Chennai Court March 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.
In Re: Punya Nahako and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: (1927)52MLJ128
ORDEROdgers, J.1. I agree with the opinion of my learned brother. I see no valid reason why the decision of this Court in 1872 to be found in 7 M.H.C.R. (Rulings, Appendix, p.1) which has stood since 1872 should be dissented from. The, interpretation put upon the Articles in question in Nandi Lal A grant v. Jogendra Chandra Dutta (1923) 28 CWN 403. seems to me to work an obvious injustice. This Court's Interpretation of the rule seems also to have found acceptance in Bombay In re Manohar G. Tambekar I L R (1879) B 26. I also agree with my learned brother's remarks on the question of mesne profits.2. The fee levied by the office is right.Wallace, J.The point for decision in this reference is what is the proper stamp fee to be levied on the review application in C. M P. No. 140 of 1925? This was an application for review of a judgment in second appeal. The judgment in that appeal was passed before the increase in the Court-fees under the amended Court Fees Act of 1922 came into force. Th...
Muthuswami Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver of North Arcot and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1019; 97Ind.Cas.407; (1926)51MLJ287
1. In this case the appellants name was included in the insolvent's schedule of creditors. Another creditor put in an application before the Official Receiver under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act asking that the mortgage in favour of the appellant should be treated as a nominal transaction unsupported by consideration. The Official Receiver held an enquiry and passed an order that the appellant's debt would not be included in the schedule. The appellant appealed under Section 68 to the District Court, where objection was taken as to the jurisdiction of the Receiver. The objection was overruled. On the merits the District Judge confirmed the order of the Official Receiver. Objection is again taken in this Court to the jurisdiction of the Receiver to pass any order in the matter and reliance is placed on Appireddi v. Appireddi I.L.R. (1921) M 189 . The facts of that case are not the same as those of the present one but the principle would appear to be applicable here. What t...
Nagarambille Tonkya Vs. Matta Jaganna and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ730
Devadoss, J.1. This a petition to revise the order of acquittal passed by the Second Class Magistrate of Sompeta under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended by Mr. Bhashyam Aiyangar for the petitioner that the complainant and his witnesses appeared at 11-30 a. m. on the date fixed for the trial of the case and the Magistrate acted illegally in acquitting the accused on the ground that the complainant was absent and that the appearance of the complainant on the date is a sufficient compliance with Section 247. The question is whether the absence of the complainant at the time when the case was taken up for hearing was sufficient to justify the Magistrate in dealing with the case under Section 247.2. That section is in these terms:If the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwit...
Rama Goundan and ors. Vs. Velappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1069
Spencer, J.1. Second appeal by defendants against the decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in A.S. No. 11 of 1922 (A.S. No. 44 of 1922, on the file of the District Court). The facts giving rise to this second appeal are these: The defendants instituted a suit against the plaintiffs on foot of a hypothecation bond, and obtained a preliminary decree for Rs. 1,530-2-8 on 26-7-18. The plaintiffs applied to have the decree set aside and it was set aside with the consent of the defendants on the plaintiffs depositing into Court the full decree amount inclusive of costs. The suit was reheard and a revised preliminary decree was passed on 15-3-19. Against this decree the plaintiffs appealed and the appeal was dismissed on 20-10-1919. Thereupon the defendants applied to have a final decree passed, and this was done on 25-11-1919. In pursuance of this decree the mortgaged properties were sold on 8-3-20 and realized a sum of Rs. 1,010, The amount due under the fin...
Nagarambilli Tonkya Vs. Matta Jagannatha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1009; 96Ind.Cas.652
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of acquittal passed by. the Second Class Magistrate of Sompeta under a. 247 of the Cr.P.C., It is contended by Mr. Bhashyam Iyengar for the petitioner that the complainant and his witnesses appeared at 11-30 A.M. on the date fixed for the trial of the case and the Magistrate acted illegally in acquitting the accused on the ground that the complainant was absent and that the appearance of the accused on the date is a sufficient compliance with Section 247. The question is whether the absence of the complainant at the time when the case was taken up for hearing was sufficient to justify the Magistrate' in dealing with the case under Section 247. That section is in these terms:If the summons has been issued on complaint, and upon the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything he...
Ramana Goundan and ors. Vs. Vellappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.989
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.1. Second appeal by defendants against the decree of the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S. No. 11 of 1922 (A.S. No. 44 of 1922 on the file of the District Court). The facts giving rise to .this second appeal are these. The defendants instituted a suit against the plaintiffs on foot of a hypothecation bond, and obtained a preliminary decree for Rs. 1,530-2-8on 26th July, 1918. The plaintiffs applied to have the decree set aside and it was set aside with the consent of the defendants on the plaintiffs depositing into Court the full decree amount inclusive of costs. The suit was r-heard and a revised preliminary decree was passed on 15th March 1919. Against this decree the plaintiffs appealed and the appeal was dismissed on 20th October, 1919. Thereupon the defendants applied to have a final decree passed and this was done on 25th November, 1919. In pursuance of this decree the mortgaged properties were sold on 8th March, 1920,...
Vicharanakartha of Tirumalai Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ148
1. This and the other applications in the connected suits are on the name and on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council for the purpose of his being added as a party to the suit presumably as party defendant.2. The main object of each of the suits is to obtain a declaration that the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1 of 1925 is invalid and ultra vires, and on the basis of such declaration the plaintiff has asked for a relief by way of injunction which is merely a relief consequent on the declaration.3. The plaintiff in each of the cases is the head of a mutt or religious endowment and the only defendant to each of the actions is the Board of Commissioners for the Madras Religious Endowments, a body, it may be observed in passing, created and constituted by the said Act.4. The question for determination therefore is whether on the application I should direct the Secretary of State being added as party defendant in these suits. The question is of considerable importan...
(Pandni) Viranna Vs. (Marudugula) Venkatarammayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad232
1. This is an appeal against an order made by the District Judge of Godavari in Insolvency. His order is that two items of property consisting of separate dwelling-houses should be sold simultaneously and he has also ordered that the sale shall take place before the equities of a bona fide purchaser have been settled. On the merits it is difficult to support this order. It certainly prejudices the estate to sell the two buildings simultaneously and it is unlikely that an adequate price will be realized when the equities in favour of the present appellant have not been determined. Apart from this we do not think the order can stand. The petition was put in under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act by the sons of the insolvent. Their father had already sold the property including their interest acting as their guardian during their minority. The sales have, no doubt, been declared void as against the Receiver but that does not show that they are not binding on the interests of th...
N. T. V. Thunga and anr. Vs. Nanikutty Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad371
Krishnan, J.1. This appeal is against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat in a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of four items of immovable properties mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint and certain moveables mentioned in Schedule B from Defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The other defendants are representatives of certain tavazhis which the plaintiffs allege are the branches of their main Neithalath tarwad.2. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 claim the properties under a Will executed by one Raman Kutti Menon the last surviving member of Odavazhiveetu tavazhi. It is a registered Will which includes all the suit properties and being registered its genuineness is not disputed.3. The plaintiffs contend that the Will is not valid as Raman Kutti Menon was not competent to will away the suit properties as he was a member of the Neithalath tarwad which had a right over those properties. They contend that the plaint mentioned items are joint properties and the tarwad had the right, ...
Vaithilinga Pandara Sannidhi Audhinakarthar Tiruvaduthurai Adhinam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad826
Srinivasa Ayyanger, J.1. This and the other applications in the connected suits are in the name and on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council for the purpose of his being added as a party to the suit presumably as party defendant. The main object of each of the suits is to obtain a declaration that the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act I of 1925 is invalid and ultra vires, and on the basis of such declaration the plaintiff has asked for a relief by way of injunction which is merely a relief consequent on the declaration.2. The plaintiff in each of the cases is the head of a mutt or religious endowment and the only defendant to each of the actions is the Board of Commissioners for the Madras Religious Endowments, a body, it may be observed in passing, created and constituted by the said Act.3. The question for determination, therefore, is whether on the application I should direct the Secretary of State being added as party defendant in these Suits. The question is of...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »