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.
Sinnadri Venkatanarasayya Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad826a
JUDGEMENTOdgers, J.1. The first point urged in this case by Mr. Lakshmanna for the appellant is one of law and the appeal is from the order of the District Judge of Godavari on a petition under Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act, asking for the cancellation of a certain mortgage-deed executed by the insolvent in favour of the respondent on the 26th July 1920, Ex. 1. The point of law is that although the mortgage-deed in question was executed on the 26th July 1920, and the adjudication was on the 24th October 1922, the petition for adjudication is dated the 25th April 1922 or within two years of the execution of the mortgage-deed in question. So that it comes to this; that if the provisions of Section 28 (7) Provincial Insolvency Act, which says that an order of adjudication shall relate back to, and take effect from the date of the presentation of the petition on which it is made, are to be applied to Section 53, then the transaction in question is clearly within the section. If, on...
Aromalla Gurunathan Yogi and anr. Vs. Arimanda Raghavayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad401
1. These appeals arise out of two suits filed by two worshippers for a scheme for two temples, the Sangimaswara Swami Temple and the Bheemeswara Swami temple. An application was made to the Collector for sanction to file the suits but sanction was refused by the Collector and the present plaintiffs without bringing this fact to the notice of the Advocate-General got ex parte sanction. As the sanction stands unrevoked, this would not affect the right of the plaintiffs to sue though it may be taken into consideration in considering the bona fides of the petitioner. The plaints were filed on the 29th July 1921 in both the suits. They were adjourned from time to time for various reasons and finally on the 24th August 1922, i. e., more than a year after the suits were filed they came on for hearing. On that date it was adjourned to the next day on the 25th August 1922. Exhibits were filed and three witnesses were examined. Then a compromise petition was filed, and as plaintiff 2 on the one ...
The Chingleput Municipal Council Represented by Its Chairman and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.883
Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.1. In my opinion this motor-bus which plied for hire up and down the Municipality was clearly a carriage let out for hire within the Municipality on the true construction of Section 98 of the District Municipalities Act, and I really fail to understand how anybody could be supposed to feel any doubt about it. The mere fact that it is let out to several people instead of to one or that it travels on 'a fixed route instead of being at the beck and call of any one of the numerous or all the numerous hirers makes no difference whatever. This appeal must be allowed and the plaintiffs suit dismissed with costs throughout....
Karupanna Pillai Vs. Ethumalai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.670
Odgers, J.1. The appeal is against the order of the Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Trichinopoly, remanding a suit for fresh disposal to the District Munsif of Kulitalai after setting aside the District Munsif's decree.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff (respondent here) to declare that a certain property belonged to the Kamakshi Amman Temple, in Maradi village, the plaintiff being the hereditary trustee of that institution. The property comprises two Survey Nos. 585-A and 585-B. As to No. 585-A there is no question because both the Courts have found that it belongs to the temple and it is conceded that the setting aside of the Munsif's decree by the Sub-Judge is not intended to disturb this position. With regard to No. 585 B the suggestion is that it was acquired on darkhast by the defendant's grandfather who was a pujari of the temple and he thus acquired it in a fiduciary capacity and must be declared to have held it not on his own behalf but on behalf of the, temple. That...
Jamula Narayana Murthi and ors. Vs. Nilambara Prudhvisinghi Santo and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad226
1. The mortgages are anomalous mortgages. The document provides for the contingency to happen if payment is not made at the expiry of the period. It states that in default of payment the mortgagee is to be in possession till the mortgage is discharged. We think the decree of the learned Judge is right and that plaintiff has no right to bring the property to sale. Ramayya v. Guruva [1891] 14 Mad. 232 has no application as under the terms of the document the mortgagee was to be in possession for interest only after the period fixed for sale. As regards the principal sum the document gave a right of suit. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Jammula Narayanamurthi and ors. Vs. Nilambara Prudhivisinghi Santo and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.511
1. The mortgages are anomalous mortgages. The document provides for the contingency to happen if payment is not made at the expiry of the period. It states that in default of payment the mortgagee is to be in possession till the mortgage is discharged.2. We think the decree of the learned Judge is right and that plaintiff has no right to bring the property to sale, Rammayya v. Guruva 14 M.P 232 : 5 Ind. DEc. (N.S.) 163 has no application as under the terms of the document the mortgagee was to be in possession for interest only after the period fixed for sale. As regards the principal sum the document gave a right of suit.3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Rama Naidu Vs. Veerapuram Venkatasami Naidu Alias Chinna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad695; 101Ind.Cas.891; (1927)53MLJ102
ORDERWallace, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of discharge passed by the Second Class Magistrate, Trivellore. The petitioner preferred to him a complaint of offences under Sections 447 and 323, I. P. C. The case was taken up under Section 323 only and process issued. The accused then put forward a petition that a complaint on the same facts had been put in by the petitioner to his local Village Magistrate and that the Village Magistrate had dismissed it for default of appearance. Accused contended that that dismissal barred the jurisdiction of the Sub-Magistrate to entertain the complaint. The Sub-Magistrate holding that the dismissal of the complaint by the Village Munsif amounted to a dismissal of a complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, held that it was not open to him to proceed with the case so long as the dismissal remained in force, and he therefore discharged the accused. The petitioner comes up in revision.2. Now the Magistrate is obviously wrong ...
A. Parayya Vs. Venkatigadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad603; 102Ind.Cas.497; (1927)52MLJ563
Wallace, J.1. The petitioner seeks for revision of an order of the Court of Sessions confirming an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Anantapur dismissing the petitioner's complaint for a breach of contract by the 1st accused under Section 2(1) of the Workman's Breach of Contract Act.2. The facts are that the 1st accused having taken a loan of Rs. 100 from the petitioner on 10th June, 1924, entered into a contract with the petitioner that he and his minor son would do service under the petitioner for one year on a wage of Rs. 30 per annum plus housing and clothing, and that for the balance of Rs. 70, if unpaid at the end of the year, they would continue to serve. The 1st accused did serve up to 9th May, 1925, and then left. The petitioner complained to the Sub-Magistrate who, after hearing the parties, passed an order on 18th June, 1925 that the 1st accused should serve for a further period of two years, four months and 23 days. First accused served for a few days and again left...
Erechamveettil Parkum Koottayi Chathukutty Vs. Changanatha Parkum Thot ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1927
Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.677; (1927)53MLJ224
Jackson, J.1. Second Appeal against the judgment and decree of the District judge of North Malabar in A.S. No. 270 of 1922 made in O.S. No. 1190 of 1920 on the file of the District Munsif of Nadapuram.2. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether the tenant of a shop in Malabar comes within the purview of Act 1 of 1900, Madras. Curiously enough the question appears to be res Integra. Although it must have been decided times without number in the Lower Courts, nevertheless, there is no ruling of this Court in the matter. In Section 3, 'tenant' is defined as including a person who is lessee of land. 'Holding' in Sub-section (3) of Section 3 has no larger connotation than is implied by the language of Sub-section (1). Improvements are set forth in Section 4 and there is nothing in that list which could include the improvement of urban dwellings. I think it is entirely foreign to the intention of the Act to hold that because a house or a shop must necessarily stand upon la...
Patinhare Koonthilot Mayankutti Vs. Kaneelandyil Parkum Thavath Kanhay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad824; (1927)53MLJ512
Curgenven, J.1. These are second appeals from the orders pass- ed by the Additional District Munsif of Badagara in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 254 of 1922 on his file. The respondent who held a paramba upon a mortgage sued her tenant, the appellant, in ejectment in O.S. No. 202 of 1921 and obtained a decree for possession upon payment of Rs. 835 for improvements. She deposited that sum on 11th October, 1923. Meanwhile both the respondent and the appellant were sued by the melcharthdar in the suit first named above, and a decree was obtained on 21st November, 1922 for possession upon payment of a sum of Rs. 1,200 in respect of the same improvements. The difference was due to the adoption of different methods of estimating the value of some of the trees. As the respondent had already settled with the appellant by the deposit of Rs. 835, she applied (a) to have it recorded that she had stepped into the appellant's shoes in respect of the improvements, and (b) for payment to her of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »