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.
(Komandur) Srinivasacharlu and ors. Vs. (Koduru) Munirathna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad905; 95Ind.Cas.707
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit to declare that a certain decree in O.S. 327 of 1925 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff or his properties. The plaintiff was a minor in that O.S. and his mother was his guardian-ad-litem. This suit is brought by the plaintiff who is still a minor with his maternal uncle as his guardian-ad-litem. The Munsif dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal holding that there was gross negligence on the part of the minor's mother in not presenting a defence to the suit in O.S. 327 of 1925. The mother put in a written statement, Exhibit D, in which she pleaded that the minor's father was only a simple mortgagee and not a mortgagee in possession and therefore the 3rd defendant (the minor) could not be liable in a rent suit. She did not instruct anybody to appear for her or appear herself in person at the time of the hearing though she afterwards filed an application to set aside a decree that had been passed ex-parte against her minor s...
Tiruvengada Mudali Vs. Tripurasundari Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad906; (1926)51MLJ112
1. In this case the petitioner filed a complaint against three persons charging them with offences of simple hurt and house-trespass under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code. In that complaint he described two of them as being paramours. Thereupon he was charged with defamation and was convicted. The Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court on the view that the decision in In re Muthuswami Naidu I.L.R.(1912) M. 110 following In re Venkata Reddy 23 M.L.J. 39 established the position that statements such as that on which the conviction was founded were absolutely privileged. The correctness of the ruling in In re Venkata Reddy 23 M.L.J. 39 has un-doubtedly been questioned in the Full Bench case, Gopal Naidu v. King-Emperor 44 M.L.J. 655 (F.B.). The learned referring Judges therefore very rightly took the view that the matter should be settled and that a Full Bench should reconsider the question and decide whether In re Venkata Reddy 23 M.L.J. 39 was rightly decided.2...
Kuchibhotta Seetakama Sastri and ors. Vs. Kuchibhotta Sivaramayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.856
1. It is argued that this suit should have been dismissed on the technical ground that two of the agraharamdars, who are joint owners, were not parties and that the plaintiffs' Pleader declined to add them as parties. Ahmad Sahib Shutari v. Magnesite. Syndicate, Ltd. 29 Ind. Cas. 60 : 39 M. 501 : 2 L. W. 460 : 17 M. L. T. 387 : 28 M. L. J. 598. establishes the principle that one or more co-owners can maintain an action for ejectment of a trespasser. This case quoted the opinion of Best, J., in Gopalasami v. Periasami Tevar 6 M. L. J. 27., who held dissenting from Shephard, J., who sat with him that a Hindu coparcener could sue alone to recover joint family property without making the other coparceners parties to the suit.2. The learned Judge was in favour of remanding the suit for fresh disposal after joining the plaintiffs as defendants, observing that the trespasser-defendants could insist on the procedure in order to protect themselves from a multiplicity of suits. That was a decisi...
Kuchibhotla Seetarama Sastri and ors. Vs. Kuchiabhotla Sivaramayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad809
Spencer, J.1. It is argued that this suit should have been dismissed on the technical ground that two of the agraharamdars, who are joint owners, were not parties and that the plaintiffs' pleader declined to add them as parties. Ahmad Sahib Shutari v. Magnesite Syndicate, Ltd. [1915] 39 Mad. 501, establishes the principle that one or more co-owners can maintain an action for ejectment of a trespasser. This case quoted the opinion of Best, J., in Gopalasami v. Periasami, Tevar 6 M.L.J. 27., who held, dissenting from Shepherd, J., who sat with him, that a Hindu coparcener could sue alone to recover joint family property without making the other coparceners parties to the suit.2. The learned Judge was in favour of remanding the suit for fresh disposal after joining the plaintiffs as defendants, observing that the trespasser-defendants could insist on that procedure in order to protect themselves from a multiplicity of suits. That was a decision under the Civil P.O. of 1882 before Section ...
C. Venugopalachariar Vs. K. Chinnulal Sowcar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad942; 97Ind.Cas.706; (1926)51MLJ209
Phillips, J.1. The question for decision in this case is whether, when an order of annulment has been passed under Section 43(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, it is open to the Isolvency Court to set aside its order by virtue of the provisions of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The wording of the section is 'If the debtor does not appear on the day fixed for hearing his application for discharge the order of adjudication shall be annulled....' This certainly seems to be a mandatory provision, but it is contended for the appellant that the word 'shall' does not necessarily make the order mandatory and that it may be treated as merely directory. A similar question was considered in C.R.P. No. 554 of 1925, a case in which the debtor had not applied for discharge at all and on that ground his insolvency was annulled and it was there held that the Court had power to review its order of annulment. It only differs slightly from the present case and cannot really be distinguished o...
In Re: Jogali Bhaigo Naiks and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad97; 97Ind.Cas.958
1. The 1st appellant in this case has been convicted under Sections 114 & 304, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to three years' rigororous imprisonment and the 2nd appellant has been convicted under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, by the Sessions Judge of Ganjam.2. The case for the prosecution is that there was a dispute about a plot of land between two castes, the prosecution party called Sioloes and the appellant's party called the Bavuries. The accused's party informed the Magistrate about this and the Magistrate promised to go to the village, make inquiries and pass orders. On the day of the occurrence, the deceased went to the plot in front of the house of Sioloes and planted posts for the purpose of putting up sheds. This was objested to by the appellant's party in consequence of which there was a fight.3. The evidence on the side of the prosecution shows that the deceased was stabbed by the 2nd accused and he was also beaten by...
Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. K.R. Aravamudu Iyengar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad690
1. The appellant obtained a decree against the 1st respondent in respect of a debt binding upon the family consisting of the 1st respondent and his minor son, the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had been impleaded in the suit, but was given up, and a decree was passed against the father alone. After the decree the father and son have divided their properties as a result of a partition suit. The appellant now seeks to execute the decree against the father by proceeding against the property allotted to the separate share of the 2nd respondent, contending that the 2nd respondent is liable for the debts incurred for family-necessity prior to partition and that execution can be taken against his property.2. It is true that the property which is given to the 2nd respondent on partition may be liable in proper proceedings for the debt incurred by the father, but it does not necessarily follow that the decree against the father can be executed against the son, and there are observations to ...
Srinivasaraghava Iyengar Vs. K.R. Aravamuthu Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.304
1. The appellant obtained a decree against the 1st respondent in respect of a debt binding upon the family-consisting of the 1st respondent and his minor son the 2nd respondent. The 2nd defendant had been impleaded in the suit, but was given up, and a decree was passed against the father alone. After the decree the father and son have divided their properties as a result of a partition suit. The appellant now seeks to execute the decree against the father by proceeding against the property allotted to the separate share of the 2nd respondent, contending that the 2nd respondent is liable for the debts incurred for family necessity prior to partition and that execution can be taken against his property. It is true that the property which is given to the 2nd respondent on partition may be liable in proper proceedings for the debt incurred by the father, but, it does not necessarily follow that the decree against the father can be executed against the son, and there are observations to thi...
Jammalamadaka Subbarayudu Vs. Idupuganti Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.92; (1926)50MLJ535
Wallace, J.1. The point for decision in this case is whether the exception to Section 8 of the Madras Estates Land Act applies to the surrender of the Kudivtiram right by a tenant to his landlord, leading to the result that the land ceases to be part of the estate. The unhappy wording of Sections 8 and 6 of the Act makes the question a very difficult one to settle, and Benches of this Court have in consequence taken varying views on the meaning of the exception.2. The wording of the S. as it stands barely makes sense. A captious critic might contend that 'shall cease to be part of the estate' means 'shall cease to be an mam or the inamdar's property at all' which is absurd. It also seems absurd to speak of the acquisition by an inamdar of the kudharam interest 'before... the commencement of this Act' resulting in the land ceasing to be part of the estate, when ex hypothesi the Act and therefore the definition of ''estate' under it were non-existent at the time of the acquisition. And t...
C. Kanni Chetti Vs. Kotah Raju Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad879; 95Ind.Cas.436
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree on the Original Side whereby the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and a decree was given against him in favour of the defendant for a certain sum of money. The plaintiff, has brought this appeal. To understand the plaintiff's complaint, it is necessary to mention the facts. He brought the suit as a suit for accounts against the defendant who was his commission agent. That suit was referred by the learned Judge before whom it came on for hearing to the Official Referee to take accounts without deciding any question, raised in it. The case was heard at considerable length before the Official Referee ; when it was pending before the Official Referee, the plaintiff made an attempt to have certain questions raised for determination by the Official Referee brought into Court and decided by Court, but his application did not succeed. The Official Referee made his report in due course after taking all the evidence available and tendered. The plainti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »