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.
N. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. N. P. L. A. R. Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad819; 103Ind.Cas.48
JUDGEMENTWaller, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is one of limitation. Unless the account between the parties is an open, current and mutual account most of the claim is barred. The position is this. The defendant was in the employment of the plaintiff. A ledger account was kept in his house in which were debited against him certain sums he drew periodically in advance, credit being given to him periodically on account of the salary due to him. I do not think that this can be called a mutual account. It is no more than a debtor and creditor account. In Hirada Basappa v. Gadiga Mudappa 6 M. H. C. 142 it was held by Holloway, J., that in order that accounts might be mutualthere must be transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on the one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations.2. In Phillips v. Phillips [1852] 9 Hare. 471 the expression mutual w...
Govinda Rao Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad897; 103Ind.Cas.381
1. The appellant says in his affidavit that be was present on 4th September 1924 with his witnesses. Though the B diary says that the respondent was absent, we find the judge's notes show that the appellants' affidavit is substantially correct and that the case was adjourned for sessions.2. The allegations in the appellant's affidavit explaining his non-appearance on the 2nd October 1924, are uncontradicted and the appellant ought to have been given another opportunity to prove his case. But as he did not inform his vakil on 3rd October 1924 he must pay the day costs of that day to the respondent. Other costs in the Court below will abide the result. There will be no order as to costs in appeal as the official receiver opposed in the Court below and necessitated this appeal.3. The case in Venugopalachariar v. Chinnulal Sowcar A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 942 does not apply to this case as it was a case of annulment.4. The appeal is allowed on the above terms and I. A. 412 of 1924 will be dispose...
Deenadayulu Naidu and ors. Vs. Ratna Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.381
ORDERWallace, J.1. The main point argued in this Revision Case is whether the inclusion in Section 4(o) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the definition of an offence of an 'act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act' renders it unnecessary for a Magistrate who is generally empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code to receive complaints of offences to be specially authorized by the District Magistrate to receive complaints under that section of the Cattle Trespass Act. Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code is relied on. So far as sub Section (1) is concerned, it is argued that the offence can only be tried by the Court mentioned in Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, that is, by the Magistrate authorized to receive and try charges without a reference by the District Magistrate. So far as Sub-section (2) is concerned, it is argued that, as the offence is not punishable with imprisonment or fine as such, it has no place in the 8th...
The South Indian Railway Co. Ltd., by Its Agent at Trichinopoly and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.55
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for damages for non-delivery of the goods consigned from Ahmedabad under Ex B. The two defendants are Railway Companies; and to the 2nd defendant the goods were consigned and the 1st defendant was to deliver the goods at Tinnevelly. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tinnevelly, framed two issues and called for findings on them. After the findings were received, the Subordinate Judge considered the whole case and gave a decree to the plaintiff. The defendant Railway Companies have preferred this second appeal.2. The first point urged by Mr. V. Viswanatha Sastri for the appellants is that the Subordinate Judge was not justified in raising additional issues and calling for findings on them, inasmuch as the points raised in the additional issues were not specifically raised in the plaint. I cannot say that the appellants were prejudiced by the Subordinate Judge raising additional issues and...
R. Doaraiswami Ayyar Vs. C.S. Balasundaram Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1926
Reported in: 102Ind.Cas.243
Wallace, J.1. This petition seeks to have set aside the proceedings of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul in C.M.A. No. 23 of 1925.2. In O.S. No. 5 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif of Palani, the plaintiff, the petitioner, obtained an ex parte decree against the three defendants on 13th November, 1923. On the 28th April, 1924, the 1st defendant applied to have it set aside, The District Munsif set it aside. On revision in Duraiswami Iyer v. Balasundaram Iyer 94 Ind. Cas. 420 : 23 L.W. 319; A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 558 this Court cancelled that order and sent the case back for re-hearing. At the re-hearing the District Munsif dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree, and on appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed that order and allowed the application, and the present petitioner brings this civil revision petition.3. There were three defendants in the suit a father and two sons undivided. The 2nd defendant was personally served. The petition to set aside the decree was ...
D.K. Asher Vs. V.C. Gopalaratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad409; (1927)52MLJ192
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., refusing to allow inspection of certain accounts which were disclosed in the affidavit of documents of the defendant. A preliminary question arises as to whether an appeal lies against such an order and the question is whether an order in an interlocutory application refusing inspection is a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Mr. G. Krishnaswami Aiyar who appears for the appellant is unable to cite any authority in support of his argument that an appeal lies. He bases his contention on the ground that such an order is not an order on a mere matter of procedure but deprives the party of a substantive right and is therefore a judgment I am unable to agree with him.2. The definition of the word judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has, I think, so far as Madras is concerned, been settled by the decision of the Full Bench in Tuljaram Row v. Alagappa ...
Devaguptapu Chendramma and anr. Vs. Devaguptapu Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad404; (1927)52MLJ253
1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The facts of the case, which are undisputed, are briefly these. The plaintiffs are the nearest reversioners of one Venkataraju in whose favour (with others) three inam title deeds were issued in 1906 and 1907. Plaintiffs' suit was to recover possession of the share of Venkataraju. The first two Courts found that, as Venkataraju was dead on the day when these title deeds were signed by the Commissioner, he obtained no rights in the suit property and therefore the plaintiffs as his heirs have got no right. In this view their suit was dismissed. In second appeal this decision was set aside by Phillips, J.2. The title deed runs as follows: Title deed granted to (1) Devaguptapu Subbarayudu, (2) Deva-guptaput Chendramma, (3) Devaguptapu Venkataraju and four others as per register,3. and it recites,The inam is now confirmed to you, your representatives and assigns, to hold or dispose of as you or they think proper.4. The question is whether this is a ...
A. Srinivasulu Chetti Vs. Palamkula Guraviah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad505; (1927)52MLJ460
1. The facts are these. Five persons brought a suit to establish their right to a site and obtained a decree. The defendant appealed. His appeal succeeded on 28th October, 1919 but before that date, on 2nd September, 1918 the 2nd plaintiff died. His name however, continued on the record and the appeal was disposed of without his legal representatives having been added. The other plaintiffs and his legal representatives, who were added as parties by the High Court, preferred a second appeal, on which the High Court passed the following Judgment: There being a question whether the 2nd plaintiff was not dead when the appeal was heard, both sides agree that the decree should be set aside and the appeal remanded for disposal according to law.2. This judgment was delivered on 19th November, 1920. On 29th March, 1924 the defendant filed an application to set aside the abatement. This application was rejected by the subordinate Judge. A.A.Q. No. 419 is an appeal against his order. The appeal a...
Muhammad Sultan Mohideen Ahmed Ansari Alias Chand Badsha Vs. Amathul J ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.653; (1927)52MLJ557
Devadoss, J.1. The father of plaintiff and defendant purchased some property under Ex. I on 15th October, 1897. It appears from the original sale deed that in the preamble the names of both the plaintiff and defendant were entered and in the body of the document it was recited that Schedule A properties were to go to the plaintiff and B schedule properties were to go to the defendant, but when it was taken for registration the Sub-Registrar seems to have objected to the recitals that the Schedules A and B should be separately enjoyed by the two vendees and thereupon the clauses relating to the separate enjoyment of the two schedules were scored out. The father in pursuance of his intention that the plaintiff should enjoy one schedule and the defendant the other seems to have asked the Municipal authorities to register the two schedules in the separate names of the plaintiff and defendant. The present contention of the appellant is that, inasmuch as the sale deed was taken in the joint ...
Kandaswami Chetti Vs. Jayapandia Athitha Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad609
Devadoss, J.1. This appeal is against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin refusing to pass a final decree in favour of the appellant. The main ground upon which the learned District Judge proceeded is that the Official Receiver was not made a party to the mortgage suit and therefore the decree passed in the appellant's favour is not a valid decree. The preliminary decree was passed in appellant's favour on 20th September 1915. The mortgagor was adjudicated an insolvent on 2nd August 1915. Even if the appellant was aware of the adjudication he is not bound under the law to make the Official Receiver a party to his suit. It was open to the Official Receiver to come on record if he wished to contest the suit. What the appellant did was to make the Official Receiver a party at a later stage and the Official Receiver does not seem to have taken any action in the matter, In the case of a mortgagee who has filed a suit agains...