Chennai Court July 1926 Judgments
Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Devadasi Nayadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1114
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the defendant against whom an ex-parte decree had been passed and who had applied to set aside the decree and failed in getting relief, is entitled to raise the same point in the appeal against the decree. This point is covered by authority. Vide, B. C. Asethu v. V. Kesavayya : (1920)39MLJ697 Mr. Venkatarama Iyer for the appellant disputes the correctness of this position and wants this point to be argued before a Bench of two Judges. This decision was followed by me and Oldfield, J., in B. Levvai Sahib v. Ammcenammal A. I. R. 1924 Mad. 107 and the only decision which he says supports him is that reported in Nand Ram v. Bhupal Singh [1912] 34 All. 592 In that case the point did not directly arise. There the application was under Section 115. In the course of the judgment the learned Judges remark that it is open to the defendant to raise the same question in appeal against the decree. With great respect, I am unable to ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatesayya Vs. Perumakkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1180
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the defendants have occupancy right in the plaint property. The Dist. Munsif held that the suit land was an estate and, therefore, the defendants were entitled to occupancy rights. On appeal the Dist. Judge held on the evidence that the defendants made out occupancy rights. There is evidence to support the finding of the learned Judge that the defendants are occupancy tenants. Apart from that, there is the fact that the inam was made by the zemindar in 1838. If both warams were granted to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title then the plaintiff would be a landholder within the meaning of the term as used in Section 3 (5), Estates Land Act. It is only if the plaintiff could, prove that kudivaram alone was granted to him that he could sustain his action against defendants. There is no such evidence and it is not seriously contended that kudivaram alone was granted in inam to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. The decis...
Tag this Judgment!R.M. Raman Chettiar Vs. Tirugnanasambandam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad230; (1926)51MLJ869
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal has reference to the validity of a mortgage bond executed by the guardian of the minor defendant. The plaintiff claimed about Rs. 8,000 in his plaint, but the learned Subordinate Judge disallowed some items and passed a decree for Rs. 3,000 odd. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal.2. In the District Court of Tinnevelly, O.P. No. 41 of 1914 was filed by one Muthiah Pillai, the brother-in-law of the defendant, for the purpose of getting a guardian appointed, under the Guardians and Wards Act, of the person and property of the defendant, who was then about 12 years of age. Among the respondents to that petition were Subramania Pillai and Satyanada Pillai, whose names alone are important having regard to the facts with which we have to deal. The defendant was the adopted son of one Manickavasagam Pillai who had died previous to the petition and Subramania and Satyanada were the defendant's brothers in his natural famil...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswami Goundan Vs. Vellayana Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1177
Jackson, J.1. Second Appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge, of Dindigul in A.S. No. 56 of , 1924, in E.A. No. 104 of 1924. In the Court of the District Munsif of Palni a minor Ponnuswami Goundan applied by his guardian Devakkal for a declaration that certain property was not assets of his grandfather and was not liable to attachment.2. The District Munsif ordered notice to the attaching decree-holder on 8-3-1924. On 15-3-1924 the petitioner's vakil took a further adjournment to 1-4-1924 paying for the costs of that hearing. On 1-4-1924, the vakil failed to appear and the case adjourned to 8-4-1924 and again to 9-4-1924, when arguments were heard. On 11-4-1924 the case was posted for evidence on 26-4-1924. On that day the petitioner's Dindigul vakil wrote that he was not ready with documents and another vakil moved for adjournment. The Munsif dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. The petitioner appealed and the Subordinate Judge had dismissed the appeal holding that she s...
Tag this Judgment!Nagaiya Naidu and anr. Vs. Ekambara Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1142; 97Ind.Cas.796
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the judgment in Ejectment Suit No. 158 of 1924, Madras Court of Small Causes.2. The ground for revision is that the Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act 3 of 1922. It is not correct to say that this Act vests jurisdiction in any Court. The Act creates a certain class of privileged tenants and a defence open to a tenant of Madras City in a suit for ejectment may be that he belongs to this privileged class. A Court which has considered this defence on its merits, and has rejected it cannot be said to have failed to exercise jurisdiction.3. The short point for decision by the lower Court was whether the tenant of two rooms with a vacant piece of land in front was a tenant as defined by Act 3 of 1922. Under Section 2(4), a tenant means a tenant of land, and under Section 2(2) land does not include buildings. To hold therefore that the tenancy must be exclusively of land, cannot be sai...
Tag this Judgment!Valliakkal and anr. Vs. Karuppa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.920; (1926)51MLJ464
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this second appeal is that no suit lies to rectify a mistake in a compromise decree. It was held by Napier and Krishnan, JJ. in S.A. No. 62 of 1920 that a decree is an instrument within the meaning of Section 92 of the Evidence Act. If a compromise decree is an instrument in writing, it is difficult to see how Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act does not apply to it. The contention of Mr. Narasimha Aiyangar is that a suit does not lie to rectify a mistake in a compromise decree,, but that the decree could only be set aside in toto and the parties relegated to the position in which they were before the compromise was entered into. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act provides for a suit to rectify a mutual mistake in an instrument in writing. The opening words of Section 31 areWhen, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, a contract or other instrument in writing does not truly express their intention, either party, or his representa...
Tag this Judgment!(Nalam) Lakshmikanthan and anr. Vs. V.T. Narayanaswami Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1109
1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant damages which he assessed at Rs. 6,250 in addition to the payment of Rs. 3,081-4-6 which he says represents the excess amount paid to the defendants in advance for goods which were not delivered. He also claims the value of 3,000 gunnies which were given to the defendants for the purpose of enabling them to supply the goods, The contract between the plaintiff and the defendants is evidenced by Ex. A dated the 7th. June 1919, and the contract is that the defendants should supply to the plaintiff 500 tons or 6000 bags of oil-cake at the price and on the terms specified in the contract.2. We are not concerned with the quality of packing because the suit is only for goods not delivered. The only question here is as regards the time of payment for and delivery of the goods. By Clause 3 of the contract the defendant says:I agree to give the goods on board the steamer at Cuddalore as and when the steamer calls at Cuddalpre durin...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Naidu Vs. J. Ramier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad947; 97Ind.Cas.450; (1926)51MLJ701
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, in O.P. No. 27 of 1925.2. The petitioner and counter-petitioner were the two candidates for the office of Chairman in the Madura Municipal Council. Each obtained an equal number of votes, and lots were drawn to decide the successful candidate. The petitioner was declared elected, and the counter-petitioner presented an election petition before the Subordinate Judge questioning the validity of the election because, among other reasons, the lots had been drawn not by the Presiding Councillor himself as required by Rule IV(ii) of the Rules for the conduct of the election of Chairman but by a boy, an utter stranger. The learned Subordinate Judge, without considering this, or other objections, contained in the petition, has declared the election void on the ground that under the rules in the particular circumstance of this case, there should have been no drawing of lots at all. The petitioner seeks to...
Tag this Judgment!Nalam Lakshmikantham and anr. Vs. V.J. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.986
1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant damages which he assessed at Rs. 6,250 in addition to the payment of Rs. 3,081-4-6 which' he says represents the excess amount paid to the defendants in advance for good which were not delivered. He also claims the value of 3000 gunnies which were given to the defendants for the purpose of enabling them to supply the goods. The contract between the plaintiff and the defendants is evidenced by Ex. A, dated the 7th June, 1919, and the contract is that the defendants should supply to the plaintiff 500 tons or 6000 bags of oil cake at the price and on the terms specified in the contract. We are not concerned with the quality of packing because the suit is only for goods not delivered. The only question here is as regards the time of payment for and delivery of the goods. By Clause 3 of the contract the defendant says 'I agree to give the goods on board the steamer at Cuddalore as and when the steamer calls at Cuddalore during...
Tag this Judgment!Mariammal and anr. Vs. Augustine Roy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad170
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs are the daughter and grand-daughter of one Anthonimuthu Goundan, an Indian Christian, who died in 1885 leaving his daughters, the 1st plaintiff and Souri Ammal, the mother of the 2nd plaintiff and a son, Siluvamuthu Goundan the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs sue for their share of the property of Anthonimuthu Goundan. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiffs' suit but the District Judge on appeal dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The main contention of Mr. Ananthakrisnna Iyer for the appellant is that the District Judge has not addressed himself to the real question in the case and that his finding that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation is not a satisfactory finding; in other words, that the learned Judge has misdirected himself as to the real question at issue and that, therefore, his judgment cannot be allowed to stand. In para. 13 of his judgment, he says:I have no hesitation in holding on Issues Nos. 6 an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »