth defendant who got a transfer of the mortgage and her brother mortgaged their properties along with the mortgage right over the plaintiff's property to the 5th defendant. Plaintiff has brought this suit for redemption and the first Court granted a decree for redemption against all the defendants. On appeal the Subordinate Judge exonerated the 5th defendant and granted a decree for redemption against the 4th defendant. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.2. It is contended by Mr. Narasimhachariar for the appellant that the decree against the 4th defendant alone is not correct and that he is entitled to a decree against the 5th defendant who has got only an encumbrancer's right over the mortgage right of the 4th defendant. [A]In a redemption suit the mortgagor is entitled to make, not only the mortgagee but all the persons who have de...
Chinnasami Pillai Alias Muthukarruppa Pillai Vs. Powayee Ammal and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.877
Waller, J.1. A preliminary objection is taken that the High Court should not interfere under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in a case of this kind. That was the view taken by Phillips, J., in Acha v. Sankaran 95 Ind. Cas. 424 : (1926) M.W.N. 444 : 50 M.L.J. 497 : 23 L.W. 752; A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 768. No doubt, other Judges of this Court have taken a different view, but, with all respect, I prefer to follow Phillips, J. Petitioner has other remedies open to him and it is, I think, no answer to say that the appropriate remedy is more cumbrous than that he seeks to obtain by way of revision.2. Assuming that I can interfere in such a matter in revision, I am unable to sea how any question of jurisdiction arises.3. The lower Court may be wrong, but it had jurisdiction to pass the order it did. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Satraji Dongerchand Firm by Partner Rangunathamul Vs. Madho Singh and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad604; 103Ind.Cas.339; (1927)52MLJ622
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. The Maharaja of Panna who is the respondent was deposed by the Government of India who acting under the powers given to it by Reg. III of 1818 directed that the ex-Maharaja should be confined as a State prisoner in Bellary. Ex. X refers to the proceedings of the Government. An allowance was fixed for his maintenance as required by Regulation III of 1818 and this allowance was ultimately increased to Rs. 2,000 a month. It appears from the exhibits filed in this case that the allowance was sent to the Collector of Bellary by the Panna Durbar and was being disbursed by him. The ex-Maharaja borrowed moneys under three, promissory notes from the appellant. Under Ex. A, dated the 10th of January, 1924,' he promised to pay Rs. 20,000, under Ex. B, dated the 20th of Oct., 1924, he promised to pay Rs. 28,400 and under Ex. C, dated the 18th of < April, 1925, he promised to pay Rs. 2,000. There is a dispute as to the amount which 'was actually advanced, the ex-Maharaja pl...
U.M. Sivasubramania Pillai Vs. Nagappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad580; (1927)52MLJ636
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant and others to recover Rs. 11,690 together with costs and further interest alleged to be due under a deed of mortgage dated the 24th of April, 1922 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of one Tirumalai Kandaswami Naicken for Rs. 10,000 and assigned by the mortgagee to the plaintiff. The deed of mortgage provides that the principal sum should be paid in two years and there is a default clause. The material portion of the document runs as follows: As I have to pay To you in cash the said mortgage amount of Rs. 10,000 (which is) the balance of the sale amount due to you in the matter of the purchase by me of the said properties from you on this date, I shall pay the interest accruing thereon at the rate of one per cent per mensem from this date, on the 12th Chithrai of each year and shall pay the principal amount in cash on the 24th April, 1924 on which the stipulated period of two ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »