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.
Kadiresan Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad478
Coutts-Trotter, C. J. 1. This appeal reveals a history of delay and waste of time startling even in Indian litigation. The transactions under review took place as long ago as 1907 and 1908. The plaint was filed in January 1910 and preliminary proceedings were protracted by a series of appeals until October 1917. The real trial of the case did not begin until August 1919, though it is only fair to say that a great deal of those last two years was taken up in the proceedings on a commission issued to Rangoon. The judgment under appeal was delivered at the end of March 1920 and the appeal reaches us only now in February 1925, It reaches us in the form of a judgment divided into 130 numbered paragraphs covering 67 closely printed foolscap pages accompanied by a documentary record in three volumes covering 787 similar pages, When the case came before us, Mr. Grant, for the appellant, cited to us about 30 documents at most, and Mr. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar for the respondents did not add mo...
Seth Chand Mull Dudha, C.i.E. Vs. Purushothamdoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad584; 94Ind.Cas.512; (1926)50MLJ348
Murray Court Trotter, C.J.1. This is an application under Order 38, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, for arrest before judgment of the defendant and an order that he should be made to show cause in compliance with Section 94(a), Civil Procedure Code, why he should not give security for his appearance. At the close of the argument I intimated what I proposed to do in the matter but as it is one of considerable general importance I thought it best to state my reasons formally. The facts are shortly as follows: The suit was brought on the Original Side of this Court for a sum of very nearly 5 1|2 lakhs and it was founded! upon what he described as 'the decree dated 19th December, 1925, at Hyderabad, Deccan, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in, the State of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad,' that suit is not before me but will be tried in the ordinary course by a Judge sitting on the Original Side of this Court and I desire to say nothing that would in any way seem to anti...
Abdul Khadar Sheriff Saheb Vs. Lalu Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad932; (1926)51MLJ215
Odgers, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken in this case on which I have heard a long argument as to whether this is a suit relating to maintenance under Article 38, Second Schedule, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I much regret that on a careful consideration of the case I must find against the preliminary objection. The suit is brought for a sum of Rs. 76 and is brought by a sister-in-law against a brother-in-law who is not in law bound to maintain her but who entered into an agreement evidenced by document Ex. C with her. About this document I can say nothing at present as I shall have to hear the argument on the merits, but it calls itself a deed of maintenance and the suit is apparently brought on what the plaintiff calls a registered maintenance deed. In this case I was prima facie impressed with the fact that a suit for maintenance would in the ordinary acceptance of the term be a suit by a wife or in exceptional cases a daughter against husband or father for maintena...
Penumasta Subbaraju Vs. Indukuri Narayanaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1093; 97Ind.Cas.232; (1926)51MLJ366
Devadoss, J.1. The appellant's father Appalaraju was taken into the family of his father-in-law and he lived with him as a member of the family. Appalaraju and his three brothers-in-law effected a division of the family properties and Appalaraju was given one-fourth share in them. In 1911 defendants x and 2 herein instituted a suit against the appellant for the recovery of 9 acres of land on the ground that the granting of a share of the joint family property by their father was not binding upon them as Appalaraju was not a member of the joint family. To that suit the other members of the family were parties. The suit was compromised and a razinama decree was passed on 22nd January, 1912. According to the terms of the razinama, the plaintiff should adopt Thimmaraju, the second son of the plaintiff (1st plaintiff in the previous suit) within two months from the date of the razi and if he did so he should enjoy the entire property which fell to his Father Appalaraju's share and if he sho...
S.V. Nallaperumal Pillai Vs. R. Ponnaya Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1124
Wallace, J.1. The Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the lower Court refusing to permit an amendment of the plaint in O.S. No. 59 of 1924. The suit as originally framed Was based on a security or mortgage bond, dated 1st July 1921, executed by Defendants 2, 3 and 4, the mortgage amount being the sum found to be due to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant on that date on running accounts. The plaint allegation was that as on 1st July 1921 it was asserted that the 1st defendant was insane and, therefore, could not himself execute the bond, Defendants 2, 3 and 4 executed it, the 3rd defendant doing so as guardian of the 1st defendant. After 1st July 1921 the running accounts went on, and on the taking of accounts-between 1st July 1921, and 26th September 1924, the date of plaint, the plaintiff admitted that Rs. 1,016 was due by him and allowed for that set-off in his plaint. The defence inter alia was that the 1st defendant was not insane on the date of the mortgage and, theref...
S.V. Nallaperumal Pillai Vs. R. Ponnayya Mudaliar Alias Manual Saviar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.936a
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order of the lower Court refusing to permit an amendment of the plaint in Rule 8. No. 59 of 1924. The suit as originally framed was based on a security or mortgage-bond, dated 1st July, 1921, executed by defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the mortgage amount being the sum found to be due to the plaintiff by the 1st defendant on that date on running accounts. The plaint allegation was that, as on 1st July, 1921, it was asserted that the 1st defendant was insane and, therefore, could not himself execute the bond, defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 executed it, the 3rd defendant doing so as guardian of the 1st defendant.2. After 1st July, 1921, the running accounts went on, and on the taking of accounts between 1st July, 1921, and 26th September, 1924, the date of plaint, the plaintiff admitted that Rs. 1,016 was due by him and allowed for that set-off in his plaint. The defence, inter alia, was that the 1st defendant was not insane on the date o...
Abdul Khader Shariff Sahib Vs. Lala Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1926
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.900
Odgers, J.1. Preliminary objection has been taken in this case on wnich I have heard a long argument as to whether this is a suit relating to maintenance under Article 38, Schedule II, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I much regret that on a careful consideration of the case, I must find against the preliminary objection. The suit is brought for a sum of Rs. 76 and is brought by a sister-in-law against a brother-in-law who is not in law bound to maintain her but who entered into an agreement evidenced by document, Ex. C, with, her. About this document I can say nothing at present as I shall have to hear the argument on the merits, but it calls itself a deed of maintenance and the suit is apparently brought on what the plaintiff calls a registered maintenance deed. In this case, I was prima, facie impressed with the fact that a suit, for maintenance would, in the ordinary acceptance of the term, be a suit by a wife or in exceptional cases by a daughter against husband or father for, m...
Bathina Subbarami Reddi Vs. Ganesam Pattabhirama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.578; (1926)51MLJ249
Phillips, J.1. This is a petition, under the Guardians and Wards Act.The minor having attained majority, the guardian was discharged and filed his accounts in Court. The minor took objection to these accounts and wished the Court to hold an enquiry and ascertain what amount was really due by the guardian. The District Judge has declined to hold any enquiry and has referred the minor to a suit if so advised. It is now contended for the petitioner, the late minor, that this order is wrong and that under Section 41(4) the Court ought to have held an enquiry and discharged the guardian after ascertaining what was due from him. There is no specific provision in the Act for such taking of accounts and determining the amount due by the guardian, but it is contended that in view of the fact that Section 41(4) says, 'the Court may declare him to be discharged from his liabilities,' etc., this can only be done after an enquiry has been held, but it must be observed that there is no mandate in th...
Addanki Lakshmanacharyulu Vs. Madduri Venkataramanujacharyulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad827; (1926)51MLJ414
Odgers, J.1. This is a suit for money brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, who are husbands of sisters. The first Court held that no such indebtedness was proved. On appeal to the Lower Appellate Court, the Subordinate Judge held that an amount of indebtedness was proved. There is one curious feature about this case, and that is, that the plaint sets forth the borrowings by the defendant of certain sums on specific dates and the only item with which we are concerned here is Rs. 800 stated in the plaint to have been borrowed on 28th January, 1916. The date given however in the additional issues framed by the District Munsif in the case is 28th November, 1916, and in the summary of the evidence the same date appears. This case is a very striking example of the great danger of employing figures instead of words in any kind of writing that really matters. It is all very well to do it at the top of letter-paper or things of that sort, though even so it may be that the date will b...
A. P. R. K. R. V. Vellayan Chetti and ors. Vs. Venugopal Chetti and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad185
1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover certain properties on the footing that they belong to the estate of Thiruvengadam Chetti, who died leaving a widow, a daughter and a daughter's son, and on the death of the widow, and the daughter in 1908 and 1909 respectively, the properties descended to the daughter's son and the plaintiff purchased the interest of the daughter's son by a sale-deed in 1920. The Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are purchasers of the three items of property (which are the subject of the suit) in execution of a decree obtained against the widow and a nephew of Thiruvengadam Chetti. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.2. Thiruvengadam was originally an inhabitant of Wallajapet; afterwards he removed to Madras and carried on business. He died in 1894. At the time of his death he had also a nephew named Ranganatha Chetti and a kararnama was entered into between the widow Anandammal and the daughter Ammakannu on the one side and the neph...
- ‹ Prev
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 13
- Next ›
- Last »