Chennai Court October 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.
Kavuri Subbiah Vs. Yabursu Bala Tripura Sundara Boyamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad278
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The respondent in this civil revision petition has not appeared and therefore on behalf of the petitioner it has been argued ex parte. But giving the matter such consideration as I have-been able to give I have come to the conclusion that the order of the lower Court was clearly wrong and without jurisdiction. The petitioner in this Court was respondent in a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis. Pending the disposal of that petition the petitioner died, and thereupon the respondent in this Court applied to the lower Court as the mother and legal representative of the deceased petitioner to be brought on the record as the legal representative of the deceased petitioner, and for being allowed further to prosecute the petition. I do not see anything in the petition itself to the effect that she was either prepared to continue the proceedings paying the necessary Court-fee in respect of the petition allowing the same being treated as a plaint or anything to ...
Kalluri Punnayya Vs. Kalluri Lakshminarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad448
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application by the respondent in A.S. 414 of 1924 under Sections 109 and 110, Civil P.C., for permission to appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment and decree of this Court in that appeal. By that judgment and decree this Court set aside the decision in O.S. 7 of 1923 on the file of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge of Bapatla. As the decision sought to be appealed against is a reversing one, the question for consideration is as regards the value of the land which forms the subject-matter of the suit and the appeal. The petitioner's case is that its value is at least Rs. 10,000 so that the condition laid down by Section 110, Civil P.C., viz., that the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance must be Rs. 10,000 or upwards and the value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council must be the same sum or upwards is satisfied in this case. It has also been argued that even if the value of...
Kappal Nadar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad928
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tuticorin. The judgment-is not a satisfactory one. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not seem to have made notes of the evidence of the witnesses. Though it is a summary trial, yet the Court trying the case summarily is not relieved of the duty of making a precis of the evidence adduced before it. I therefore, set aside the conviction of accused 1, but considering the trivial nature of the offence, I think it is unnecessary to order a retrial. But this order would not in any way affect the civil rights of the parties....
Sri Maruti Swamiar Vs. A. Subramania Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad393
1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of an application by the appellant to set aside an ex-parte final decree passed in a mortgage suit. The present appellant was a minor at the date of the institution of the mortgage suit. His father was appointed his guardian ad litem, the father being the executant of the mortgage bond. Some defences were raised by the father and a preliminary decree was passed. After the passing of, the preliminary decree, the present appellant became a major, but it does not appear that any notice went to him before the final decree was passed. The petitioner appellant applied to the Subordinate Judge to set aside the ex-parte final decree on the ground that he was not served with notice, and that his father, whose interests were adverse to him and ought not to have been appointed his guardian, did not properly represent him when the preliminary decree was passed and that certain defences which were set out in his petition and which ought to have been raised...
A.S. Rangesa Rao Vs. A. Swaminatha Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.414
Devadoss, J.Criminal Revision Case No. 403 of 1927.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Second Class Sub-Magistrate of Kodavasal in a proceeding launched by the Taluk Board of Naunilam under Section 221 of the Local Boards Act. The counter petitioner was assessed to profession tax in the sum of Rs. 160 and he not having paid it the Board sent the case to the Magistrate for action under Section 221. The Magistrate on the objection of the counter-petitioner went into the question whether he was liable to be assessed at Rs. 160 or at a lower figure. The Magistrate is not competent to inquire into the propriety of assessment which is entirely within the province of the Board. The section says; 'The amount or apportionment of any such sum shall in case of dispute be ascertained by such Magistrate.' He can only determine the amount if the amount claimed is disputed on the ground that it has been paid wholly or partly or that some one else is the aseeesee and not he. But the s...
Sri Maruthi Swamiar Vs. A. Subramania Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1927
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.831
1. This is an appeal against the dismissal of an application by the appellant to set aside an ex parte final decree passed in a mortgage suit. The present appellant was a minor at the date of the institution of the mortgage suit. His father was appointed his guardian ad litem, the father being the executant of the mortgage-bond. Some defences were raised by the father and a preliminary decree was passed. After the passing of the preliminary decree, the present appellant became a major, but it does not appear that any notice went to him before the final decree was passed. The petitioner-appellant applied to the Subordinate Judge to set aside the ex parte final decree on the ground that he was not served with notice, and that his father whose interests were adverse to him ought not to have been appointed his guardian and did not properly represent him when the preliminary decree was passed, that certain defences which were set out in his petition aid, which ought to have been raised by t...
Mittadar Arumugam Chettiar Vs. Devaraya Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad625
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. The suit was filed for an injunction and other reliefs. When the case came on before the District Munsif, the parties agreed to abide by the oath of the plaintiff and the question is what the nature of that agreement was. The note of the District Munsif is as follows (p. 5) 25th August 1925:On the application of both the parties the suit is advanced to 31st August 1925. Defendants' vakli challenges the plaintiff to take plain oath in open Court that the allegations in the plaint are true and the allegations in the written statement are not true. Plaintiff's vakil accepts the challenge and says that the plaintiff will take oath on 31st August 1925. Suit adjourned to 31st August 1925.2. We find in the diary the following entry as to what took place:Defendants' vakil challenges plaintiff to take oath. Plaintiff took oath. Decreed for plaintiff.3. An appeal was filed by defendants on the ground that what was agreed to was not the order as re...
Suppiah Nadar Vs. T.S. Muthia Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad984
Wallace, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. The original suit was to recover money due on a promissory note executed by defendant, to the plaintiff for purposes of trade conducted by defendants 1 and 2. The defence was a plea of discharge by supply of goods, the promissory note being merely a voucher for the amount received for the supply of these goods. The goods were supplied to one Samankatha Nadan and the defendant pleaded also that this man was a benamidar for the plaintiff. On these two issues the suit went to trial. The District Munsif found the discharge proved and dismissed the suit. On appeal, taking the view that the suit note was an escrow and not satisfied that the issues framed by the District Munsif arose on the pleadings, the Subordinate Judge framed two additional issues, 'namely, whether the promissory note was executed subject to the condition that no obligation was to arise under it unless and until the defendants failed to supply the goods for the v...
Suppiah Nadar Vs. T.S.M. Muthiah Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1927
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.710
1. This is an appeal against an order of remand. The original suit was to recover money due on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for purposes of trade conducted by 1st and 2nd defendants. The defence was a plea of discharge by supply of goods, the promissory note being merely a voucher for the amount received for the supply of these goods. The goods were supplied to one Samankatha Nadan and the defendant pleaded also that this man was a benamidar for the plaintiff. On these two issues the suit went to trial. The District Munsif found the discharge proved and dismissed the suit. On appeal taking the view that the suit note was an escrow and not satisfied that the issues framed by the District Munsif arose on the pleadings, the Subordinate Judge framed two additional issues, namely, whether the promissory note was executed subject to the condition that no obligation was to arise under it unless and until the defendants failed to supply the goods for the val...
Sadaka Muhammad and anr. Vs. M. Hayath Batcha Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ323
1. This is an appeal against the order of Curgenven, J., refusing to stay execution in a Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 107 of the Government of India Act.2. The first question is whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against the order. Section 15 of the Letters Patent as it is now amended expressly states that there is no appeal against an order made in the exercise of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction. It is conceded that no appeal would lie against an order passed by the High Court in the revision petition itself. It seems to us then that there can be no appeal against any interlocutory orders passed in the revision petition. Where a Civil Revision Petition is filed and interlocutory applications are made in the Civil Revision Petition for reliefs, the High Court can act in its exercise of revisional jurisdiction in dealing with these applications. It is difficult to see how an appeal would lie having regard to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »