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.
Julien Marret Vs. Mahomed Khaleel and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad443; 103Ind.Cas.31; (1927)53MLJ375
ORDER1. This is an application for leave to appeal against our decision. The respondents are Khalil Shirazi & Sons, the first respondents and Messrs. King and Partridge, second respondents. With regard to the first respondents we are clearly of the opinion that there is a substantial question of law to be decided. We had considerable difficulty ourselves in construing what was called in the course; of the trial the Indemnity bond. In our view the construction of a difficult document is a mixed question of law and fact and as regards the law we are clearly of the opinion that it is a substantial question. Therefore without saying anything more we grant the application of the appellants and give them leave to appeal against our decision with regard to the first respondents.2. With regard to the second respondents, Messrs. King and Partridge, the case is entirely different. The case against them was a claim for damages for negligence. It is contended here that the question of negligence o...
Dakshinamurthi Pillai Vs. Vedamurthy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.311; (1927)53MLJ440
1. Since the appellant was a party to the decree under execution and the matter relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, the case is one under Section 47, C. P. Code, and an appeal lies. See Meyyappa Chetty v. Chidambaram Chetty : (1920)39MLJ603 , Appia Rukmani Ammal v. Kuttuvava Narasimha Aiyar : AIR1921Mad612 and Abdul Kasim v. Thawbusami Pillai (1916) 5 LW 701. In this view it is open to a party to the decree to raise the question of limitation and the Lower Court was not justified in refusing to allow that point to be raised.2. We remand the case for a finding on the issue whether E. P. No. 150 of 1924 (4th April, 1924) is within time.3. Fresh evidence may be adduced on both sides. Finding should be submitted within six weeks and ten days will be allowed for filing objections.4. Note :--The case on the merits has been argued but not decided by us.5. In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly submitted...
Dakshinamurthy Pillai Vs. Vedamurthy Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad842
JUDGEMENT1. Since the appellant was a party to the decree under execution and the matter relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, the case is one under Section 47, Civil P. C., and an appeal lies: see Meyyappa Chetty v. Chidambaram Chetty Rukmani Ammal v. Narasimha Ayyar A. I. R. 1921 Mad. 612 Abdul Kasim v. Thambuswami Pillai [1917] 5 L. W. 701 In this view it is open to a party to the decree to raise the question of limitation and the lower Court was not justified in refusing to allow that point to be raised.2. We remand the case for a finding on the issue, whether E. P. No. 150 of 1924, (4th April 1924) is within time.3. Fresh evidence may be adduced on both sides.4. Finding should be submitted within six weeks, and ten days will be allowed for filing objections.5. Note.--The case on the merits has been argued but not decided by us.6. [In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment, the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly submitted the following...
Vellachamy Vs. K. P. A. N. R. Muthiah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1132; 103Ind.Cas.274
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner with certain others was in occupation of land which was formerly a charitable inam. On the ground that the charity was not being properly served the Government resumed the inam and directed the issue of ryotwari pattas. A rough patta was accordingly issued to the petitioner, among others, but upon an appeal by the former inamdars to the Settlement Officer this issue was cancelled and the inamdars themselves secured the pattas. The petitioner with his companions then sued for a declaration that he was entitled to the kudivaram interest, and this issue was decided by the District Munsif in his favour; but the Court found against them on the question of limitation and dismissed the suit. An appeal against that decision is now pending. Meanwhile the plaintiffs who are purchasers from the inamdars have brought suits against the individual occupants, One of whom is the petitioner, to recover rent from them for the period of three years before suit. The petition...
Subramania Iyer Alias Gurumurthi Ayyar Vs. Varadarajulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.146
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in ejectment, and the 4th and 5th defendants were subsequently impleaded as successive purchasers of the 3rd defendants' rights. On 27th November, 1923, an ex parte decree was passed against ail the defendants. I will deal first with the case of the 5th defendant which is the subject of 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. There 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. Admi...
Durai Vs. Duraiswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad948
1. Defendant 2 is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit which relates to the management of certain religious and charitable trusts. The parties to the suit are Christians. The plaintiff's suit was mainly for a declaration that four persons viz., himself, defendants 5 and 6 and defendant 2 are entitled to manage the suit charity lands once in four years by force of a will executed by one Yaga Pillai ( Ex. B) in 1898. The contesting defendants viz., defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that the will did not bind them, that the suit was not maintainable without sanction under Section 92, Civil P. C., and that it was barred by limitation.2. The undisputed facts of the case are these; the plaintiff and defendants 5 and 6, are brothers and are the sons of the deceased Yaga Pillai. Yaga Pillai had a brother called Anandam Pillai, who had an only son Sourinayagam Pillai whose son was Appavu who died leaving defendant 1 his widow, a few daughters and three sons, of whom defendant 2 is th...
Ganapathi Hedge and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad969
Jackson, J.1. The accused was prosecuted for not registering annually his motor vehicle as required by Rule 30 (1) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules 1923. The Sub-Magistrate acquitted him holding that annually means once some time in 1926, once some time in 1927, and so on. I am not prepared to say that this was wrong. If the time was strictly to run for twelve months it would have been said so--vide form G condition 1.2. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed....
W. Subbalakshmi Ammal Vs. Narasimiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad586; (1927)52MLJ482
1. These two appeals, arise out of O.S. No. 14 of 1922 in the Court of the District Judge of Chingleput which was instituted under the following circumstances: The plaintiffs in the suit two undivided brothers, are the sons of one of the sisters of one Venusamiah who died on the 4th of June, 1917. The 1st defendant is the widow of Samiaha divided brother of the said Venusamiah who had also a younger brother Seetharamaiah. The latter died leaving a widow Kanni Ammal, who died on the 4th April, 1917. The properties in her possession came to Venusamiah who enjoyed them till his death. It is alleged in the plaint that the suit properties consisting of those which belonged to Venusamiah and Kanni Ammal were in the enjoyment of Venusamiah, that the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to these properties under the Hindu Law and the 1st defendant who had no right whatever to the properties took unlawful possession of them along with others after Venusamiah's death. Consequent on disputes betwee...
Kamisetty Raja Rao Vs. T. Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad566; (1927)52MLJ647
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Guntur, in C.C. No. 4 of 1926 refusing to take cognizance of a complaint against the Chairman of the Municipal Council, Tenali, under Section 54(a), Act V of 1920, because sanction had not been obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The offence in question is threatening a voter with injury to his property with intent to induce such voter to vote for any candidate or to abstain from voting.3. The petitioner would have it that this was done while the Chairman was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty within the terms of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. The section presents no difficulty if the obvious intention of the Legislature is borne in mind. It is no part British policy to set an official above the common law. If he commits a common offence he has no peculiar privilege. But if one of his official acts is alleged to be an offence, ...
Rachapudi Bhavanarayana and ors. Vs. Kolla Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad775
1. The only point argued is that Art. 115 Limitation Act, applies, and reliance is placed on Eusin Sirkar v. Barada Kishore Acharya [1910] Cri. L. J. 43 and Jogesh Chandra v. Benoda Lal Roy [1910] 14 C. W. N. 122 Both these cases have been dissented from in Madhusudan Sen v. Rakhal Chandra [1913] 43 Cal. 248 where it is pointed out that the view in these cases is not consonant with that of the Privy Council in Asgar Ali Khan v. Khurshad Ali Khan [1902] 24 All. 27.2. In the present case, there is no question of breach of contract or compensation payable for such breach. The parties were to look into the accouuts of each other to ascertain who made the larger profit and to pay over a portion to the other to equalize the profit, each trading independently of the other. That was the arrangement made, and this suit is to take such an account, and ascertain who owes whom and give a decree for the amount payable, We are unable to agree that such a suit can be treated as a suit for compensatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »