Chennai Court November 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.
Peria Goundan and ors. Vs. Thangammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad371
1. The Subordinate Judge held that the award is vitiated on the ground that the arbitrators could not have been ignorant of the institution of the suit (O.S. 129 of 1925) and ' they ought not, therefore, to have proceeded to make an award.' The ground on which the Subordinate Judge held the award to be vitiated is not happily expressed. The knowledge of the institution of the suit on the part of the arbitrators is not essential to deprive them of jurisdiction. It was held in Doleman & Sons v. Ossett Corporation [1912] 3 K.B. 257 that, after the filing of the suit, the private tribunal has become functus officio. This case has been followed in all the Courts in India: vide Appavu v. Seeni [1918] 41 Mad. 115 Sarat v. Rajkumar : AIR1923Cal135 , Jai Narain Babu Lal v. Naraindas Haini Mal A.I.R. 1922 Lah. 369. The learned vakil for the appellants argued that the subject-matters in dispute in the said O.S. 129 of 1925 and before the arbitrators are different. The reliefs are different and th...
Meenakshi Ammal and ors. Vs. Rama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad610; 110Ind.Cas.538
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application by respondents 1 to 5 in S. A. 2014 of 1927 for directing the appellant, defendant 1, to deliver to the petitioners the produce and straw taken by him during the harvest in October 1927 from the items allotted and delivered to the petitioners in the case and. to pass such orders as the Court may deem fit. The appellant in the second appeal, who is the respondent herein, applied for stay of further proceedings in O.S. 65 of 1922 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tinnevelly, and got an interim stay order on 3rd October 1927. The allegation of the petitioners herein is that, taking advantage of that interim stay order, he went and harvested the crops on the nanja lands set out in detail in the affidavit of Devaraja Ayyar by intimidating the petitioners and by representing that he had a stay order with reference to the items in question. These items were delivered to the petitioners so far back as 10th January 1927, in execution of a d...
Sami Vannia Nainar and anr. Vs. Periaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.638; (1928)55MLJ218
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of South Arcot declining to interfere with an order under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, passed by the District Munsif of Vridhachalam. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar's contention is that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to take additional evidence in a matter coming up under Section 476(b). The District Judge allowed an affidavit of the respondent's vakil to be filed before him and has relied mainly upon the affidavit in his judgment. It was held by a Bench of this Court in Krishna Reddi v. Emperor I.L.R. (1909) M. 90 : 20 M.L.J. 102 that a superior Criminal Court acting under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order by an inferior Criminal Court granting sanction had no power to take or call for further evidence. Section 195 has been amended and Section 476 empowers a Court, Civil, Revenue or Criminal, to forward a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class for inquiry into ...
Vanama Akkayya Vs. Vanama Lakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.186; (1928)55MLJ517
ORDERDevadoss, J.1. This is an application under Section 302 of the Indian Succession Act praying for the issue of general or special instructions in regard to the administration of an estate and for an injunction restraining the respondent herein from executing the decree in O.S. No. 65 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bezwada and such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit to pass.2. One Subba Rao died on the 13th November, 1920. He executed a will on the 11th November, 1920 giving power to his wife to adopt a boy and directing the executor to pay a certain amount to her for maintenance and for the management of the estate. The executor who is the petitioner did not put the respondent in possession of a portion of a house mentioned in paragraph 3 of the will and did not give her maintenance for a considerable time, in consequence of which she was obliged to file O.S. No. 65 of 1925 for the recovery of the whole of the property as the widow of the deceased Subba Rao. Th...
S. Alwar Chetty Vs. K. Jagannatha Aiyar and 4 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.291; (1928)54MLJ109
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The contest in this case is between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. It relates to two questions:(1) Is the equitable mortgage in favour of the plaintiff valid? (2) Has the 3rd defendant a vendor's lien for unpaid purchase-money, which can be enforced?2. The 1st defendant mortgaged with the plaintiff on the 27th of June, 1918 his house at Madras for securing a sum of Rs. 8,000, which was lent. The mortgage was effected by a registered deed. The first defendant made continued default in payment and the plaintiff thereupon threatened to bring the property to sale. It was at this juncture that the alleged equitable mortgage was made. The first defendant wrote to the plaintiff on the 1st February, 1926 thus:As I personally told you yesterday, I send herewith a sale-deed, dated the 9th November, 1922 Kindly accept this deed as collateral security On payment of Rs. 3,000 within the 20th instant, I shall take the above deed****3. The object was to secure the payment...
Rama Row and anr. Vs. Somasundaram Asary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ647
Wallace, J.1. The original suit in this case was for damages for maliciously procuring an injunction in a suit on title. In a suit by the defendants against the plaintiffs for a declaration of their title to a strip of ground and for an injunction restraining the plaintiffs from erecting any construction thereon, the defendants obtained an ad interim injunction which remained in force from 11th January, 1917, till 31st December, 1918. The title to the strip of ground was eventually found in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs on this filed the present suit, The first Court found the plaintiffs were entitled to damages. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit. The main reason given by the lower Appellate Court was that the plaintiffs had failed to prove want of reasonable and probable cause and malice. Plaintiffs here in Second Appeal do not contest that finding, which is a finding of fact, but contend that, apart from their cause of action on the abuse of the process of the court...
Adivi Lakshmikanthamma Vs. Akisetti Ranganayakulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad91
Ramesam, J.1. The husband of the appellant before us obtained a decree against a tenant for rent. He obtained an attachment before judgment and after the decree, his legal representative, the appellant was attempting to execute the decree-against the property attached. The respondent who claimed the attached property under two sale deeds, (1) from the judgment debtor to his wife and the 2nd from the wife to himself- filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58. The petition was enquired into by the District Munsif of Bhimavaram. In the order he says:for the purpose of this petition, we art concerned only with the prima facie nature of the case.2. This shows that he considered the matter as one falling under Order 21 Rule 58 Civil P.C.3. The appellant then filed appeal to the District Court of Masulipatam. Ordinarily appeals lie from Bhimavaram to Sub-Court, Narasapur. The appeal to District Court was attempted to be justified on the ground that it was an appeal under Section 75 of the...
In Re: V. Purushothamdoss and Brothers
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1929Mad385; (1928)55MLJ657
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This application raises a point of some importance. It is made by the Official Assignee under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Previous to his presenting the insolvency petition, the insolvent had filed a suit on the Original Side for the recovery of nearly 7 lakhs of rupees. On the plaintiff's insolvency, the Official Assignee intimated his willingness to continue the suit and was directed, under Order , Rule 8, 2. Civil Procedure Code, to furnish security for costs. The Official Assignee has not been able to raise the money in the usual way and has now placed before me a scheme for my approval. If that scheme is approved, he will be in a position to raise Rs. 6,000, the amount to be deposited in Court on the Original Side, as security. The scheme is shortly this. The liabilities of the insolvent amount to nearly 4 lakhs of rupees. Four creditors to whom an aggregate amount of about Rs. 46,000 is due have come forward with a proposal to advance to the Offici...
In Re: T.R. Srinivasa Row
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ607
ORDERKumaraswami Sastri, J.1. In this case the petitioner who is a Sub-Postmaster was convicted of temporary misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 60. The charge against him is that he misappropriated three sums of 6 annas, Rs. 58-11-0 and Rs. 113-5-0. The Joint Magistrate found that the charge was not proved as regards 6 annas and Rs. 58-11-0. As regards Rs. 113-5-0 he found that the charge was proved. On appeal the Sessions Judge was of opinion that misappropriation at least to the extent of Rs. 60 was proved and confirmed the sentence.2. The chief evidence on which the accused has been convicted is his confession contained in Exhibit B that Rs. 91-15-6 was -short. He goes on to say that he was in bad health for sometime, that he was not verifying the accounts and cannot explain how the shortage came. There is no evidence that the statement as to his ill-health is not true. If accused is to be convicted on his confession it must be taken as a whole and it would be unsafe to use the part a...
Govindarajulu Naidu Vs. Chinnathambi Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1270
1. Though the question of paramount title was excluded from consideration in the mortgage suit, defendants 2 to 4 could not be struck off. The plaintiff impleaded them on the ground that they were lessees of the mortgagor. It does not appear that this allegation of the plaintiff was ever abandoned. There-fore, defendants 2 to 4 had to continue and did continue as parties to the suit. V. Sannamma v. K. Radhabhayi [1918] 41 Mad. 418 nor Krishnappa Mudaly v. Periyaswamy Mudaly [1917] 40 Mad. 964 is on all fours with the facts of this case. We think the claim of the respondents under Rule 100, Order 21, Civil P.C. ought to have been tried under Section 47,. Civil P.C. and the plaintiff who wants an enquiry into the title under Section 47, Civil P.C., is entitled to it. We allow the appeal. The respondents will pay the appellant's costs in this and the lower appellate Court. The costs in the first Court will abide the result....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »