Chennai Court February 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.
Divyadaru Chendrasekharalingam Being Minor by Next Friend Divyadaru Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ342
Ramesam, J.1. These Second Appeals are connected with S. A. No. 1179 which was disposed of yesterday. The original plaintiff in these Second Appeals whose legal representative is now the appellant was the reversioner who sold the property to the plaintiff in the other suit. The suits out of which these Second Appeals arise are filed to recover mesne profits for faslis 1328 and 1329. The profits for these faslis were also intended to be transferred by the sale deed in favour of the vendee in the other case. That is Ex. A in that Second Appeal. But the plaintiff in the other Second Appeal did not sue for these profits apparently on the ground that the transfer is void according to the decision in Seetamma v. Venkalaramanayya : (1913)25MLJ410 and the vendor and the vendee seem to have agreed that the vendor himself should sue for these profits. Accordingly the actual reversioner brought these suits to recover the mesne profits. The District Munsif decided against the plaintiff saying:The ...
M. S. Doraiswami Mudaliar Vs. P. K. M. Subbanna Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad880
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be stated as follows. The plaintiff is a commission agent of Vellore and the defendants are merchants at Tiruppur. On 21st January 1920 (Ex. D) the defendants sent an order to the plaintiff asking him to send 150 bags of rice at Rs. 3-2-0 per bag. They repeated the same order by Ex. 3 on 23rd January 1920. Ex. D was replied to by Ex. F and F-1, on 23rd January 1920. On 24th January 1920 the defendants addressed Ex E to the plaintiff acknowledging receipt of Ex. F-1 and asking him to send one waggon of 150 to 160 bags of white kar rice and semba rice. This was followed by Exs. G dated 25th January and G-1 dated 26th January. Ex, H on the 26th January definitely stated that the bags to be sent should be 160. Meanwhile the plaintiff wrote Ex. 4 on the 26th January and on the 31st January he wrote Ex. J in which he mentioned that 100 bags have been sent. The defendants wrote Ex. 5 on the 1st February and on the 2nd February they wrote Ex. K...
Diayadaru Chandrasekaralingam Vs. Arigapudi Nagabhushanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad817
JUDGEMENTRamesam, J.1. These second appeals are connected with S. A. 1179 which was disposed of yesterday. The original plaintiff in these second appeals whose legal representative is now the appellant was the reversioner who sold the property to the plaintiff in the other suit. The suits out of which these second appeals arise are filed to recover mesne profits for faslis 1328 and 1329, The profits for these faslis were also intended to be transferred by the sale-deed in favour of the vendee in the other case. That is Ex. A in that second appeal. But the plaintiff in the other second appeal did not sue for these profits apparently on the ground that the transfer is void according to the decision in Seetamma v. Venkataramanayya [1913] 38 Mad. 308 and the vendor and the vendee seem to have agreed that the vendor himself should sue for these profits. Accordingly the actual reversioner brought these suits to recover the mesne profits. The District munsif decided against the plaintiff sayi...
(Puthen Purayilparkum Mookorth Kandiyil Andathodam) Ummayya and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1157
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this case, either admitted or found, may be thus stated. The plaintiff is the karnavan of the thavazhi in a Mapille tarwad. On October 1899 the then karnavan of the tarwad allotted the suit land for the maintenance of the plaintiff's thavazhi under Ex. B. He had previously leased the land by a marupat dated March, 1899 to one Chathu. After executing Ex.B. he gave notice to the tenant Chatu, asking him to .pay the purapad to the plaintiff's thavazhi. Soon after he died. He was succeeded by a new karnavan. . The new karnavan told the tenant by registered notice not to pay the purapad to the plaintiff's thavazhi on the ground that Ex. B was a fraudulent arrangement. He went on collecting the rent for 1900, 1901 and 1902. In September 1902 he allotted the suit lands for stridhanam of defendant 4, a member of the same tarwad, but of a different thavazhi, from the plaintiff, and he gave notice, Ex. V, to the tenant asking him to pay the rent to defendant 4. The ten...
The Coimbatore Bazaar Bank Ltd. by Its Secretary Vs. the Union Bank Lt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.246
1. These appeals are against the decision of Spencer, J. The facts are simple. One Srikanta Iyer was the Secretary of a limited concern called the Coimbatore Bazaar Bank, Ltd. He had 100 fully paid-up shares of the value of Rs. 20 each and owed the Bank Rs. 2,200. The Articles of Association made Table A of the Companies Act applicable. Under that table the Bank had no lien in respect of fully paid-up shares. Srikanta Iyer seems to have got involved. He owed money to the Union Bank which Bank filed a suit against Srikanta Iyer and attached his shares The attachment petition was filed on the 31st of October, 1919, and the attachment was ordered on 15th November, 1919, and was made absolute on 8th December, 1919. The Bazzar Bank by a special resolution resolved that these shares should be set off against the debt of Rs. 2,200. The main contention of Mr. Venkatachariar is that though the resolution was passed subsequently to the attachment, it had retrospective effect and should be deemed...
M.S. Doraisami Mudaliar Vs. P.K.M.K. Subbanna Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1927
Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.613
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be stated as follows: The plaintiff is a commission agent of Vellore and the defendants are merchants at Tiruppur. On 21st January, 1920, (Ex. D) the defendants sent an order to the plaintiff asking him to send 150 bags of rice at Rs. 3 2-0 per bag. They repeated the same order by Ex, 3 on 2Srd January, 1920. Exhibit D was replied to by Exs. F and F-1 on 23rd January, 1920. On 24th January, 1920, the defendants addressed Ex. E to the plaintiff acknowledging receipt of Ex. F-1 and asking him to send one waggon of 150 to 160 bags of white kar rice and samba rice. This was followed by Exs. G dated 25th January, and G-1 dated 26th. January. Exhibit H of the 26th January, definitely stated that the bags to be sent should be 160. Meanwhile the plaintiff wrote Ex. 4 on the 26th January, and on the 31st January, he wrote Ex. J in which he mentioned that 100 bags had been sent. The defendants wrote Ex. 5 on the 1st February, and on the 2nd Febru...
Sivarama Mudaliar Vs. Muthannaniengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad612; (1927)52MLJ561
ORDERWallace, J.1. This petition is against the acquittal of the counter-petitioner by the Taluq Magistrate of Tiruppattur. The petition is presented on behalf of the President, District Board, Ramnad. The counter-petitioner holds from the District Board a license, Ex. I, dated 15th April, 1926, for plying motor vehi cles for hire. The license limits the plying to certain roads and explicitly prohibits the plying of vehicles for hire on roads Nos. 17 and 18. It was admitted by the counter-petitioner be fore the Lower Court that a conductor employed by him plied his car for hire on road No. 17. Obviously then there was a breach of the license. The defence of the counter-petitioner in the Lower Court was that the conductor plied the car on that road through ignorance and that he himself was not aware of the act No evidence was taken and, on this plea alone, without any evidence as to whether it was true or not, the Lower Court accepted the defence and holding that the licensee is not res...
Achipre Vs. Achipre
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad887
Wallace, J.1. The point for decision in this second appeal is whether a tarwad family arrangement, set out in the karar Ex. C, was intended to confer and did confer on the appellant power of management of the property set out in para 2 thereof after the death of the person who was then the Karnavan of the tarwad.2. On the date of Ex. C, 10-11-14. one Eravi Moosad, the father of the present appellant, was the karnavan and respondent was the anandarvan. The document was signed by Eravi Moosad, by the respondent, by the appellant and by other members of the tarwad. In para 2 it directs that certain powers of management over certain properties of the tarwad are conferred on the appellant, No limit for the period of his management is stated. Eravi Moosad died on 19th July 1915. The appellant contends that as there is no limit put to the period of his management, he is entitled to remain in enjoyment until another family karar puts an end to his management. The respondent contends that the d...
Lakshmidevamma Vs. Pobbisetti Krishtiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1107
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant a widow is the appellant. The plaintiff's suit was to recover Rs. 1281-4-0, the principal and interest due on a mortgage-deed, executed in his favour, by her. She pleaded that the suit mortgage was nominal and brought about by fraud and undue influence. The other pleas raised in the case are not pressed before me. The first Court found that the mortgage was supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 200, that there was no fraud and undue influence and gave a decree to the plaintiff for that sum. Both sides appealed. The learned District Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit as prayed for.2. Now, the plea urged in the second appeal is limited to the liability for the payment of Rs. 800 only, inasmuch as the memorandum of second appeal shows that the appellant submits to the decree so far as Rs. 200 is concerned. The lower appellate Court found on evidence that the promissory note is supported by full consideration. What is argued in second appeal is t...
Kamarazu Raja Rao Vs. Kamarazu Veeraraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1143
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals arise out of two original suits, O. S. No. 24 of 1920 & O. S. No. 823 of 1918 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Kovur. Both suits were tried together. The plaintiffs sued to recover principal and interest on two mortgage bonds executed in their favour. The mortgage bonds are couched more or less in the same language. The principal amounts are made payable in various instalments with interest at 18 per cent per annum. Then the documents contain further a stipulation that:If payments are not made for 1-2 instalments according to the prescribed time, and if any default is made, we shall pay the same with compound interest at the said rate on the whole amount of principal and interest due on the date of default (see Ex. B in O. S. No. 823 of 18).2. Default having been made in the payment at the end of the first instalment, the plaintiffs claimed to enforce the stipulation for the payment of the compound interest contained in the bonds. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »