Chennai Court January 1927 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.
V. Panduranga Bhatta Vs. M. Krishna Nayak and Sons and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad889
1. A. S. No. 211 of 24. I have come to the conclusion, not without considerable reluctance, that this appeal must be allowed. The case was brought on two promissory notes, dated the 10th April, and the other the 2t5h April 1923, and there is no doubt that some of the defendants were previously engaged in the conduct of a motor bus concern known as the Canara Transport Co. It seems to me clear that efforts were made which eventually succeeded to get the appellant Panduranga Bhatta into this business to set it on its feet, because it was in or about the beginning of 1923 in a very bad way and owed money to several creditors of whom the plaintiff was one. The learned Judge relied upon a document, Ex. 4, as proving not merely that the appellant Panduranga Bhatta was a partner as and from its date as he had been before and that was to cover the promissory note of the 10th April. In my opinion, the document when looked at clearly indicates that it was meant to speak as from the date that it ...
Konakalla Rama Rao Vs. Nallari Pitchayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ131
Ramesam, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit filed before the Village Panchayat Court of Bezwada to recover Rs. 21 and odd. The suit was based on two documents, Exhibits A and B, dated 2nd February and 13th January, 1923 respectively. The Panchayat Court found that these two documents ought to be stamped with a stamp of three annas each and collected Rs. 5-3-0 for each document, consisting of three annas for stamp and five rupees for penalty, and decreed the claim. There was a revision petition to the District Munsif's Court of Bezwada under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act (I of 1889) . The District Munsif held that the Village Court could not levy penalty in respect of a promissory note. He construed Exhibits A and B to be promissory notes and that the suit failed as it was based on unstamped promissory notes. He also held that the village panchayat exercised jurisdiction not vested by law or otherwise acted illegally, and reversed the decision of the Panchayat...
Abdul Kadi Rowther and anr. Vs. Uthumansa Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad722
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the plaintiff-respondent obtained a decree under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for possession of the property and also for mesne profits. It is argued that the lower Court is wrong in passing a decree for mesne profits, as the passing of such a decree does not come within the scope of a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. This argument is clearly supported by the decision of this Court in Thavasi v. Arumugam [1915] 30 M. L. J. 326 Following this decision. I set aside the lower Court's decree so far as it relates to mesne profits. In other respects the lower Court's decree will stand. The petitioner will get his costs in this Court....
In Re: Donepudi Rangayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1111
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioners' vakil wished me to go into the merits of the appellate Court's order of remand, but does not show me that it had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. This is a line of attack which is not admissible in applying for revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. Nor can I find that, having regard to the Full Bench case in Kristnamma Naidu v. Chapa Naidu [1894] 17 Mad. 410 (F. B.) the learned Subordinate Judge acted with material irregularity. The petition is dismissed....
Muthu K.R.N. Muthia Chettiar Vs. M.B.P.R.E.S.P. Ekappa Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad598; (1927)52MLJ597
Ramesam, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition under S.I 15 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act.for revising the order of the District Munsif of Devakottah dated 24th January, 1925. This order is an order granting time to the respondents' sureties to produce the judgment-debtor on 2nd February, 1925. The petitioner before me who is the decree-holder impeaches the correctness of the District Munsif's order. For the following reasons I think it is unnecessary for me to express any opinion as to whether this order is correct 6r not. If I come to a conclusion that the order is erroneous, it is merely giving my opinion on a question of law because the respondent had the benefit of the extension of time and the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition comes before me two years after the extension of time, and the setting aside of the order of the Lower Court is meaningless except for an indirect purpose. It will have a bearing on the question whether th...
Tangella Narasimhaswami, Dharmakartha of Sri Kodanda Ramachandra Moort ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad636; 103Ind.Cas.302; (1927)53MLJ203
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside an order passed against the plaintiff who attached the properties in execution of a decree which he obtained against the 2nd defendant. A claim was preferred by the 1st defendant alleging that the land was dedicated by the 2nd defendant to Sri Kodanda Ramachandra Moorthy Varu and that possession was given to him as Dharma-kartha. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the property passed to the temple but this decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that Ex. I which is produced as evidence of the dedication requires registration and as it was not registered no title passed to the idol. It is contended in Second Appeal by the appellant that the document does not require registration as (1) it is a document constituting a religious trust and neither Section 5 of the Trusts Act nor Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act applies, (2) that the dedication to the templ...
Adinarayana Reddi Vs. Subbarayal Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1116a
Jackson, J.1. Appeal against the judgment and decree in A Section 231 of 22, District Court, South Arcot (O. S. 93 of 1921, District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore).2. Plaintiff sued to recover possession of property bought from the defendant 1 under two sale deeds and for Rs. 191 for mesne profits and damages for use and occupation from defendants 2 to 8. The District Munsif found that the plaint transactions were sham and dismissed the suit. The District Judge decreed the suit in part. The plaintiff appeals and defendant 3 files a memorandum of objections.3. Defendant 2 is married to the daughter of defendant 1, defendant 3 was defendant 2's minor son. In order to discharge two mortgages defendant 2 sold the entire family property to defendant 1 and defendant 1 subsequently sold it to plaintiff.4. The District Munsif has given good reasons for finding the transactions to be sham, but the learned District Judge has preferred to hold that inasmuch as plaintiff paid off the mortgages, the sa...
Muthu K.R.N. Muthia Vs. M.B.P.R.E.S.P. Ekappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1927
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.646
Ramesam, J.1. This is a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act for revising the order of the District Munsif of Devakottah dated the 24th January, 1925. This order is an order granting time to the respondent's sureties to produce the judgment-debtor on 2nd February, 1925. [A] The petitioner before me who is the decree-holder impeaches the correctness of the District Munsif's order. For the following reasons 1 think it is unnecessary for me to express any opinion as to whether this order is correct or not. If I come to a conclusion that the order is erroneous, it is merely giving my opinion on a question of law because the respondent had the benefit of the extension of time and the disposal of the civil revision petition comes before me two years after the extension of time, and the setting aside of the order of the lower Court is meaningless except for an indirect purpose. It will have a bearing on the questi...
Subramania Aiyar Alias Gurumurthi Aiyar Vs. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ110
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued defendants 1 to 3 in ejectment, and the 4th and 5th defendants were subsequently im-pleaded as successive purchasers of the 3rd defendant's rights. On 27th November, 1923, an ex parte decree was passed against all the defendants. I will deal first with the case of the 5th defendant which is the subject of the C.R.P. No. 357. He applied to the trial Court to have the ex parte decree set aside and he also filed an appeal against the decree. The appeal was dismissed on 8th April, 1924, and later on 6th August, 1924 the District Munsif took up the application to set aside the ex parte decree and dismissed it. 1 here was an appeal against this decision and the Subordinate Judge reversed it and directed that the suit should be restored to file. The broad question now raised is one of jurisdiction--whether the District Munsif was competent to entertain the application to set aside the ex parte decree after an appeal from that decree had been dismissed. Admit...
Palepu Narayanamurthi Vs. Komali Chandrayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad790; (1927)53MLJ174
Waller, J.1. The suit is one for contribution. A suit was filed on a promissory note against the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and a decree was passed against them jointly. The whole of the decree amount was collected from the plaintiff, who seeks to recover half of it from the 1st defendant. The latter's defence is that he and the plaintiff were engaged in an illegal partnerships that the money was borrowed for that partnership and that, under the circumstances, a suit for contribution does not lie.2. It has been repeatedly held in this country, following the old English case of Merryweather v. Nixan (1799) 8 Term Rep. 186 that a suit for contribution between wrong-doers does not lie. In a case from Scotland Palmer v. Wick and Pulteneytown Steam Shipping Company, Ltd. (1894) AC 318 the House of Lords refused to follow that decision, holding that it was not founded on any principle of equity. The Lord Chancellor said in his judgment:Why, then, should a co-debtor, who has paid the who...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »