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.
Sri Mahant Paramananda Das Goswami Vs. Radhakrishna Das and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1042; 97Ind.Cas.437; (1926)51MLJ258
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff filed the suit which gives rise to this appeal, for a declaration that he was the lawful Mahant of the Ganga Mata Mutt and for recovery of properties belonging to it. The Mutt is situated at Puri but it owns properties of considerable value in the District of Ganjam. The District Judge who tried the suit dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. No question of fact was tried in the case and the learned Judge held that on the allegations in the plaint the claim was barred. We are not therefore concerned with the truth or falsity of the statements in the plaint but the only question is whether on these averments made in it the suit is in time or is barred. If the plaint can be construed as one for possession of a hereditary office the article applicable is Article 124 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of 12 years and the suit would not be barred. If, on the other hand, the claim cannot be regarded as...
Vesu Alias Lakshmi Amma and anr. Vs. thekkedath Veetil Kannamma Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad991; (1926)51MLJ282
Wallace, J.1. This C.M.S.A. is against the decision of the Lower Appellate Court in a matter of restitution reversing the decision of the first Court.2. The restitution was applied for by the respondents on the strength of a decree of the High Court in second appeal reversing the decrees of both the Lower Courts and dismissing the plaintiffs' (appellants') suit. It appears that of the original appellants in the First Appellate Court, the 10th defendant, though dead before the second appeal was filed, was included as one of the appellants, and his legal representatives were not brought on record, and the 13th defendant was not included at all. The present appellant's contention in this matter of restitution has been that these errors vitiate the High Court's decree and render it void for want of jurisdiction since the necessary parties were not on the record and therefore no application for restitution under it can lie.3. It will be noted that the objection that the High Court's decree ...
Draksharam Chandramouli Vs. Gunda Satya Narayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1020; 97Ind.Cas.488
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in Small Cause Suit No. 223 of 1923. The petitioner brought a suit for Rs. 224-4-6 being the wages due for dyeing work done by him to the defendants. The defendants filed a S.C.S. No. 820 of 1922 in the Bezwada District Munsif's Court against the plaintiff for damages on the ground that the plaintiff damaged the material when he dyed it. In S.C.S. No. 820 of 1922 the plaintiff (defendants in S.C.S. No. 223 of 1923) got a decree for damages and when the Small Cause Suit No. 223 of 1923 came on for hearing they raised the plea of res judicata. The Subordiuete Judge has upheld this plea and the plaintiff has filed this Revision Petition. The question is whether a defendant is bound to raise as defence a counter-claim or a claim for set off against the plaintiff's claim.2. The defendants' S.C.S. No. 820 of 1922 was for damages on account of the material being spoiled by the plaintiff. The plainti...
Vasu Alias Lakshmiamma and anr. Vs. thekkedath Veetil Kannamma Alias K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.551
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is against the decision of the lower Appellate Court in a matter of restitution reversing the decision of the first Court.2. The restitution was applied for by the respondents on the strength of a decree of the High Court in second appeal reversing, the decrees of both the lower Courts and dismissing the plaintiffs' (appellants') suit. It appears that of the original appellants in the first Appellate Court, the 10th defendant, though dead before the second appeal was filed, was included as one of the appellants and his legal representatives were not brought on record, and the 13th defendant was not included at all. The present appellants' contention in this matter of restitution has been that these errors vitiate the High Court's decree and render it void for want of jurisdiction, since the necessary parties were not on the record and therefore, no application for restitution under it can lie.3. It will be noted that the objection th...
Mahanthaya and anr. Vs. Nandiappa Hedge
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1081a
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is whether Ex. 1 is a mortgage or sale. Exhibit I was executed on the 14th June 1860, by one Mahanthamma, wife of Basavayya in favour of Govinda Hegde. From the tenor of the document, it appears that it was intended to be a sale. It is called 'Kraya Kanditha Mokthiari' and from the recitals therein, it appears that it was intended to operate as a sale. Govinda Hegde filed a suit in the Barkur Taluk Munsif's Court in 1860 for possession of the property on the strength of Ex. 1. The Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal, the Principal Sadar Amin held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession and that he should pay certain amounts mentioned in the document and that the warg of the properties should not be transferred without the consent of the son of defendant 1 in that suit. The contention of Mr. Sitarama Rao is that Ex. 1 is only a nominal transaction and that it was executed in order to protect the property from a previ...
Raghava Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Irula thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad974; 97Ind.Cas.346; (1926)51MLJ211
Krishnan, J.1. This Second Appeal arises in a suit brought by the plaintiff claiming as mortgagee from certain Mahajanams of the village to recover possession of suit properties from defendants 1 and 2. The Mahajanams were made party defendants for the express purpose of determining the rights of all parties concerned. Defendants 1 and 2 denied the right of the Mahajapams as well as that of the plaintiff. They pleaded that they had neither title nor possession within 12 years before the date of suit.2. The first Court found the points raised in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and dismissed the suit. Against that decree the plaintiff did not appeal. But two of the Mahajanams appealed. As a matter of fact the First Court had dismissed the suit against the Mahajanams also with costs. Nevertheless as the finding of the First Court that neither the mortgagors nor the mortgagees had any title or possession within the last 12 years was against the interest of the mortgagors, they appealed agains...
K.C. Menon Vs. P. Krishnan Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ328
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Calicut refusing the petitioner's petition to summon certain witnesses for the prosecution. The petitioner is prosecuting the accused for offences under Section 477' A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act for concocting false balance sheets, when he was the Managing Director of the Manorama Printing Works in 1921 and 1922, in particular for showing an inflated and false value of the stock in hand and including in the company's stock the full value of books only sent to them for sale on commission. The petitioner filed his complaint on 3rd November, 1925 naming three witnesses. At that time the books of the company had been impounded and were in the Lower Court. His witnesses were examined on 23rd and 24th November, 1925 and cross-examined on 5th and 6th December, 1925. The petitioner put in a further list of four witnesses styled 'experts in valuation,' and the ...
Sellan Vs. Vettiyan Parayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad944a; 97Ind.Cas.895
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in S.C.S. No. 247 of 1923. The learned Subordinate Judge refused to grant an adjournment at the request of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff was ready with his witnesses on several occasions before 21-1-24 when the suit came on for hearing. From the decree it appears that he paid subsistence allowance to the extent of Rs. 23-4-0 and from the subpoenas now produced it is clear that he was ready on several occasions when the Court adjourned the suit for want of time. The Court could have granted some time in consideration of the fact that he was ready on previous occasions, to enable him to produce his witnesses.2. The practice of posting too many cases which could not by any possibility be disposed of in a, day is responsible for the impression in the minds of parties that their oases would not be taken upon the day in which they are posted. The plaintiff might have thought that...
Thandavaraya Pillai Vs. Kuppuswami Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1127
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The mortgage-decree-holder-purchaser is the appellant. The appeal arises out of an application under Order 21, Rule 100 made by the respondent for being put into possession as he was wrongfully dispossessed by the decree-holder in execution of his mortgage decree. The appeal relates only to properties covered by Schedules C and D to the decree. These properties were mortgaged to the decree-holder by Defendants 3, 4 and 5 who were members of a joint undivided family. Defendants 2 and 6 had sold these properties prior to the mortgage to the respondent who was the 7th defendant in the suit. It was decided in the mortgage suit that the decree-holder was entitled to get the shares only of Defendants 3, 4 and 5 in the plaint C and D Schedule properties. As a matter of fact the sale certificate issued to him covered more than what he was rightly entitled to under the judgment and decree and in execution of that decree he dispossessed the present respondent.2. It is clear t...
M.V. Maya, Nadan and Brothers Vs. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1106
1. Whatever difficulty there may be in this case arises, in my opinion, not from any doubt or uncertainty as to the legal principles applicable to it but in the application of those principles to go complicated a thing as the type of signature in vogue among Nattukottai Chettis or Indeed at times among Nattukottai Chetty individuals.2. The suit is brought on a promissory note dated 20th February 1918. The liability of the 1st defendant is sought to be enforced on two grounds; (1) That the signature to the note is on the face of it an unqualified assumption by him of personal liability; (2) That in any event, if the signature be held to be merely that of a firm, he was in fact a partner in that fir n or alternatively held himself out as being such. The 1st defendant's name is Arunachellam Chetty and he is the son of a man called, A. Ponsivalai Chetty. There is no doubt that A. Ponsivalai Chetty entered into partnership with a firm trading under the vilasam of ' V.M.A.C. and Sons ' and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »