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.
Abdul Ameeth Sahib Vs. Ponnambala Muthurian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad679; 94Ind.Cas.550; (1926)51MLJ158
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Small Cause Judge of Trichinopoly. The Judge found that the Court had no jurisdiction. Having decided that the Court had no jurisdiction it was not competent for him to go into the merits of the case and give a decision on them.He should have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. I therefore set aside the decree of the Small Cause Judge and direct him to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff is responsible for filing the suit in a Court which had no jurisdiction. Therefore the defendant is entitled to the costs of the suit incurred in the Small Cause Judge's Court, Trichinopoly. As the Revision Petition was necessitated by the wrong order of the learned Judge I make no order as to the costs in this Court....
Srilasri Vythilinga Desika Pandarasannadhi Vs. Arumuga Thambiran and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad748; 94Ind.Cas.966; (1926)50MLJ552
ORDER1. In this case the Subordinate Judge held that the suit abated on the ground of the death of the defendant, the suit being one for the removal of the defendant from his alleged trusteeship and for framing a scheme for the suit mutt. In appeal here it was held that so far as the removal of the alleged trustee was concerned the suit must abate on the death of that trustee, but in so far as the suit was for the framing of a scheme the suit did not abate and could be continued against the succeeding trustee. An application has now been made for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the order of this Court and the question with which we are now concerned is whether this is a final order within the meaning of Section 109. The petitioner relies upon two cases, Meghraj v. Bidyabati Koer (1914) 21 C L J 279 and Lachmi Narain Marwari v. Balmakund Marwan (1921) 6 Pat L J 116. The first of these two cases is distinguished from the prior case reported in Krishnachandra Ghosh v. Ma...
Chinnappa Tharakan (Purchaser) Vs. Kanoor Puthen Veettil Ittichi Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad765; (1926)50MLJ580
1. A mortgage decree was passed in O.S. No. 17 of 1920 against the karnavan, anandravans and other members of a Malabar tarwad. It was found that only a portion of the mortgage amount was binding on the tarwad and the rest was payable by the karnavan alone. A direction was given in the judgment in the following terms:In case of sale items 1 to 21 will be liable only to the extent of Rs. 3,309-9-2 and three-eighths of the subsequent interest and costs and the balance of the decree amount will be realised from items 22 to 29.2. In the decree it was worded as follows:If such payment is not made on or before the said 14th day of December, 1921, items 1 to 21 of the mortgaged property described below be sold for the realisation of Rs. 3,855-11-3 and subsequent interest thereon.3. Items 1 to 21 were brought to sale and were purchased by the appellant. The anandravans deposited Rs. 5,300 in Court and applied under 0.21, Rule 89 to have the same set aside. The Subordinate judge held that the a...
Chinnappa Tharakau Vs. Kanoor Puthen Veettil Ittichi Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.77
1. A mortgage decree was passed in. O.S. No. 17 of 1920 against the karnavan, Anandravans and other members of a Malabar tarwad. It was found that only a portion of the mortgage amount was binding on the tarwad and the rest was payable by the karnavan alone. A direction, was given in the judgment in the following terms:In case of sale, items Nos. 1 to 21 will be liable only to the extent of Rs. 3,309-9-2 and three-eighths of the subsequent interest and costs and the balance amount will be realised from items Nos. 22 to 29.2. In the decree it was worded as follows:If such payment is not made on or before the said 14th day of December 1921, items Nos. 1 to 21 of the mortgaged property described below be sold for the realisation of Rs. 3,855-11-3 and subsequent interest thereon.3. Items Nos. 1 to 21 were brought to sale and were purchased by the appellant. The Anandravans deposited Rs. 5,300 in Court and applied under Order XXI, Rule 89 to have the gale set aside. The Subordinate Judge, h...
Aukula Sanyasi Vs. Gundala Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad692; (1926)51MLJ73
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this Second Appeal may be stated as follows : One Gundala Jagannadha Row died some time before 1859. He was succeeded by his daughter Sitamma. He had a brother Gundala Venkataramadas who had died before him and left a widow, Venkamma.In 1862 there was some dispute between these two ladies which resulted in a suit and a compromise. Ex. I evidences the settlement of that suit. According to this compromise Sitamma was to get two-thirds of all properties including the debts due to the estate and bear two-thirds of the liabilities of the estate and Venkamma was to get the other one-third share. In 1882 Sitamma mortgaged the suit property to one Mokka Sanya-samma. It purported to be for discharging a prior debt due by her to one Kamma Appadu. The purpose of the' debt to Kamma Appadu was not stated. In 1888 the mortgagee brought a suit against Sitamma on the basis of Ex. II and obtained a decree. The defendant did not appear in that suit. Ex. III is the decree. Whil...
Godan Nambudiripad Vs. Krishnan Nambudiripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad680; 94Ind.Cas.913
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the lower appellate Court declining to give effect to are valuation held under Section 6(3) of the Malabar Tenants Improvement Act. The decree of the first Court was passed on 18-2-18. For the purpose of the suit there had been a valuation of the 'improvements' by a Commissioner in 1916. The suit went up on appeal and second appeal and; the second appeal decree was passed on 16-11-20. On an application for revaluation under Section 6(3) of the Act a second Commissioner was sent in September 1921 and he reportel his valuation of the improvements. This valuation both the lower Courts have declined to accept and the appellant appeals.2. The method followed by the second Commissioner apparently was not to value how much the property had improved since the first valuation in 1916, but how much it had improved since the date of the kanom, i.e., as if he was carrying out a first valuation and not are valuation. As his total figure is much l...
Ankula Sanyasi Vs. Gundala Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.691
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be stated as follows:--One Gundala Jagannatha Rao died sometime before 1859. He was succeeded by his daughter, Sitamma. He had a brother, Gundala Venkataramadas, who had died before him and left a widow, Venkamma. In 1862 there was some dispute between these two ladies which resulted in a suit and a compromise. Exhibit A evidences the settlement of that suit. According to this compromise Sitamma was to get two-thirds of all properties including the debts due to the estate and bear two-thirds, of the liabilities of the estate and Venkamma was to get the' other one-third share. In 1882 Sitamma mortgaged the suit properties to one Mokka Sanyasamma. It purported, to be for discharging a prior debt due by her to one Kamma Appadu. The purpose of the debt to Kamma Appadu was not stated. In 1888 the mortgagee brought a suit against Sitamma on the basis of Ex. II and obtained a decree. The defendant did not appear in that suit. Exhibit III is th...
Kammaboyina Ramadas Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ502
1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 21(d) of the Forest Act (V of 1882) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. His appeal to the Sessions Judge of Guntur was rejected on the ground that no appeal lay against the conviction in a summary trial, when the fine did not exceed Rs. 200. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition.2. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the Deputy Magistrate has not correctly applied the law to the facts of the case and that the mere finding of the petitioner's flock of goats grazing within the forest reserve would not by itself make the owner of the goats punishable under Section 21(d). Under that section ' any person who pastures cattle or permits cattle to trespass ' is punishable with imprisonment for six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500, or with both.3. The statement of the law in paragraph 4 of the Deputy Magistrate's judgment-I hold that as the rightful owner of the flock, the accused is responsible for it...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›