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.
T. Krishnajee Bhat Vs. Sadasiva Tawker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad249
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a suit by a minor plaintiff by his next friend against Defendants 1 to 8, who are alleged to be members of the firm Tawker & Sons, and the 9th defendant, the Official Assignee, who, it is alleged, represents the estate of the insolvent firm which became insolvent subsequent to the filing of the plaint, alleging that the firm of Tawker & Sons were trustees in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,000 deposited by the plaintiff's father with the firm in trust for plaintiff, that Tawker & Sons are now in insolvent circumstances and there was the danger of the money being lost; and, therefore, praying for the removal of the defendants from the trusteeship; for the appointment of a new trustee; and for directing the defendants to pay Rs. 10,000 with interest and for directing the Official Assignee to pay the same out of the assets of Defendants 1 to 8 in his hands.2. The case of the plaintiff is that, in August 1919, the 1st defendant acted as mediator in a claim by th...
A.R.A.R.S.M. Arunachallam Chetty Vs. C. Jagannatha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Mad1188
Beasley, J.1. The facts in this case are briefly as follows: The defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 62,000 odd in respect of partnership dealings, that being his alleged ascertained share of losses of the partnership. In respect of that Rs. 62,000, the defendant executed a promissory note and having executed the promissory note on 26th May 1923 he entered into an agreement which is called memorandum of agreement relating to the deposit of title-deeds and in that agreement it is recited amongst other things after setting out the ascertained liability of the defendant:Whereas the said C. Jagannatham Pillai has further agreed to deposit the title deeds relating to his properties his properties are then described by way of equitable mortgage to secure the repayment of the amount and interest covered by the promissory note dated 25th May 1923 executed by him.2. It further recites that:C. Jagannatham Pillai shall deposit the title-deeds set out in the schedule to the a...
Neelakantamier Vs. Chinnu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad216; (1927)52MLJ13
Devadoss, J.1. The only point in this second appeal is one of limitation. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The plaintiff brought this suit within three years of his attaining majority to set aside an alienation made by a limited owner. At the time of the alienation he was an infant and there were two persons, one his brother and another a cousin, who could have challenged the alienation. They did not choose to challenge it and the plaintiff's suit is more than twelve years after the date of the alienation. Mr. Sitarama Rao for the appellant contends that Section 7 of the Limitation Act applies and inasmuch as the plaintiff had a cause of action on the date of the alienation and as he was a minor at the time he could not have given a discharge till he attained majority and therefore the period of minority should be counted in his favour. Section 7 does not apply to the case of reversioners. The whole body of reversi...
Sundara Naicker Vs. Potti Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad192; (1926)51MLJ561
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Munsif, Sathur, in O.P. No. 24 of 1924, declining to act under Section 73, Madras Act I of 1889. A District Munsif has the widest discretion under this section and, even if facts are established bringing the case within one of the three categories which may warrant revision as set forth in the section, he may still exercise his discretion whether he will interfere. Therefore, it can only be in very rare and exceptional cases that the revisional powers of this Court will be attracted by any proceedings of a District Munsif under Section 73. The petitioner would have been on stronger ground if he had moved this Court to revise the judgment of the Panchayat Court itself, but in a petition confined to the decision of the Munsif, it cannot be said that he failed to exercise jurisdiction for he heard arguments from both sides and it cannot be said that he ought of necessity to have set aside the decree, because he has full di...
Ramakrishna Martoba Rao Kasbekar Vs. I. P. Fernandez and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad239
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this second appeal relates to relief against forfeiture. The lease is what is known as a mulgeni lease executed by parties in South Kanara. The lessees have been in possession of the land in question for nearly three quarters of a century. It is not denied that the defendants made default in payment of rent and under the terms of the lease this default entail forfeiture. The Court of first instance relieved against forfeiture absolutely, that is to say, no time was fixed for the payment of the arrears of rent. The' learned Subordinate Judge modified the Munsif's decree by providing that the rent shall be paid in two months: thus, although there has been some difference in a matter of detail, both the Courts have granted relief against forfeiture.2. For the plaintiff-appellant it is contended that the forfeiture cannot be relieved against. The argument is put in this way: Section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that the a...
Kattuva Rowther and anr. Vs. Suppan Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad307
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the judgment and sentence of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Shermadevi in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1925 confirming the sentence of the Sub-Magistrate of Ambasamudram in C.C. No. 337 of 1925 on the ground that the Court of trial had no jurisdiction.2. It was found that the 2nd appellant seized one Suppan Asari (P. W. 1) and tied him to a pillar. The 1st appellant would only release him if he paid Rs. 100. On payment of Rs. 75 Suppan Asari was released. This is a clear case of robbery and the petitioners moved both the Sub-Divisional and District Magistrates to transfer it from the file of the Sub-Magistrate who had no jurisdiction.3. The Public Prosecutor has not defended the District Magistrate's interpretation of Section 390, Indian Penal Code. Suppan Asari was in fear of instant wrongful restraint at the moment when he delivered the property in the presence of the accused. There may have been previous wrongful restraint with no extortio...
S. R. Swaminadha Aiyar and ors. Vs. Swaminatha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad458
Devadoss, J.1. The only question in this case is whether the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming the property which was given to Mangalammal under Ex. I. The learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit so far as this property is concerned on the ground of the equitable estoppel. The gift was by Subbaraya Sastri to his daughter Mangalammal under Ex. I. He had two sons Ramanatha Sastri and Vanji Sastri. Some time after the gift, Vanji Sastri wrote to the 1st respondent and begged him almost to buy the property from Mangalammal as she found it difficult to manage the property and as they were going to buy some other property for her in some other place. Relying upon this statement of Vanji Sastri, the 1st respondent purchased the property under Ex. II on 7-6-1908 which was attested by Ramanatha Sastri, the son of Subbaraya Sastri and the father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs bring this suit to have the alienation declared invalid. It is clear from Ex. I that Mangalam...
Mooka Pillai and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad444
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the sentence and judgment of the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly Division in C. A. No. 14 of 1925--imprisonment till the rising of the Court and Rs. 100 fine under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that they have already been acquitted of the same offence.2. The complaint is that the petitioner sold certain property to the complainant and induced him to part with the sale amount by cheating him into the belief that the property was unencumbered. The same transaction was the subject of trial in C. C. No. 81 of 1923 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly when complainant said that he was cheated into the belief that petitioners would make a deposit in repayment of certain debts.3. In a charge of cheating the complainant must establish that he was deceived, and thereby dishonestly induced to deliver property. The, question is whether he must disclose all the evidence of deception at the fi...
Sannasi Chetti Vs. Arunachala Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1137
Curgenven, J.1. This is a suit for contribution by one of two co-promisors under a promissory-note. The sole issue tried by the District Munsif was one of limitation. He has assumed that the payment which was made by the plaintiff under the decree in the suit brought by the holder of the note was on the 8th of March 1921, the date on which the decree was entered as satisfied. It appears from the plaintiff's evidence that satisfaction was effected by means of a promissorynote for Rs. 50, the balance being paid in cash. The question, therefore, arises whether the execution of a promissorynote is such a payment as would enable one of two creditors to sue the other for contribution. This question has been answered in the negative in Narayanamurthi Ayyar v. Marimuthu Pillai [1903] 26 Mad. 322 where a similar point came up for decision. It was pointed out that the principle of law applicable is that laid down in Section 145, Indian Contract Act, relating to the indemnification of a surety by...
Chandana Venkatasubbayya Vs. Gada Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ610
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the order of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam in A.S. No. 65 of 1924 (E.P. No. 258 of 1923 on the file! of the Court of the District Munsif of Avanigadda at Masulipatam).2. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 57 of 1918 filed an execution application on 26th June, 1922. The previous application was on 20th January, 1919.3. In order to save the bar of limitation the decree-holder relies upon a payment under Order 21, Rule 56 made on 31st October, 1919, alleging that such payment is tantamount to a payment by the debtor's agent duly authorised in this behalf as contemplated by Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act.4. The question for determination is whether this payment can be described as such.5. In O.S. No. 6 of 1911 on the file of the Bandar Addi-tional District Munsif there was deposited a sum of Rs. 514 to the credit of the plaintiff, Chandana Veeraswami. This sum was attached before judgment by the present respondent Seshayya wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »