Chennai Court July 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.
Sirigineedi Subbaraidu Vs. Srimat Tirumala Venkata Sreenivasa Charyulu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad329; (1927)52MLJ87
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are rival candidates at an election and the plaintiff called the defendant 'a rowdy and a suspect'. The defendant retorted by saying that the plaintiff was a 'drunkard.' The defendant was elected as one of the Panchayatdars at the meeting. After the election was over the defendant was asked by some people as to what happened inside and he seems to have told them that the plaintiff was a drunkard. The plaintiff has brought this suit for damages on account of the expression used by the defendant. The District Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff for a sum of Re. I as damages and also costs of the suit. The Subordinate Judge has on appeal confirmed the decree of the District Munsif but varies the order as regards costs. The defendant has preferred this second appeal.2. The contention of Mr. Rajamannar for the appellant is that there was vulgar abuses at the time and that the word 'drunkard' therefore is not actionable. Reliance is placed on ...
Sangili Nadan Vs. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1141; 103Ind.Cas.434
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar for the appellant is that the sale is a fraudulent one inasmuch as a property worth Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 was sold to recover arrears of rent amounting only to Rs. 3 -11-5. The land sold was no doubt worth considerably more than the amount of arrears due from the defendant. Reliance is placed on Section 126, Estates Lands Act for the contention that the portion of the holding brought to sale by the landlord should be as nearly as possible equal in value to the amount of arrears due and costs. But Section 120 directs that no such lot shall, except with the consent of the landholder, be less than a revenue field.2. It is clear from the evidence that what was brought to sale was a revenue field, and, therefore, it cannot be said that the landlord was guilty of fraud in bringing to sale a field worth Rs. 300 to Rs. 400 for arrears of a trifling amount.3. The next contention is that there was no exchange of patta and muchilika betwe...
(Tiruvallur Vangipuram) Krishnamacharulu Vs. Chitlur Venkata Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1059; 97Ind.Cas.795
Jackson, J.1. petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif of Nandalur on I.A. No. 490 of 1924 extending by six months the period allowed in the decree in O.S. No. 250 of 1922 of the Court for obtaining a succession certificate. The decree runs:Time for succession certificate two months. The suit shall stand dismissed in default.2. The counter-petitioner accordingly applied for the certificate, and finding that two months would be an insufficient period moved before its expiry for an extension.3. It cannot be said that an extension was not warranted in these circumstances, and the only question is whether the District Munsif acted with jurisdiction in granting such an extension under Sections 148 and 151, Code of Civil Procedure on the assumption that the decree was a preliminary decree. It must be held that the decree was final, and neither Section 148 nor Section 151 authorizes a Court to meddle with its final decrees. Probably the Munsif would have been better advised...
Swaminatha Mudaliar Vs. Ebramsa Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad75; (1926)51MLJ639
Devadoss, J.1. Mr. Vinayaka Rao wants to argue grounds Nos. 24 and 25 in the Memorandum of Appeal. Mr. Kuppuswami Aiyar for the respondents has brought to my notice the order of the learned Judges passed at the time of admitting the appeal. That order is as follows:Appellant is allowed to add to his grounds of appeal that stated in his C.M.P. filed today, this being practically the only ground available in second appeal. Grounds 1 to 25 are struck out with appellant's consent.2. Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar who appeared at the time when the case was taken up for admission before Mr. Justice Phillips and Mr. Justice Venkatasubba Rao states that he did not carefully read the grounds and that he thought that there was some other good ground for purposes of admission and that is why he consented to give up grounds 1 to 25. From the records it appears that the learned Judges allowed the appellant to put in fresh grounds as they thought there was nothing in the grounds already filed. Having induced t...
(Golla) Pullamma Vs. Sanjivi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad172
ORDERRamesam, J.1. This is a case in which one has the feeling that the accused who deserves to be punished for his audacious conduct has escaped by an accident. In this respect, it is similar to Re Sinnu v. Goundan [1914] 38 Mad. 1028 Tonkya v. Jagamma A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 1009 Venkatarama Aiyar v. Sundaram Pillai A. I. R. 1923 Mad. 439 and Crl. R. C. No. 428 of 1925. The first of these cases may be distinguished on the ground that it is the District Magistrate who moved the High Court and in such a case there might well be an appeal against acquittal by the Local Government. In all the other cases, the complainant sought the assistance of the High Court.2. In Crl. R. C. No. 428 of 1925, the complainant's evidence was closed, his pleader was present and the case was posted at an unusual hour and Krishnan, J., might well have held that the order under Section 247 of the Criminal P. C., was not a proper order. But these cases resemble more Venkatarama Aiyar v. Sundaram Pillai A. I. R. 192...
Sevu Vandayan Vs. V.S. Narayanasami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1078
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this Second Appeal is whether the alienation under Ex. III is one which would bind the reversioners. Suppammal sold under Ex. III some lands for Rs. 150 and the amount was spent for the marriage of the plaintiff's father who was the nearest, reversioner at that time. He was Suppammal's husband's father's brother's son Ex. III was attested by the plaintiff's father. Suppammal died in 1904 and the present suit was brought on 3-9-1918.2. The contention of Mr. Vinayaka Rao is that the widow was not justified in spending for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff's father. As observed by the learned District Judge we are not in possession of all the facts and all the circumstances which induced the widow to defray the expenses of the marriage of the plaintiff's father. If all the facts were before the Court it would no doubt be in a position to say whether the plaintiff's father was a member of the widow's household or not and whether she was bound to see th...
Thiagaraja Vandayan Vs. V.S. Narayanaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.774
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is whether the alienation under Ex. Ill is one which would bind the reversioners. Suppammal sold under Ex. III some land for Rs. 150 and the amount was spent for the marriage of the plaintiff's father, who was the nearest reversioner at that time. He was Suppammal's husband's father's brother's son. Exhibit III was attested by the plaintiff's father. Suppammjal died in 1901 and the present suit was brought on 3rd September, 1918. The contention of Mr. Vinayaka Rao is that the widow was not justified in spending for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff's father. As observed by the learned District Judge we are not in possession of all the facts and all the circumstances which induced the widow to defray the expenses of the marriage of the plaintiff's father. If all the facts were before the Court it would, no doubt, be in a position to say whether the plaintiff's father was a member of the widow's household or not and whether she was...
The Russa Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. the Kanara Transport Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1138; (1926)51MLJ506
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastri, Officiating C.J.1. This is an appeal that arises out of an application to execute a decree which was passed against two defendants, the Kanara Transport Co. and Captain Bhandarkar. The decree, as is usual with decrees against firms, was obtained in the firm's name, there being at that time no question as to who were the partners of that firm. Under the Rules on the Original Side that question has to be raised, in cases where each of the alleged partner is not served personally, in execution of the decree. Where it is sought to execute the decree against persons who are not named but simply as against a firm, notice has to go to those persons to show cause why execution should not go against them as partners of the firm. In this case such notices went and we are concerned with two persons, Sanjeeva Rao and Panduranga Bhat. Sanjeeva Rao did not appear and contest the motion and an ex parte order for execution was passed as a matter of course. Panduranga Bhat appe...
Gollapalle Sidda Reddi (Minor) by Guardian and Father Gangi Reddi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ557
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation under. Article 118 of the Limitation Act. The contention of Mr. Chenchiah is that the adoption was made more than six years before the date of the suit and that the. father of the plaintiff who could have challenged the factum and validity of the adoption did not do so and the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation, and he relies very strongly upon cases which relate to reversioners bringing suits for setting aside adoptions.2. The plaintiff is the natural son of the adoptive father. The Appellate Court finds that there was no adoption. The case of the aurasa son of an adoptive father stands on a different footing from that of a reversioner. The cause of action is one and the same whatever may be the number of the reversioners. But the case of a person like the plaintiff is altogether different for the adoption affects him as it affects no one else for if the adoption is he...
Arjuna Mahapatro and ors. Vs. Dayanidhi Bhainipati
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad60; (1926)51MLJ637
Devadoss, J.1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the learned District Judge erred in rejecting Exs. VT and VI (a) as not having been properly proved. They were admitted in evidence in the first Court and the learned Subordinate Judge dealt with them in para. 7 of his judgment. When documents are admitted in evidence with or without formal proof in the first Court, it is not open to the Appellate Court to reject the documents as not having been properly proved, for, in several cases, parties may dispense with formal proof of documents and admit in evidence documents which are rele- vant. When the trial Court with the consent of the parties admits a document in evidence without formal proof, it is not open to the Appellate Court to reject the document from consideration as not having been properly proved. It is open to the Appellate Court to refuse to consider a document on the ground that it is not a relevant document. But I do not think that the judge's decision has b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »