Chennai Court October 1927 Judgments
Rajagopala Naidu Vs. Subbammal and anr. and Ramachandran, Minor by Mot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ703
William Phillips, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. I have had the advantage of having road the judgment about to be pronounced by my learned brother, in which I concur, and will, only briefly give my reasons.2. In this case we are agreed in respect of the major portion of the suit claim but have differed in respect of one item. It is now contended for the respondents that under Section 98 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure the decree appealed from must be confirmed. This contention is based on the language of that section which says:where there is no such majority which concurs in a judgment varying or reversing the decree appealed from, such decree shall be confirmed.This is a possible interpretation of that section and has been adopted by the Lahore High Court in Punjab Akhbarat and Press Co. v. Ogilvie ILR (1925) Lah. 179. A contrary view was taken by myself and Venkatasubba Rao, J., in Appeal No. 223 of 1920 (unreported). To accept the respondent's contention would lead to extraordinary res...
Tag this Judgment!Pattanna Vs. Neeli Chetty Ramiah Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1197; 108Ind.Cas.297
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tiruvallur refusing to set aside the order declaring defendant 2 ex parte in a pending suit. Defendant 2 appeared and filed a written statement and afterwards did not appear and he was declared ex parte. Considerable time afterwards he appeared and wanted the ex-parte order to ,be set aside. The District Munsif refused to set aside the order making him ex parte as it was passed so far back as 22nd August 1925. When a person once files a written statement and then absents himself and in consequence is made ex parte, if ha afterwards appears and wants to fight the suit, he should be allowed to come in at the stage at which the suit is. He should not be shut out altogether on the ground that he was once placed ex parte. This point was decided by my brother Wallace, J., so far back as 27th July 1925. The case is reported in Venkatasubbiah v. Lakahsminarasimham A. I. R. 1925 Mad. 1274 It does not appear that...
Tag this Judgment!Muthiah Servai and ors. Vs. N.K.R. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad199a
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga refusing to raise an issue at the instance of defendant 2. Defendant 2 is the father of defendant 1. The suit is on a mortgage bond executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 2 raised several contentions, one of which was that the property mortgaged was his own self-acquisition and that defendant X had no right to the property. The Subordinate Judge framed several issues, the first wasIs the bond sued on true, and duly attested' supported by consideration and binding on defendants 2 to 5.2. The issue that is sought to be raised now is whether the hypotheca is the self-acquired property of defendant 2 in which defendant 1 has no interest. The learned Subordinate Judge relying upon a decision of this Court in Rukmani Ammal v. Ankama Naidu : AIR1926Mad744 , has disallowed defendant 2's application. In a mortgage suit it is not proper that the title of a person who claims adve...
Tag this Judgment!Avudayappa Pillai Vs. T.S. Thillai Thandavaraya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad320
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff and defendant each own lands under two tanks, the tanks themselves being owned by plaintiff. The tanks were breached. The defendant pressed to have them repaired after joint consultation and under the supervision of their respective agents. The plaintiff preferred to do the work himself, and demanded contribution from the defendant. Hence this suit for Rs. 554-1-1 alleged to be defendant's share of the costs. The trial Court decreed the suit; the lower appellate Court decreed for Rs. 277-0-6. The defendant appeals.2. The plaintiff sued originally on the assumption that he had acted in consultation with defendant's agent as demanded by defendant, but this has been found to be untrue. He therefore falls-back upon the plea that there was either an implied contract, or he is entitled to compensation under Section 70', Contract Act. As soon as it is found that plaintiff did not consult defendant's manager as stipulated by defendant, it must be held that he did not ac...
Tag this Judgment!(Majety) Krishnayya Vs. Kuppala Nookayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad476
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in Small Cause Suit No. 234 of 1924.2. The first point raised is that the defendant is not liable for charges incurred for facilitating the sending of goods, or in other words he is not liable for the bribes or presents to the railway officials in order to facilitate the sending of goods.; Though this is an improper payment the petitioner has been a consenting party to the payment and has had the benefit of it; he cannot now turn round and say he is not liable to the plaintiff for the amount so paid. I disallow this objection.3. The second point is that the petitioner is not liable for the price of gunny bags as they were not of the proper quality. The Subordinate Judge has allowed a sum of Rs. 57-12-0 on account of the poor quality of gunny bags. There is nothing in this point.4. The next point is that the petitioner is not liable for the charges incurred by the plaintiff for sending men for...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Sundaraswamiar and ors. Vs. K.R. Narayanaswamiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1107
Devadoss, J.1. Those are three connected applications to revise the order of the District Judge of Tanjore remanding for trial and disposal certain petitions. The appeals to the lower appellate Court were against orders in execution of rent decrees pending before the Court of the Sub-Collector of Kumbakonam Division. The District Judge found that there was no proper enquiry and set aside the order of the lower Court and remanded the petitions for fresh disposal. Against the order of the District Judge these revision petitions have been filed.2. The contention of Mr. Vinayaka Rao for the petitioner is that the appeal to the lower appellate Court was incompetent as under the Estates Land Act the right of appeal against orders under Order 21, Rule 92 has been taken away by Section 192, Estates Land Act, and therefore the order of the lower appellate Court was without jurisdiction. This contention is no doubt correct. Under Clause (a), Section 192, Estates Land Act, the right 'of appeal ag...
Tag this Judgment!S. Sivarama Iyer Vs. M.G. Sundararajulu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad922; 108Ind.Cas.784
1. The appellant brought this suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell entered into by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 3 had previously brought a partition suit against defendants 1 and 2 and had impleaded defendant 6 on the ground that he claimed a right under this agreement to sell. In that suit defendant 6 was ex parte and it was finally compromised between the then plaintiff and the other defendants and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. Under this decree the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. To this decree defendant 6 is a party and although he was not a party to the compromise by his abstention from appearance, he must be deemed to have consented to any decree that the Court might think fit to pass in accordance with the prayers in the plaint. If he thought that he was injured by this compromise behind his back, it was open to him to have applied to have the ex-parte decree against him set aside, or possibly appealed against that decree which, a...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Iyer and anr. Vs. N. Krishnaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.753
1. This appeal is against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte decree which was passed against the two defendants, the appellants on 13th March, 1924. Neither of the defendants were personally served. The final attempt to serve them was on 2nd February, 1924, at their houses. The return of the process-server is to the effect that as both were absent the process was affixed to their residence. As there seemed some doubt as to whether both were living in the same house we sent the case down to the lower Court for a finding as to whether the two defendants were at the time of service living in one house, and if not, to which house did the process-server affix the process. The findings are that the defendants were living in different house's and that the process was affixed to each house, Objections have been put into these findings. We can see no reason for not accepting the findings.2. In his affidavit in this petition to set aside the ex parte, decree, the 1st defendant stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Majety Krishnayya Vs. Kuppala Nookayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1927
Reported in: 109Ind.Cas.649
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in Small Cause Suit No. 234 of 1924.2. The first point raised is that the defendant is not liable for charges incurred for facilitating the sending of goods or in other words he is not liable for the bribes or presents to the Railway officials in order to facilitate the sending of goods. Though this is an improper payment the petitioner has been a consenting party to the payment and has had the benefit of it; he cannot now turn round and say he is not liable to the plaintiff for the amount so paid. I disallow this objection.3. The second point is that the petitioner is not liable for the price of gunny bags as they were not of the proper quality. The Subordinate Judge has allowed a sum of Rs. 57-12-0 on account of the poor quality of gunny bags. There is nothing in this point.4. The next point is that the petitioner is not liable for the charges incurred by the plaintiff for sending men for c...
Tag this Judgment!Appu L.R.M. Lakshmanan Chetti Vs. Mncpl. Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad208
Reilly, J.1. I agree with the learned Small Cause Court Judge that the petitioner's suit is barred by Section 354 (2), Madras District Municipalities Act. The allegations in the plaint are consistent with the provisions of the Act having been complied with in substance and effect. It is alleged that, when the petitioner appealed against his assessment, no order on his appeal was communicated to him. That, if so, was discourteous. But there appears to be no provision in the Act or the rules under it requiring the decision on such an appeal to be communicated formally to the appellant. Apart from that alleged defect in procedure the petitioner complains that ho has been assessed most arbitrarily without reference to facts and figure.2. Mr. Kesava Aiyangar argues for him that no assessment which is incorrect does in substance and effect comply with the provisions of the Act-that an incorrect assessment has no legal basis. If that argument is accepted, then Section 354 (2), of the Act is n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »