Chennai Court April 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.
Gopala Padayachi and ors. Vs. Rajagopal Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1148
Wallace, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is against the judgment and decree of the lower Court in Small Cause suit. The suit was inter alia for money due on a promissory note in the following circumstances: On 8th November 1921 the first defendant executed a promissory note, Ex. A, to one Subba Nayakar. On 30th October 1924 Rs. 235 was due on this note. For this amount the 1st defendant executed a fresh promissory note, Ex. B, in favour of the same promisse. Both the notes have been transferred to the plaintiff.2. The main point in the case was whether Ex. B was enforceable as a promissory note. It is admittedly insufficiently stamped under the amended Stamp Act, as it bears only an one-anna stamp. The lower Court, however, has admitted it in evidence as an acknowledgment of the debt in Ex. A, for which purpose it is sufficiently stamped, has held that it serves to keep the debt alive, and has given judgment for the sum claimed. The defendants put in this Civil Revision Petition and ...
Poothakka Nachiar and ors. Vs. Annamalai Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1173
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal from a mortgage decree. The mortgage; was executed by Defendants 1 and 2, their elder sister, Vengu Nachiar for Rs. 43,500, It is admitted that the whole of this amount was not paid, and the suit is brought for the principal amount of Rs. 24, 936 and interest. The executants are gosha ladies and at the time of execution Vengu Nachiar and the last defendant were wives of one. Udayana Thevar alias Delhi Batcha. The 2nd defendant, sister of the other two' executants, was living with her sisters under the. protection of Delhi Batcha and subsequently married him.2. The main objection taken by the appellants, Defendants 1 and 2 and the 8th defendant, is that the mortgage deed was, not duly executed and attested. The mortgage property had been leased by the sisters to certain persons now represented by Defendants 4 and 8, of whom the 4th defendant has not filed an appeal. The contention for the appellants is that the mortgage deed was not properly attested. It...
S. Suryanarayana Sastrigal Vs. K.S. Viswanatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.1027
William Watkins Phillips, J.1. This suit to recover a sum of money acknowledged to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff has been rejected on the ground that the Subordinate Judge of Palghat had no jurisdiction to try the same. This acknowledgment and promise to pay, Ex. A, was executed at Bombay where the defendant was temporarily a clerk in the Bombay Secretariat. The plaintiff resides at Palghat and alleges that as the defendant's permanent place of resilience was in Palghat, part of the cause of action arose there. Under Section 20, Ex pi. I, of the C.P.C: 'Where a person has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, he shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he has such temporary residence'.2. It is not disputed that the defendant's family house is at Palghat, and no enquiry has been held as to whether that is his permanent place of residence. If it is the permanent place of r...
The Zamindar of Kallikote and Atagada Estates Vs. Mongolopur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1047; 97Ind.Cas.921; (1926)51MLJ500
1. These are applications to revise the orders of the Board of Revenue passed, one under Section 172 of the Estates Land Act and the others under Section 171 of the same Act. So far as the cases under Section 171 are concerned, the only point that is raised which relates to jurisdiction is that a single member of the Board of Revenue has no power to decide questions under these sections'. However, under Section 2 of the Madras Act I of 1894 it is enactedIt shall be lawful for the Board of Revenue to declare what portion of the business of the Board may be disposed of by a single member.2. It is not suggested here that the Board has not allotted this branch of work to a single Member and therefore that Member had complete authority to deal with the matter. No other question of jurisdiction arises in the case disposed of by the Board under Section 1713. So far as the order passed under Section 172 is concerned, it is merely a preliminary order declaring that the Board of Revenue has juri...
Sriranga Chettiar Vs. Subramania Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad81
ORDERWallace, L.1. It is clear that the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Bhavani has taken cognizance of the case de novo before the transfer to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Gopichettipalayam. The latter, therefore, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case. The case is, therefore, retransferred to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Bhavani who will now proceed with it....
Siva Subramania Pillai Vs. Poovalingam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad941; 97Ind.Cas.502
Phillips, J.1. In this ease a certain property was sold in execution of a mortgage decree. In subsequent proceedings it was held that the property was trust property and therefore could not be sold in execution of the prior mortgage decree and the sale proceedings taken in execution were declared to be void. The appellant then presented an application under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C. for a personal decree against the mortgagor. Two questions have arisen (1) whether this remedy is open to the appellant, and (2) whether, if so, this petition is in time.2. As far as the first point is concerned, there is the authority of Radhakishun Lal v. Kashi Lal : AIR1924Pat273 in appellant's favour. That case was not one of an application under Order 34, Rule 6, but of ordinary execution proceedings, and it was held that when a sale in execution had been set aside, it was open to the decree-holder to execute the decree again. As I think the appellant must fail on the second question, namely limitat...
Tanjore Kannammal Vs. Tanjore Ramathilakammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad38; 97Ind.Cas.632
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the 1st defendant against the decree passed by Masilamani Pillai, J., sitting on the original side in a suit brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of house No. 201, Mint Street, for declaring certain mortgages on the house invalid and for properties described in Schedules B, C and D.2. The main contention in the case is as regards the title to the house. The house was purchased in 1897, the sale-deed being in the name of the plaintiff's mother. It may be stated at once that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are members of the dancing-girl caste and they are a family of dancing-girls. In 1897, when the house was purchased, plaintiff's mother was living with her mother Rukmani Ammal and with the 1st defendant, her sister. The 1st defendant was then a young girl about ten years old. It is the 1st defendant's case that the house, though purchased in the name of plaintiff's mother Jeevarathnammal, was really joint family property of herself, her mot...
M. S. A. P. L. Palaniappa Chetti Vs. S. L. S. Chettiappa Chetti and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad683
1. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal lies to the District Court. We think that on the authorities' e. g., Ganga Dei v. Sher Singh [1894] 17 All. 51 and the wording of Section 195 (3) (a), Criminal P. C., the objection is well-founded.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
M.L.M. Ramanathan Chetti and anr. Vs. Muthu Valliappa Chetti Alias Kas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad322; (1927)52MLJ59
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises may first be stated. The 1st plaintiff herein (who will also be referred to as M.L.M.) obtained a decree in O.S. No. 9 of 1912 for a sum of Rs. 60,800 and odd against four sets of defendants 1. Four brothers of the A.R.P. family, 2. N. Muthiah, 3. A. Srinivasaand 4. S.R.M. Ramaswami Chetti (who will hereafter be referred as5 S.R.M.). Srinivasa was M.L.M.'s maternal uncle and father-in-law. In O.S. No. 64 of 1912 the A.R.P. family consisting of four brothers who were plaintiffs 1, 5, 6 and 7 in that suit and the sons of one of them obtained a decree for about Rs. 1,75,000 against S.R.M. and two others. In execution of the decree in O.S. No. 9 the decree-holder M.L.M. attached the decree in O.S. No. 64 and as attaching decree-holder proceeded to execute the latter decree. The execution petition dated 17th December, 1919 with the orders thereon is Ex. J. He applied to arrest S.R.M. Notice and arrest warrant were issued. S.R.M. was ar...
Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Natesa Gramani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad194
Krishnan, J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee against an order passed by my learned brother Waller, J., sitting in the insolvency Court. The appeal refers only to five items of the properties that are in dispute, namely. Items Nos. 1 and 9 to 12. There is no question about the other items before us. The Official Assignee claims that these properties are really properties of the insolvent, Vadivelu Gramani, and as such he is entitled to realise them for the purpose of paying off his creditors. Item No. 1 was purchased in the year 1901 for a sum of Rs. 350 under Ex. VII, and Items Nos. 9 to 12 were purchased in 1896 for a sum of Rs. 475 under Ex. VIII. Exhibit VII is in the name of both Murugammal and her son Vadivelu Gramani, whereas Ex. VIII stands exclusively in the name of Murugammal. Before the Official Assignee can get these properties, the burden is on him to establish the case he has put forward in Court, namely, that these properties really belonged to Vadivelu Grama...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »