Chennai Court February 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.
M. Pazhaniandi Vs. T. Naku and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad109; (1926)51MLJ684
Odgers, J.1. The point taken in this appeal by Mr. Narayanaswami Aiyar is that the Subordinate Judge who upheld the decree of the District Munsif was wrong and that the procedure must be taken to have been under Order 9, namely, a dismissal for default on which an application for restoration could be made. There has been no argument on the merits before me and I therefore adopt the finding of both the Lower Courts that the plaintiff in this case has been guilty of culpable negligence in not taking the steps necessary for the trial of his suit. Now much has been made of the fact that the plaintiff was personally present in Court when he had a vakil there who applied for an adjournment which was refused. This has rightly been construed not to be an appearance by the plaintiff for the purposes of Order 41, Rule 17, for which Second Appeal No. 1734 of 1922 is an authority. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is undoubtedly a decision on the merits. He finds that the Lower Court was right...
Kasi Vasi Chokkalinga Tambiran Vs. Ramanadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1031
1. This is an appeal by an alienee of mortgaged property against an order declaring in what order the mortgaged properties are to be sold. The Subordinate Judge has directed that the property alienated to the appellant should be sold first, and the property in the hands of Defendants 4 to 6 which was sold to them free from all encumbrances, should be sold next and that the property in the possession of the mortgagor should be sold last. Under the sale-deed by the mortgagor to the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,1500 was directed to be paid towards the balance due on the mortgage. Admittedly no portion of this amount was paid until after the mortgage suit was filed and, consequently, it is only fair to hold as the Subordinate Judge has held that the appellant was most largely in default in the payment of the mortgage-debt. It is now contended in appeal that the 'appellant's alienees having paid Rs. 11,500 into Court appellant is not liable to pay any further amount towards interest or costs on...
The Collector of Chingleput District Vs. Kadir Mohideen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad732; 95Ind.Cas.883; (1926)50MLJ566
Krishnan, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother and as I agree with him generally I shall deal with the case ony briefly.2. The objection based on Section 25, Clause (2) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894) is clearly untenable. Clause (1) says that the claim to compensation has to be made ' pursuant to the notice given under Section 9 ' and this makes a proper notice a pre-requisite. Now, as shown by the District Judge and by my learned brother, such a notice was not given in this case, the notices all being defective in one way or another. The claimant's omission, therefore, to make a claim before the Deputy Collector was not ' without sufficient reason ' and he escapes the application of the stringent provision of Clause (2) to his case.3. As regards the value of the land acquired, which is the most important item in the total valuation, it is conceded that the claimant is entitled to have his land valued with reference to the most profitable...
Pichaimuthu and ors. Vs. Savariappa Kavandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1119
Spencer, J.1. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother. Plaintiff 1 claims to be the descendant of the founder of the Christian Church or temple at Nallathambigonndanpatti in the Trichinopoly District. The other plaintiffs belong to the family of the founder and there are said to be 20 families of goundars in the same village similarly interested in the plaint properties. Although this church is called Sarveswaran Koil--Sarveswaran being one of the attributes of Siva besides meaning Lord of All and although it came out in evidence that certain practices generally associated with Hindu notions of worship are kept up in this church-such as the holding of a car festival, letting off fireworks, exhibiting swarupams (images) and keeping of a hundial or collection box, the first plaintiff admitted in his evidence that it was a Roman Catholic Church within the Parish of Karungulam and that the village children were being baptized, confirmations held, marriages solemnized, and masses pe...
Telikicherla Kandalai Venkataramanujacharyulu Vs. Telikicherla Kandala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1003; 97Ind.Cas.785
1. In this case one of the incidental questions at issue was whether one Lakshminarasamma had authority to adopt the 3rd defendant's father. The authority is said to have been given under a registered Will of 1873 and it has been found that the adoption actually took place in 1897. No specific issue was framed as to the validity of the adoption, the only issue on the point being the first issue:Is. the plaintiff the next reversioner entitled to sue or has Lakshminarasamma adopted any ?2. The frame of the issue is such that the question raised is as regards the factum of the adoption rather than its validity. The validity having been questioned the defendants sought to prove the Will by secondary evidence. A registration copy of the Will was produced and was admitted in evidence and marked as Ex. XIII subject to proof. These words ' subject to proof' apparently mean subject to proof that the defendants are entitled to adduce secondary evidence. Accordingly D.W. 3 was examined and he sta...
Kolisetti Basavayya and ors. Vs. Mittapalli Venkatappayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad676; 95Ind.Cas.439; (1926)51MLJ90
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the decision of the Additional District Munsif, Guntur, declining to grant a review of an order by his predecessor excusing delay in re-presentation of a plaint. The facts were as follows: A plaint was presented on 20th April, 1923, with a one rupee stamp, the proper stamp being Rs. 142. It was returned on 4th June, 1923, for two reasons, (1) to pay deficient Court-fee, and (2) to compare the copy of accounts. Seven days' time was given. On 16th June, 1923, a further extension of time of 10 days was given. The plaint was not re-presented until 4th March, 1924. On that date a petition was put in by the plaintiff under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, with an affidavit by the pleader's clerk stating that the plaint had been mislaid and asking that the delay in re-presentation be excused. The deficient Court-fee was put in and paid on the same day. On 5th March, 1924, the District Munsif, without giving notice to the other side made ...
S.K. Karuppan Chetti Alias Sinna Vellayan Chettiar Vs. Maruthanayagam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1176; (1926)51MLJ472
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the authority given to Karuppanna Pillai, Muthukaruppa Pillai and Arumugam Pillai under Ex. A was such as would justify their paying any amount towards interest due on the bond. The learned Judge who heard the second appeal held that the authority did not extend to the payment of interest as such. The words in the Tamil document are The words mean for paying towards the amount of the bond, i. e., the principal and interest due on the bond. When an agent is authorised to pay an amount towards the total amount of the bond the authority extends to his paying an amount towards the interest due on the bond, for, the total amount of the bond includes principal and interest; and when there is no restriction on the authority given to the agent that he should pay only towards the principal it cannot be held that the general authority to pay towards the total amount of the bond is confined to paying-only towards the principal...
Karnam Poodi Muniswami Pillai Vs. the Secretary of State for India in ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ678
Odgers, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant and he sued, as seen from the printed plaint, for a declaration that he is the legally appointed karnam of the Kilapathi group and for consequential reliefs. He was appointed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in April, 1912, Karnam of a new group of villages, the re-grouping of which took place earlier in 1912. He is admittedly no relation of one Guruswami Pillai who was in 1910 the karnam of one or more of the regrouped villages. On the 2nd of September, 1912, the plaintiff's appointment was cancelled by higher authority and on the 27th of December, 1912, Guruswami Pillai was appointed karnam of the re-grouped villages in question and on the 21st of February, 1913, he took charge from the appellant of his office. From early in 1915 to February, 1917, the appellant was engaged in various proceedings before the Revenue authorities to establish his claim and the Board of Revenue finally dismissed his claim on the latter date. On th...
Uthira Reddiar Vs. Muthu Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad68; 97Ind.Cas.757
Madhaven Nair, J.1. The suit is on a promissory note and it has been dismissed on the ground that the suit is not maintainable. I think the decision is wrong and should be set aside. The facts found are that the plaintiff and the defendant are partners and the defendant executed the promissory note to the plaintiff for the money paid by the plaintiff towards the defendant's share capital of the partnership. In this view the promissory note transaction is absolutely independent of the partnership concern and there is nothing against law in the plaintiff being allowed to institute a suit on a promissory note. The law applicable is thus stated by Pollock and Mulla in their book on the Indian Contract Act:One partner may sue another for advances made by him not to the partnership concern, but to the other partner in respect of what he is to contribute to the joint capital.2. See page 806, Pollock and Mulla.3. Mr. Anantha Ayyar for the respondent argues that the promissory note is not suppo...
Panchapakesa Aiyar Vs. Natesa Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.587; (1926)51MLJ161
Wallace, J.1. This appeal relates to an application for restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, in the following circumstances. Neither of the Lower Courts has stated the facts correctly. The Court of first instance, the Principal District Munsif's Court of Tiruvalur, had decreed the plaintiff's (appellant's) suit. On first appeal the second defendant (respondent here) was directed to pay into the first Court Rs. 750 as security for mesne profits. The money was paid into Court on 2nd October, 1917 and the plaintiff drew it out on nth November, 1918. On second appeal in the High Court the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on 1st September, 1919. On 16th August, 1922 the respondent put in an application for restitution in the Court of the Principal District Munsif of Tiruvalur, the Court which had passed the decree. Now in June, 1922 the Court of the Additional District Munsif of Tiruvalur which had hitherto no independent territorial jurisdiction was given such jurisdiction ov...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »