Chennai Court September 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.
Krishnasami Pattar Vs. Gopalakrishna Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad421
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Chingleput, in S. C. S. No. 283 of 1924.2. Petitioner and first defendant executed a pro-note in favour of one Perundevi Ammal, the petitioner being only a surety. First defendant sold his property to second defendant on the condition that the second defendant would pay off Perundevi Ammal among other creditors. Petitioner paid Perundevi Ammal and sued second defendant as well as first defendant. The lower Court was apparently prepared to hold that Perundevi Ammal would be entitled to sue defendant; but unsuited petitioner as against second defendant because he was only a surety claiming by reason of his having discharged the debt. Hence the petition.3. The counter-petitioner seeks to uphold the judgment on the ground that even Perundevi Ammal would have no right to sue, and he relies upon Iswaram Pillai v. Taragan [1915] 38 Mad. 753 which lays down that a stranger to the contract cannot sue the promisor. But...
Quadiar Badsha Rowther Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad470
ORDERJackason, J.1. Petitioner has been sentenced to two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 55 (a), Mad. Act 1 of 1886, read with Section 61, and to a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 56 (b) read with Section 64.2. It is found that accused, the renter of an arrack shop, ordered his servant P. W. 4 illicitly to transport four gallons of arrack to Madura which was seized by the abkari officers in the course of transport. The Sub-Magistrate finds. on these facts that accused abetted the commission of an offence under Section 55 (a). He presumably means that the accused arranged for the transfer, though he did not actually carry the stuff himself, which is, to transport with in the meaning of Section 55 (a). He cannot be using 'abet' in its technical sense. Coupling Section 55 (a) with Section 61 must be a mistake, but it has not prejudiced the petitioner. He also finds that opening the shop and keeping false accounts was done in breach of the license by persons in accused's employ; a...
V. Chinnamalu Vs. C. Kunhikanna Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad625
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat in E. P. No. 637 of 1925.2. Two decrees were outstanding against petitioner, one in S. C. S. No. 132 of 1924 against her personally and against the assets of her mother; and one in S. C. S. No. 694 of 1924 against the assets only. She sold a house which apparently was her mother's own asset, and discharged the decree in S. C. S. No. 132 of 1924. The Subordinate Judge finds that this was a fraud against the decree-holder in S. C. S. No. 694 of 1924 because there is nothing left for him to proceed against. Hence the petition to revise. The learned Subordinate Judge cites no authority for holding that such payment is a fraud. His attention was drawn to Veerasokka-raju v. Papiah [1903] 26 Mad. 792 and he should have observed the general applicability of the dictum, every payment on account of a debt is perfectly lawful payment irrespective of its effect upon the other creditors. The contrary view would a...
Sovanna Muna Kumaraswami Aiyar and anr. Vs. Pana Lana Suna Ana Runa Sa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad328; (1927)52MLJ84
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Madura on a suit brought for the recovery of an advance paid by the plaintiff to the defendants in respect of a yarn contract in August 1918. The plaintiffs contracted to purchase yarn from the defendants 25 bales which was to be delivered and taken up on intimation by the defendants that these bales were ready for delivery. As to one bale there is no question. The defendants sent a letter of intimation under the contract and the plaintiffs accepted the bale and paid for it. The question has ranged round the matter of 4 bales. The defendants contended that they gave intimation of the arrival and readiness for delivery of 4 bales to the plaintiffs, whereas the plaintiffs denied that any such intimation had ever been received by them. The first Court found that the intimation had been received but was invalid. The learned District Judge found that the intimation was perfectly in order and that the plaintiffs ...
M.P.P.S.T. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Valliammai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad184; (1926)51MLJ745
1. The question which this appeal raises is whether, on the death of a decree-holder who is in course of executing his decree, his legal representative may be substituted in the execution petition and may continue it. The learned Judge has acceded to the request of the widow of the transferee decree-holder to be so brought on in a pending petition, and the judgment-debtors appeal.2. Although Mr. A. Krishnaswami Aiyar has endeavoured to persuade us that, where a right to pursue a remedy survives, it follows on general principles that a legal representative has a right to continue a proceeding initiated by his predecessor, we have no doubt that the question must be answered by reference to the specific terms of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 146 of the Code is of no assistance, because it merely enacts that, save as otherwise provided, a proceeding which may be taken by any person may be taken by any other claiming under him. Since a decree-holder may file an execution petition, hi...
(Gutta) Punnayya Vs. (Kaza) Parandamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad317
Devadoss, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs brought a suit basing their claim on title. Both the lower Courts found against the plaintiffs on the question of title and the lower appellate Court granted them a decree on the ground that they had acquired an easement right over the lane in question. The learned Judge whose order is appealed against found that no specific issue had been raised on the point and that the judgment of the District Judge was not satisfactory and he framed an issue as to easement and ordered the case to be sent down to the lower appellate Court for a. finding on the issue. The 2nd defendant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the order appealed against is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The question for decision is: Is the order of the learned judge a judgment within the meaning of the clause.2. Mr. T. V. Venkatarama Aiyar for the a...
K. Senga Naicken and anr. Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad245
Odgers, J.1. This was a suit by two inhabitants of Thidavoor, Athur taluq, Salem District, against the Secretary of State for a declaration that certain notifications and subsequent proceedings taken by the Government officials under the Land Acquisition Act are illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiffs are the owners of the property in question which was acquired for the purpose of forming a road by a Government notification, dated 14th September 1918. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit. On appeal to the learned Judge the same result was reached. It appears that the cost of the road was defrayed by private contributions and that the Government added the sum of one anna from public revenue. When the second appeal first came on before Mr. Justice Viswanatha Sastri and myself, we found that a similar discussion as to whether the provisions of Section 6, Clause (1) had been complied with was under discussion in Ponnia v. Secretary of State A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 1099 before Spencer ...
(Chozimatathingal) Thareekutti Haji and ors. Vs. M. Isanau and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad431
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed for proclaiming and selling properties in execution of the mortgage-decree in O. S. No. 45 of 1920 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of South Malabar at Calicut. The 4th defendant in the suit is the appellant before us. The properties belonged to the first defendant. It appears that some of these properties had been mortgaged to the 4th defendant who had instituted O. S. No. 35 of 1913 to enforce that mortgage. After obtaining a preliminary decree his claims were satisfied by the execution by the mortgagor of a fresh mortgage for Rs. 60,000. Together with the advance of some money and for the balance that remained a final decree was passed on the 18th November 1918 in execution of which the items mortgaged to him were ultimately purchased by he decree-holder himself. The mortgage which formed the subject-matter of O. S. No. 45 of 1920 was executed on the 24th of April 1916, and comprised these properties as well as other propertie...
Muthaya thevan and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Mad475
ORDER1. This appeal is by two persons convicted by a jury on a majority of 4 to 1 of offences of house-breaking by night, robbery with hurt, and against one of them, grievous hurt in committing robbery. The learned vakil for the appellants is satisfied with the major portion of the charge to the jury, which in fact was evidently a summing up for an acquittal. He however put forward three points for consideration of this Court which will be better understood if the slight consideration of the details of the case is set out.2. The general prosecution case was that on the night of 7th January 1926, P. W. 1 and his family were attacked by robbers, of whom the appellants were two, who inflicted hurt on them and carried off a huge wooden box belonging to P. W. l's wife. In committing Court it was sought to connect the appellants with the crime by evidence that in the box stolen were certain jewels which had been pledged with P. W. 1 and which had been recovered from the appellants, and witne...
In Re: Muthaya thevan Alias Ramasami thevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1926
Reported in: 100Ind.Cas.531
1. This appeal is by two persons convicted by a Jury by a majority of 4 to 1 of offences of house-breaking by night, robbery with hurt, and against one of them grievous hurt in committing robbery. The learned Vakil for the appellants is satisfied with the major portion of the charge to the Jury, which in fact was evidently a summing up for an acquittal. He, however, put forward three points for the consideration of this Court which will be better understood if a slight consideration of the details of the case is set out.2. The general prosecution case was that on the night of 7th January, 1926, P.W. No. 1 and his family were attacked by robbers, of whom the appellants were two, who inflicted hurt on them and carried off a large wooden box belonging to P.W. No. 1's wife. In the committing Court it was sought to connect the appellants with the crime by evidence that in the box stolen were certain jewels which had been pledged with P.W. No. 1 and which had been recovered from the appellan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »