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.
Ammasi Goundan Vs. P.L.V.V.R. Subramania Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1080; 97Ind.Cas.781
1. In this case the Official Receiver sold certain property belonging to an insolvent and the appellant was the purchaser. On the appellant's representation that he had bid under a misapprehension the Official Receiver set aside the sale. One of the creditors then applied to the District Court to cancel this order and confirm the sale; and this has been done. The District Judge held that the Official Receiver had no power to set aside the sale and he held also on the merits that there was no good ground for setting aside that sale.2. So far as the Official Receiver's power to set aside the sale is concerned, we think the District Judge was right. The auction ended in a contract with the purchaser, which ho was bound to perform, and which might have been enforced by him if the conditions had been different. It was then represented to the District Court that the Official Receiver's order should be treated as a reference to the Court and that the Court should dispose of the reference on i...
T. Kaliappa Mudaliar Vs. Kumaraswami Mudali Minor by Next Friend Poong ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad971; 95Ind.Cas.517
Watkins William Phillips, J.1. Mr. Justice Wallace has referred a point for the decision of a Bench, namely, whether a party when he appears by a Pleader who after an application for adjournment has been refused, reports no instructions is to be deemed ex parte or whether he if personally present in Court at the time must be deemed to have 'appeared' in the case, Wallace, J.'s order by inadvertance purports to refer the above question alone for our decision, but we must take it that civil revision petition itself has been referred for disposal.2. The question at issue was decided in Gopala Row v. Maria Susaya Pillai 17 M.L.J. 225 by a Bench of this Court, where it was held that a plaintiff fails to appear within the meaning of Section 102, C.P.C., when his pleader declines to proceed with the suit. It makes no difference that the party himself was present in Court. This case actually determines the point before us, and there has been no reported decision to the contrary since the date ...
Erulandi thevan Vs. S. Subramania Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.611
Odgers, J.1. In this second appeal two questions are raised neither of them having been agitated in either of the two lower Courts. The fast is this. It is a question of possession and the lower Appellate Court has held that the plain tiff-respondent was in possession of the suit property through lessees till 1904, and up to 1909 through a mortgage under Ex. J. The suit was, therefore, in time as rears had not elapsed between 1909 and 1920, the date of its institution. These two questions that have been raised in second appeal both relate to this mortgage, Ex. J. It is said that the plaintiff was an adopted son and that Ex. J was effected while he was a-minor; and lastly that a natural brother of his effected the mortgage presumably as his guardian. It is said that there is no finding that the natural brother was under the circumstances a de facto guardian of the minor. It may be added that the minor has adopted this transaction on attaining majority and has in fact in 1920 discharged ...
N.M. Rayalu Aiyar, Nagasami Aiyar and Company by One of Its Partners N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ351
1. It will be convenient first to deal with Appeal No. 334. The plaintiffs and appellants before us were the sellers and they had entered into a contract to deliver to the buyers 60 bales of yarn of various counts. They delivered 28 bales before 15th November, 1918 when the controversy between the parties arose. The offer is to be found in a letter of the 27th July, Ex. A accepted by an answer of the 5th August, Ex. II. The terms of the contract are very simple. The bales were to be delivered by the sellers as soon as they got them from the Mills which manufactured them and what is called Tavanai credit was extended to the buyer. That is explained in this way. The mill month runs from the 21st of one month to the 20th of the next, and the period of credit is to the end of the calendar month following that in which the mill month expired; that is to say, for goods delivered by the mill from the 21st September to the 20th October payment will be due on the 30th of the following November....
S. Ramachandra Iyer Vs. T.S. Narayanasami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad426
Ramesam, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner before me. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover Rs. 289 as due to him on account of dealings between the parties. The defendant denied the plaintiff's account and also said that the disputes between him and the plaintiff were settled by Ramachandra Iyer, Subramania Iyer and Natesa Iyer and it was decided by them in June 1922, that the defendant should discharge the promissory note for Rs. 400 executed by plaintiff to Ramachandra Iyer ou his behalf and that the plaintiff should deliver to the defendant certain articles and receive Rs. 90 from the defendant and that the articles were not so delivered. The District Munsif has set out two points for decision (1); whether the entries in the plaintiff's account are true and (2) what amount is the plaintiff entitled to recover? At p. 5 he also says that the question of mediation is irrelevant for the purpose of the suit. If there are disputes between two parties and if they agree to refer the...
Suppan Samban and anr. Vs. Sadaya Moopan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1146
Ramesam, J.1. Defendants 1 and 5 are the petitioners before me. The suit was brought on a promissory-note executed by defendants 1 and 5. The defendants pleaded that the promissory-note was not supported by consideration. They admit that they executed the note, but say that it was intended to be a security to cover the advance which the plaintiff was willing to pay on behalf of the defendants in connexion with an expected litigation between the vettiyaris and talayaris of the village about the Periandavan temple and, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff did not spend any money for such a dispute. There were some criminal proceedings for which the plaintiff did not pay and no civil litigation followed. The defendants, therefore, say that the note was not supported by consideration. The burden of proof is on the defendants. They examined four witnesses to prove their case. This evidence was accepted by the District Munsif who disbelieved plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff having sworn tha...
Madini Doraswami Naidu Vs. Syed Mir HussaIn and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad975
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner before me. He filed a suit before the Deputy Collector of Chittoor under Section 46 of the Estates Land Act and he seeks to get a ryoti patta for Survey No. 67 in the Atmakur village attached to Narangatipalayam zamin. The 1st defendant is the proprietor. The history of the holding seems to be that an old tenant who cultivated it abandoned it about 15 years before suit and afterwards it was cultivated off and on by others. Apparently, it was left vacant at the end of Fasli 1330, i.e., 30th June 1921. On 4th July 1921 a cousin of the plaintiff 2nd defendant, made an application for being admitted to the land. It Was favourably received by the proprietor and an order was issued in favour of the 2nd defendant that she should be admitted as a ryot to Survey No. 67 to the extent of 1 cawny 6 cants, for a rent of Rs. 6-0-3, and the 2nd defendant was authorized to enter upon the land, The plaintiff applied for the same land on 31st July alleging t...
Mandoori Durga Mallikharjana Vara Prasad Rao and anr. Vs. Gudipudi Gop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad970; 97Ind.Cas.462
1. This is an appeal arising from a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the removal of Defendants 1 to 7 from trusteeship of the plaint temple, for a declaration that certain properties described in the schedule belonged to the temple and for framing a scheme. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground inter alia that none of the Defendants 1 to 7 is a trustee of the temple but that the trustee is really the 8th defendant, the Zemindar of Mirzapur, and that against him no sanction was obtained from the Collector and that the endorsement of sanction by the Collector on the plaint before he was added as a party is not a sufficient sanction to enable the suit to be maintained against him.2. We think the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the suit is not maintainable on the present sanction. The 8th defendant is the real trustee and as against him no sanction has been obtained. 8th defendant objected to the suit going on in the lower Court ...
N.M. Rayalu Ayyar and ors. Vs. S.S. Ramudu Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad934; 97Ind.Cas.443
1. It will be convenient first to deal with Appeal No. 334. The plaintiffs and appellants before us were the sellers and they had entered into a contract to deliver to the buyers 60 bales of yarn of various counts. They delivered 2ti bales before 15th November, 1918, when the controversy between the parties arose. The offer is to be found in a letter of the 271h July, Ex. A, accepted by an answer of the 5th August, Ex., II. The terms of the contract are very simple. The bales were to be delivered by the sellers as soon as they got them from the mills which manufactured them and what is called tavanai credit extended to the buyer. That is explained in this way. The mill month runs from the 21st of one month to the 20th of the next, and the period of credit is to the end of the calendar month following that in which the mill month expired; that is to say, for goods delivered by the mill from the 21st September to the 20th October payment will be due on the 30th of the following November....
Adanamoli Chetti and ors. Vs. Chinnaswami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad959; 97Ind.Cas.574
Ramesam, J.1. This petition arises out of an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree obtained against a Hindu widow representing the estate of the last male owner. In execution of the decree three items of property were sold and purchased for Rs. 210, Rs. 450 and Rs. 650 respectively. The District Judge has committed a slip in stating the figures in respect of the 2nd and 3rd items as Rs 250, Rs. 650 instead of Rs. 450 and Rs. 650. The petitioner before the District Munsif is a presumptive reversioner who will be entitled to the property after the death of the widow and the application was filed under Order XXI, Rule 90, on the ground of material irregularity in the conduct of the sale and the publishing of the proclamation causing substantial injury. The District Munsif holding that there was no irregularity and also that the properties were sold for the proper prices dismissed the petition.2. On appeal, the District Judge held on the evidence that the properties were...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »