Skip to content

Chennai Court March 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.

Mar 04 1927

S.S. Balakrishna Iyer and anr. Vs. Parvathammal and anr.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-04-1927

Reported in: AIR1928Mad154; 105Ind.Cas.124

Odgers, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Jackson in C.M.P. No. 4487 of 1926 dated 17th December, 1926. The suit in which the order was made was one for administration of the estate of a certain deceased person and the defendants asked for stay of proceedings in the suit before the Subordinate Judge. On the 3rd September, 1926, Mr. Justice Jackson made an order of which the following is the relevant portion:Petitioner to give security for Rs. 44,000 as found by the Commissioners, to the satisfaction of the lower Court within three months. Otherwise the petition to stand dismissed with costs.2. On the 3rd December, 1926, the petitioners put in an application to extend the time for furnishing security. The matter came up on the 17th December, 1926, before Mr. Justice Waller who transferred it to Mr. Justice Jackson for hearing. Mr. Justice Jackson found that the period had expired as the Subordinate Judge had found the security to be insufficient and that...


Mar 04 1927

S.A. Kulathu Ayyar Vs. Vaithilingam Ayyar and anr.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-04-1927

Reported in: 105Ind.Cas.163

1. The appellant before us is the 1st defendant. The plaintiff sued the 2nd defendant in 1914 and got a decree. When he attempted to execute his decree he was faced with a claim by the 1st defendant based on a sale to him by the 2nd defendant. The claim was allowed and the plaintiff sued to set aside the order on the claim. He succeeded in the first Court, but failed in appeal, the Subordinate Judge holding inter alia, that his decree had been satisfied. In second appeal, Odgers, J., restored the decree of the trial Court. He was of opinion that the plea that the decree had been discharged was not open to the 1st defendant.2. The finding of the first Appellate Court that the decree had been discharged is, perhaps, not wholly satisfactory. It is, however, a finding of fact, which was not objected to in second appeal. So it calls for no further consideration, There is a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Tegh Singh v. Amin Chand 5 A. 269 : A.W.N. (1883) 18 : 3 Ind. Dec. 238 which se...


Mar 03 1927

Srinivasa Aiyangar Vs. the Official Assignee and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-03-1927

Reported in: AIR1927Mad641; (1927)52MLJ682

Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of West Tanjore and also an application to convert S.R. No. 3185 of 1927 into a Civil Revision Petition. The suit O.S. No. 14 of 1925 was brought by the plaintiff in forma pauperis praying that a certain sale deed by the 4th defendant (who is the father of the plaintiff) in favour of the 2nd defendant may be declared inoperative and invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant became insolvent and his estate was vested In the Official Assignee of Madras. The suit proceeded and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff. In that state of things the Official Assignee of Madras applied for a review of judgment on the ground of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which had come to light after judgment had been pronounced. These new matters are two letters marked A and B which have been placed before us, the first from P.W. 3 to the 2nd defendant, and latter asimilar letter from...


Mar 03 1927

In Re: Sengodai Vannan

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-03-1927

Reported in: (1927)53MLJ101

1. The appellant has been convicted of murdering two persons and causing hurt to several others. The offences were committed on the B.I.S. N.Co.'s ship 'Teesta' on his journey from Penang to Negapatam. The appellant is a British subject and the S. S. 'Teesta' is a British ship. A question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to try the charge. A similar question was raised in King-Emperor v. The Chief Officer of S. S. 'Musktari' I.L.R. (1901) B 336 where it was held that the Court in British India had, in a similar case, jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is conferred by Section 1 of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96, which has been made applicable to India by Section 1 of 23 and 24 Vic. c. 88 as well as by Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Following that decision, we hold that the Lower Court had jurisdiction.2. On the merits there can be no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted. A plea of temporary insanity has been raised with refe...


Mar 03 1927

Sengedai Vannan Vs. Emperor

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-03-1927

Reported in: AIR1927Mad688

1. The appellant has been convicted of murdering two persons and causing hurt to several others. The offences were committed on the B. I. S. N. Co's Ship 'Teesta' on his journey from Penang to Negapatam. The appellant is a British subject and the S. S. 'Teesta' is a British ship. A question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the lower Court to try the charge. A similar question was raised in King Emperor v. The Chief Officer of S. S. Nushtari [1901] 25 Bom. 636 where it was held that the Court in British India, had, in a similar case, jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is conferred by Section 1 of 12 and 13 Victoria Chap. 96, which has been made applicable to India by Section 1 of 23 and 24 Victoria Chap. 88, as well as by Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Following that decision, we hold that the lower Court had jurisdiction.2. On the merits there can be no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted. A plea of temporary insanity has been r...


Mar 03 1927

Sukhamoori Hanumiah Vs. Sukhumoori Hanumiah and anr.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-03-1927

Reported in: AIR1927Mad893

Wallace, J.1. This second appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of Guntur. The original suit was by the plaintiff to establish his right to certain land and to eject the defendants. The ground upon which the District Judge dismissed the appeal was that the suit was barred by time because the plaintiff' s father had not sued within one year from the date of an adverse order on a claim petition by him in O. S. 665 of 1900. That claim was rejected on the ground that the application had been put in far too late.2. The suit land was attached in execution of a decree against defendants. The plaintiff's father put in a claim petition and this was dismissed as noted above because of the delay. Plaintiff's father then sued to establish his title, but that suit was dismissed for default. Probably, as the District Judge holds, that default was due to the suit having been compromised. The attachment was certainly raised and came to an end. The District Munsif held that plaintiff's f...


Mar 03 1927

Srinivasa Iyengar Vs. the Official Assignee and ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Mar-03-1927

Reported in: 103Ind.Cas.377

Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of West Tranjore and also an application to convert S.R. No. 3185 of 1927 into a civil revision petition. The suit 0.S. No. 14 of 1925 was brought by the plaintiff in forma pauperis praying that a certain sale-deed by the 4th defendant (who is the father of the plaintiff) in favour of the 2nd defendant may be declared inoperative and invalid and not binding on the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant became insolvent and his estate was vested in the Official Assignee of Madras. The suit proceeded and a decree was made in favour of the plaintiff. In. that state of things the Official Assignee of Madras applied for a review of judgment on the ground of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which had come to light after judgment had been pronounced. These new matters are two letters marked A and B which have been placed before us, the first from P.W. No. 3 to the 2nd defendant, and latter a similar lett...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial