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.
Roy Musal Naidu Vs. Thandalam Virasami Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad902; 97Ind.Cas.384
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit on a promissory note. The plaint sets out a lending of Rs. 550 to the 1st defendant and also that a sum of Rs. 99 for interest and Rs. 83 for principal, in all Rs. 182, was paid on 17-3-1917, Rs. 39-8-0 towards interest on 1-3-20, etc; and in his account at the end of the plaint he shows Rs. 99 credited towards interest on 17-8-1917. The defence was that the whole amount had been paid and that the plaintiff's suit was barred. This was so held by the District Munsif. There the contest turned on whether a certain endorsement evidencing the payment of this Rs. 182 on the back of the pro-note was genuine or not and he came to the conclusion that it was genuine.2. On appeal to the District Judge this endorsement was found to be a forgery, but before the District Judge and before me in second appeal it has been argued that a part at least of this Rs. 182 must be taken to have been paid towards interest. There is no oral evidence on the point that has been placed b...
Sri Mahant Prayaga Doss Jee Varu Vs. Board of Commissioners for Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad927
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.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 such of the suits is to obtain, declaration that the Madras Hindu Religious Endoments 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, of3. 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 i...
O.K. Ramaswami Aiyar and Sons Vs. C.K.K. Subbier and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1158
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to file an award on the ground of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. The misconduct found is that the arbitrators examined the parties on different dates as admitted by one of the arbitrators himself. The reference is a somewhat peculiar one, for the parties had been parties in a suit in Court and a decree had been obained by the plaintiff. Instead of preferring an appeal from that decree, the parties agreed to refer the matter to two arbitrators in the following words:As we have represented to you to decide the matter in dispute in the judgment given by the 1st Additional Sub-Court, Madura, in O.S. No. 21 of 1922, so that we may not appeal against it we have executed this muchilika with our tree will agreeing to abide by the decision that you may give in the aforesaid suit as panchayatdars.2. This in fact makes the arbitrators a sort of an appellate tribunal in the suit and this was done in order to save the trouble and expenses o...
A.S. Palaniandi Chettiar Vs. Kalyanarama Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1214; 97Ind.Cas.486
1. When this appeal was filed, the appellant had been adjudicated an insolvent, A preliminary objection is taken that he cannot institute this appeal. We think the case is governed by the principle of the recent decision of a Full Bench in Hari Rao v. Official Assignee (I). It was there held that under the Presidency Insolvency Act an insolvent had no right of appeal because he could not be deemed to be a person aggrieved. The reason given was that he had no legal interest but has merely a hope or expectation. The same principle applies equally in the case of this appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge; for, at the time the appeal was file 1 the insolvent had no legal interest in the subject-matter.2. It is argued for the appellant that the appeal is merely a continuation of the original proceedings which had been properly instituted by the insolvent, but it is clear from Order XXII, Rule 8, that even when the proceedings have been properly instituted by the insolvent, he ca...
C.K. Ramaswami Iyer and Sons Vs. C.K.K. Subbier and Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.478
1. This is an appeal against an order refusing to file an award on the ground of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. The misconduct found is that the arbitrators examined the parties on different dates as admitted by one of the arbitrators himself, the reference is a somewhat peculiar one, for the parties had been parties in a suit in Court, and a decree had been obtained by the plaintiff Instead of preferring an appeal from that decree, the parties agreed to refer the matter to two arbitrators in the follow-As we have represented to you to decide the matter in dispute in the judgment seven by the First Additional Sub-Court, Era, in O.S. No. 21 of 1922, so that we may not appeal against it, we have executed this muchilikka with our free will agreeing to abide by the decision that you may give in the aforesaid suit as panchayatdars.2. This in fact makes the arbitrators a short of an appellate tribunal in a suit and this was done in order to save the trouble and expense of an appe...
Vythilinga Pandara Sannidhi Audhinakarthar Tiruvadu Tmurai Adhinam Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: 95Ind.Cas.214
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.2. 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.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 import...
Sringaram Venkataramanajacharlu Alias Venkataramanacharlu (Died) and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.273
Wallace, J.1. The contention, raised here at a late stage, that first defendant, who was a 'party interested' was not joined as a party to the reference, and, therefore, the reference was without jurisdiction must, I am afraid, prevail. The lower Court has overlooked that point, but it was never raised before it. It was also not raised in the original grounds of the Civil Revision Petition but by way of additional ground, The first defendant was ex parte in the suit, but he was undoubtedly a party interested at the time of the reference, since the plaintiff's claim was either for specific performance of the contract by first defend ant, or for damages against him. It is strenuously urged that plaintiff by his in action in not taking the point earlier must be deemed to have waived his claim against first defendant, i.e., in. effect to have exonerated him from the suit. But there is nothing on record to substantiate this contention and the frame of the award which; opens with a finding a...
S.K. Mohideen Batcha Sahib Vs. K.A. Sheik Dawood Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1035; (1926)51MLJ203
Ramesam, J.1. It will be convenient to set forth the facts of this appeal by the plaintiff as it arises out of a suit 'of an unusual character.' The 1st defendant (Sheik Dawood) and his brother the late Kadir Mohideen carried on business under the name and style of K. Allauddin Sahib and Sons.The plaintiff is a father-in-law of the 1st defendant, but the 1st defendant has since discarded the plaintiff's daughter and married another wife, the daughter of the 4th defendant. In 1919 when the transactions comrnenced,no such misunderstandings existed between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. The brothers executed Ex. D in March, 1919 in favour of the Agent to the Bank of Madras at Erode in which they stated that all transactions entered into by one of the brothers or both, whether under the firm name or not, may be regarded as entered on behalf of the firm. On 30th July, 1919 the plaintiff who is also a merchant of Erode executed Ex.F, a promissory note for Rs. 30,000 in favour of the firm. ...
S.K. Mohideen Batcha Sahib Vs. K.A. Sheikh Davood Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.491
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. It will be convenient to set forth the facts of this appeal by the plaintiff as it arises out of a suit of an unusual character. The 1st defendant (Sheik Davood) and his brother the late Kadir Mohideen carried on business under the name and style of K. Allauddin Sahib and Sons. The plaintiff is a father-in-law of the 1st defendant, but the 1st defendant has since discarded the plaintiff's daughter and married another wife, the daughter of the 4th defendant. In 1919 when the transactions commenced, no such misunderstandings existed between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. The brothers executed Ex. D in March 1919 in favour of the agent to the Bank of Madras at Erode in which they stated that all transactions entered into by one of the brothers or both, whether under the firm name or not, may be regarded as entered on behalf of the firm. On 30th July, 1919, the plaintiff who is also merchant of Erode executed Ex. F a promissory note for Rs. 30,000 in ...
Narayana Chettiar and anr. Vs. P.C. Muthu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.1008; (1926)51MLJ219
1. The first respondent herein filed an application on 23rd February, 1920, for the execution of the decree in O.S. No, 14 of 1908. The application after several adjournments came on for hearing on 11th October, 1921, when, owing to the ab3ence of the decree-holder's Pleader, it was dismissed. The decree-holder's Pleader appeared before the Court sometime after and the Court restored the application to file without notica to the opposite party. On the same day, an application was made by the decree-holder for an amendment of the execution application. When the amendment application came on for hearing, the judgment-debtors contended that the order restoring the petition to file was illegal and that the amendment petition should not be allowed. The Subordinate Judge of Ramnad held that Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. was not applicable to execution proceedings and that the order restoring the petition to file, if treated as an order under Order XLVII, was illegal as the other party was not giv...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 12
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »