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.
Dhurvas J. Subbayyar and Bros. by One of Its Partners Dhurvas J. Subba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ613
1. These appeals arise out of a contract for purchase and delivery of goods entered into by the appellant in each of the cases with the respondent. The contract has been filed as Ex. D, which, after describing the goods and the place where the goods were to be got from and delivered in paragraphs 1 and 2, goes on to say that the purchaser shall be bound by the contract he (respondent) entered into with his vendors and should take delivery of the goods. As regards the delivery of the goods and the advance, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 are material. They run as follows:On the very day on which the aforesaid two persons (their vendors) inform that the aforesaid bales have arrived here you should pay money and take delivery of the bales. Whenever the afore-specified bales are issued from the Mill you should take delivery of the same. We are not liable therefor. As the afore-specified advance money is with us without interest, as the bales are issued, according to the proportion of the advance, yo...
Chirapath Thamasikkum Kolathayi Kunhi Krishnan Nambiyar Vs. Puthiyotti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad189
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for the redemption of a kanom and it is sought to set off the decree amount obtained by him against the 1st defendant for arrears of rent against the kanom amount due by him to the 1st defendant. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were the original kanomdars from the plaintiff, have taken a kanom from the 1st defendant. The District Munsif gave a decree to sot off the decree amount due by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 appealed against the decree of the District Munsif. The District Judge has upheld the contention that the plaintiff could not set off the decree amount due from the 1st defendant against the kanom amount.2. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 obtained a kanom under Ex. IV from the plaintiff. The plaintiff gave a melcharth to the 1st defendant the marupat of which is Ex. A. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have taken a kanom from the 1st defendant under Ex. VI. The 1st defendant as kanomdar had to pay rent to the plaintiff, and as ...
Venkatrama Aiyar and ors. Vs. Krishnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad255; (1927)52MLJ20
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is for the possession of her husband's property and for a declaration that a gift deed and a settlement deed executed by him in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 were invalid as they were executed under undue influence. The District Munsif granted decree to the plaintiff in respect of Ex. IV, the gift deed, and dismissed the suit as regards the settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant. The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal agreeing with the District Munsif that Ex. IV was executed under undue influence. The defendants have preferred this second appeal. Mr. T.V. Venkatrama Aiyar for the appellants contends that there is no evidence of undue influence in the case and the lower Courts were wrong in recording a finding on the point without evidence.2. Mr. Subramania Aiyar, on the other hand, contends that the question of undue influence is one of fact; and both the Courts having...
A. Venkatachala Mudaliar Vs. Vedagiri Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad782
Odgers, J.1. In this second appeal the question arises as to whether a person called Guruswami Mudaliar had power to sell a certain house to the plaintiff, which he purported to do by Ex. A in 1914. He purported to sell as executor of one Thandavaroya Mudaliar who died in September 1881, having executed a will by which he appointed Guruswami Mudaliar and his widow executor and executrix respectively. At the time of his death it is not suggested that the testator had not full disposing power over the property in question. The will, however, contained an authority to the widow to adopt. The widow, in pursuance of the authority, adopted a boy five days after her husband's death on the 9th September 1881. The adopted son died in 1884. The question is: Does not the fact of a boy having been adopted to the deceased testator change the course of devolution of this property so as to put it out of the power of the executor to include it among the assets over which he had an administrative capac...
Murugesa Mudali Vs. Syed Alli and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1139
ORDEROdgers, J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge has found that the lease of the suit land Ex. B. is genuine. He also finds that the plaintiff leased the land to defendants 4 and 5 and father of defendants 3 to 6. A portion of the land was subsequently sold in 1902 to defendant 2 and the Subordinate Judge has found that from that date defendant 2's possession was adverse and, therefore, the plaintiff's suit is time barred in respect of that portion. He does not give any reason for holding that defendant 2 was in adverse possession and it is clear that if the sale to defendant 2 was effected while the tenancy under Ex. B was still subsisting, defendant 2's possession would not be adverse until the tenancy was put an end to. The Subordinate Judge has not considered the question of what happened to the lease Ex. B, which purports to be a tenancy-at-will and would go on from year to year until put an end to.2. Secondly, in the absence of a finding that the tenancy had been pat an end t...
The Firm of Pannaji Devichand Consisting of Partners and ors. Vs. Kapu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad123; (1926)51MLJ667
C.V. Kumaraswami Sastri, O.C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge in a suit for dissolution of partnership and the taking of partnership accounts. The plaint states that the partnership was formed between four firms which were unregistered. They were four unregistered firms which according to the plaint entered into one partnership in respect of certain bales of yarn. It is alleged that business was carried on and profits accrued and the prayer is that an account be taken of the profits due to the plaintiffs and given to them.2. When the appeal was taken up it was found that the total number of persons constituting the four firms which entered into this partnership to deal as a combined concern with these goods consisted of 22 persons and the question arose as to how far on the plaint such a partnership would be legal having regard to Section 4, Clause (2) of the Companies Act which states that-No company, association, or partnership, consisting of more th...
Periya Karupan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Somasundaram Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad67; (1926)51MLJ661
Reilly, J.1. The question is whether Somasundaram Chettiar is a person entitled to share in the rateable distribution of the proceeds of the sale in execution in the District Munsif's Court and so competent to maintain his petition under Rule 90 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code to set that sale aside. Somasundaram Chettiar never applied to the District Munsif's Court for the execution of his decree; but before the sale he had applied for execution to the Subordinate Judge's Court and had attached the property in question. Under Section 63, Civil Procedure Code, the proper Court to realise the property was the Court of higher grade that is the Subordinate Judge's Court. But apparently in ignorance of the attachment in the Subordinate Judge's Court the District Munsif ordered sale in his Court. The learned District Judge is of opinion that in this case the proceeds of the sale though actually received by the District Munsif must be deemed to have been received by him on behalf also of t...
M. A. Ananthalwar and anr. Vs. Narayana Prasad and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad190
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is an application by the decree-holders for an order absolute for sale of the property which in and by the decree was charged with the payment of the amount for which the decree was passed against the defendant on the ground that the judgment-debtor has made default in the payment of the amount. It appears that the Deputy Registrar issued on the execution application of the decree-holders notice to a person whose name appeared as a mortgagee on the certificate of encumbrances obtained by the decree-holders for purposes of execution. I do not see why or how it was necessary to issue any notice to the mortgagee at any rate for the purpose of making an order for sale. On his behalf, however, his counsel has now taken objection to the procedure proposed to be adopted by the decree-holders in bringing the property to sale. At first I was disposed to regard the objection made as one for bringing the property to sale in execution on the ground that the decree-hol...
(Noothalapati) Ankama Naidu Vs. (Noothalapati) Beeki Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad449
Devadoss, J.1. (Second Appeal No. 1818 of 1923). The first point in this second appeal is, what is the effect of the enfranchisement of the maniam inam in favour of the plaintiff. If the inam was excluded from the assets of the Zamindari I have no doubt under the ruling in Venkata jagannada v. Veerabhadrayya A. I. R. 1922 P. C. 96 the plaintiffs would get title to the property independently of and without reference to any right that any other member of his family might have had in the property before the enfranchisement. The Subordinate Judge has come to the conclusion that in the case of the Kalahasti estate in which this inam is situated the Government did not exclude from the Zamindari the inam lands in it. Mr. Chandrasekhara Aiyar for the appellant contends that he had no opportunity of meeting this case made out by the Subordinate Judge and that he should be given an opportunity to enquire and find out what the terms of the Istimrar Sannad are. The issue that was sent down by the ...
Misrikhan Khaleel Vs. the District Board Represented by the President, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1926
Reported in: (1926)51MLJ690
Curgenven, J.1. In 1921 tenders were invited for the contract of the Markapur toll-gate and the plaintiff's tender was accepted on the 28th March, 1921 by the President, District Board, subject to the Board's approval. In pursuance of this arrangement the plaintiff executed an agreement and deposited a sum of Rs. 100, whereupon he was authorised by the President to keep the toll-gate and make collections from the beginning of the year, 1st April. He continued to make collections for two or three days after which, owing to the non-co-operation movement, his work was interfered with and eventually on the 17th April proceedings of the District Board were passed refusing to accept the tender. The plaintiff accordingly sued the Board for damages for breach of contract.2. The question is whether the agreement between the President and the plaintiff constituted a valid contract which was binding on the District Board. Two arguments have been used to support this position one that the District...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »