Chennai Court August 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.
S. K. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. A. Buran Sheriff and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad153
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Arcot adjudicating the appellant an insolvent. The facts prior to this adjudication are a little complicated, and the arguments founded thereon have taken some time to hear. The petitioning creditors filed two suits against the debtor, O. S. No. 548 of 1922 for gunny bags, and O. S. No. 583 of 1922, for some amounts due in a partnership business. There was moreover a suit O. S. No. 580 of 1922 by the insolvent against these creditors for accounts due on an alleged partnership between him and them. This suit, on the 7th of November 1922, was dismissed and the other suits by the creditors were decreed. In May 1923 the insolvent made some alienations of his properties and deposited the amount due in O. S. No. 548 into Court and the Court-sale was set aside. On the 23rd May 1923 a petition for adjudication was filed in the District Munsif's Court. In the meantime appeals had been filed in O. S. No. 583 and O. S...
(Yalavarthi) Ramakistnayya Vs. (Yalavarthi) Rattayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad238
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction to prevent the defendant from putting up a roof upon the wall dividing the plots belonging to the parties in such a way that the eaves overhung the plaintiff's site. The relevant facts found by the lower Courts are that many years ago there was a thatched house constructed on the defendant's site and against the wall, and this was burnt down some 15 years before suit, or say in 1905. There was then an interval without any building until about 1914, when the defendant put up a thatched cattle-shed against the wall and this in turn was demolished five years before suit. He again attempted to re-build, was interrupted and the plaintiff immediately brought the suit for the injunction.2. The case has been taken under Section 15 of the Easements Act according to which an easement in order to be established by suit must be enjoyed for 20 years, the period terminating not more than two years before the institution of the suit. Both ...
Pati Nagamma Vs. Pulapa Veerasami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad217
Curgenven, J.1. This was a suit to set aside the decree in O. S. No. 116 of 1917 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Cocanada, which was brought by the father of the present 1st defendant against the present plaintiff represented by his mother and guardian the 2nd defendant. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the suit, that he was aware of the proceedings carried on by his mother and that she was not negligent in the conduct of the defence. He accordingly dismissed the suit. In appeal the Subordinate Judge has found differently upon each of these issues, namely, that the plaintiff had attained majority by the time the suit was filed, that he is not shown to have been aware of the proceedings and, therefore, that acquiescence was not proved, and lastly that his mother was guilty of negligence. On the first of these questions, viz., the minority or majority of the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge has given reasons which, I think, are in...
Ramanujachariar Vs. Sundarachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad287
1. The only point urged before us is one of limitation. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that Art. 142 of the Limitation Act applied to the case, and the plaintiff not having proved possession within 12 years, his suit was barred. The plaintiff did not allege in the plaint that he was dispossessed by the defendants. He case was that he let defendants into possession under an agreement of tenancy and that they would not give up possession. The defendants denied plaintiff's title and set up title by adverse possession for over 12 years. The District Munsif granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff, but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, held that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession within 12 years of the suit.2. Article 142 is applicable only to cases where the plaintiff alleges possession and dispossession in his plaint. Where he sets up a tenancy or license as the basis of the defendants' possession the proper article applicable would be ...
Yysuf Beg Sahib and ors. Vs. Maliq Mahomed Syed Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad397
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioners have each been fined rupees twenty-five (Rs. 25) under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation by telling a Mohomdan's co-religionists who were coming to the wedding of D. W. l's daughter that he was outcasted. Three grounds, are advanced.(1) There is no sufficient evidence of the fact. P. W. 1 swears to it and is corroborated.(2) All the accused should, not have been charged with making the statement. P. W. 1 swore that they all made it and if they wished to question that statement they had their opportunity in cross-examination.(3) It is not defamatory to say that a Mahomadan is outcasted, and only Hindus are privileged under Section 499, Expl. (4). It is defamatory to say without cause, that anyone is excommunicated. The fact that all Mahomodans are generally speaking of one caste does not make it any the less defamatory and the word 'caste' is not entirely confined to Hindus. It refers to any class who keep themselves socially distinct...
(Gadiraju) Venkatappayya and anr. Vs. Kasarabada Venkatachalapathi Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad450
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs' suit is for a declaration that the plaint property belongs to them and is not liable to attachment in execution of the decree obtained by the 1st defendant against the 2nd defendant. Both the Courts have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. The first point raised by Mr. Somasundaram for the appellants is that there is no valid attachment on the property and, therefore, it cannot be brought to sale in execution of the decree of the 1st defendant. A few facts are necessary to understand the contentions between the parties. The 1st defendant obtained a money-decree in O. S. No. 38 of 1912 in the Munsif's Court against the 2nd defendant, and applied for execution of the decree on 12th March 1914, and an order was passed for attaching the 2nd defendant's property. The 2nd defendant appealed against the decree and an order for staying execution was passed by the appellate Court on 13th March 1914. The stay order wa...
Gogineni Gopayya and ors. Vs. Manikonda Sobhanadri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad188
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bezwada, in M. A. No. 12 of 1926 dismissing their appeal against the order of the District Munsif of Nuzvid in C. M. P. No. 660 of 1926, by which they have been ordered to remove earth and restore bunds upon their lands so as to allow the counter-petitioner to take water to his land by right of the easement which he claims.2. The counter-petitioner is claiming this easement both by prescription and as of necessity. There is a channel supplying his land from the main irrigation channel and the Munsif finds that he has also taken water from the channel now in dispute and he also finds that the balance of convenience is in the conuter-petitioners' favour. The learned Subordinate Judge remarks that the only question which needs consideration in a matter like this, is whether the plaintiff has shown that the balance of convenience is on his side and it is quite inopportune at this stage that the Court should tr...
(Gogineni) Gopayya and ors. Vs. (Gogineni) Ankayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad210
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bezwada, in M. A. No. 13 of 1926, dismissing their appeal against the order of the District Munsif, Nuzvid, in C. M. P. No. 596 of 1926 by which they have been ordered to remove earth from a channel and form bunds in order to allow water to flow freely. The counter-petitioner owns Survey No. 208 and claims that through the opening D 1 in the suit plan, water is both supplied and taken off. The petitioners by filling in portions of the channel further to the east have interfered with these rights. Accordingly the District Munsif after inspecting the ground and finding that if the channel is not cleared as prayed the crop in the northern and eastern portion of the land may suffer for want of water and of drainage, has issued a mandatory injunction. This has been confirmed by the Sub-Judge, but with no special reference to the facts of this case.2. It may be observed at once that the closure of the channel at...
Banathoor Nellipatta Krishnan Namboodripad Vs. Chathothparkum Komath A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad59; (1926)51MLJ633
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff prefers this Second Appeal against the decree granted to him redeeming the kanom in so far as it has disallowed him interest upon the amount of Government revenue which he paid on default of payment by the 1st defendant, the mortgagee. Under the terms of the marupat the mortgagee was to pay the annual pattom towards the interest on his othi amount and towards the assessment. Even if this express provision had not been contained in the mortgage deed, Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act lays down that a mortgagee in possession is bound to pay the Government revenue. The plaintiff's claim to reimbursement accordingly is provided for by Section 69 of the Indian ConL tract Act and the question is whether such reimbursement may legally include a claim to interest upon the money expended. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected this claim because it cannot be treated as a debt recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendant and because the plaintiff ...
Siluvaimuthu Mudaliar Vs. Muhammad Sahul and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad84; (1926)51MLJ648
Reilly, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has found that the defendants 1 to 3 as a firm owed money to Ramaswami Mudaliar and Mahalinga Mudaliar as a firm. Ramaswami Mudaliar and Mahalinga Mudaliar dissolved their partnership and divided between them the outstanding debt due to them from the firm of defendants 1 to 3. After that Ramaswami Mudaliar assigned his share of the debt to plaintiff. Plaintiff, alleging that the whole debt was Rs. 599-12-o, out of which Ramaswami's share was Rs. 449-12-0, sued to recover the latter amount with interest. He presented his plaint without impleading Mahalinga on 6th October, 1922. More than a year later, Mahalinga having died, meanwhile, he added Mahalinga's representative as defendant 4 on 1st December, 1923. By that date, it is admitted, the claim against the firm of defendants 1 to 3 would have been barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge holding that Mahalinga or his representative was a necessary party and that therefore the suit was not properly...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »