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.
Kokkan Muthiriyan Vs. K. Rajagopala Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ901
Wallace, J.1. Taking the facts to be that, when the plaintiff paid the costs to the defendant, the defendant received them and told the plaintiff that he had no time to go and report satisfaction and, therefore, he must go and show the receipt to the Court and ask the Court to refrain from issuing the warrant of arrest, I am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the lower court that a contractual obligation was thereby created which absolved the defendant from performing the legal duty which the Civil Procedure Code lays on him under Order 21, Rule 2. A vakil cannot evade the duties that rule lays on him by pleading that he told the judgment-debtor to go and report the matter on his own account. On the other hand, If plaintiff had taken the receipt to the Court, the Court might have withdrawn the order of arrest, and thus the damages would have been reduced to a negligible amount.2. I am surprised that it is argued before me that the defendant had no obligation to report to the Court s...
Rajagopala Pillai Vs. P. Veeraperumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad792
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In this suit a very large amount is involved but otherwise this is a typical case. In form the suit is for partition of family property but in truth it is an attepmt by a son with the aid of his father to recover for his family the properties alienated by the latter. The following pedigree explains the relationship of the parties:Veeraperumal Pillai__________________________|__________________| | |Thiruvengadathan Doraisani RajagopalaPillai Ammi Pillai|P.Appasami Pillai= |Nagathammal. |______________________|______________ | | | |Muthusami Shrinivasa P.M. Appasami Nagath-| Pillai ammal.|_________________________________________|_________________| |P. Veeraperumal Pillai P. Sethuram(1st defendant. Pillai.Rajagopala Pillai,plaintiff).2. The plaintiff Rajagopala Pillai is a minor who sues by his next friend. Defendant 1, his father, became an insolvent and his estate is now represented by defendant 5, the Official Assignee of Madras. No relief is sought against defe...
(Pulikku Madathil Nelliari) Kolaremathu Amma Vs. (Thappalli Koonattat) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad243; 108Ind.Cas.409
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The suit from which this second appeal arises was instituted by the appellant as plaintiff for the recovery of possession of certain items of property. Those items were attached and brought to sale in execution of a decree obtained by a person who claimed to be the creditor of the deceased husband of the plaintiff. That suit was instituted against the karnavan of the tarwad to which the deceased belonged on the ground that he was the legal representative of the deceased. In the sale in execution of the decree, defendants 7 and 8 in this suit purchased the property and have since been in possession and enjoyment. The claim of the plaintiff-appellant in this case is that the decree and the sale are not binding on her because the deceased did not die intestate but left a will, by which he bequeathed these items of property to plaintiff I-say to the plaintiff because I assume it to be so and it is unnecessary to go further into the details with regard to the dispos...
Kudkanjee Timmarsa Pai Vs. Kanjarpane Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad256; 108Ind.Cas.404
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. I am very sorry to have come to the conclusion in this second appeal that it should be dismissed. Plaintiff was a subscriber to a kuri chit. He instituted the suit against two sets of defendants, defendants 1 to 4, whose predecessor was himself a subscriber to the kuri chit, and who, made default in the payment of an instalment, and defendants 5 to 9 whose predecessor was the manager of this kuri chit. The predecessor of defendants 1 to 4 when he bid for and obtained the proceeds of a sale at an auction executed a security bond in favour of the manager. That document was registered and by that some immovable property belonging to him was charged with the payment of the amount of any subscription which might have to be paid by him. The plaintiff's case was that under the kuri chit whenever a subscriber made default in the payment of a subscription payable by him the person who as the highest bidder purchases the chit will be entitled to sue for the recovery of h...
Mookkan Muthiriyan Vs. K. Rajagopala Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad947; 105Ind.Cas.86
Wallace, J.1. Taking the facts to be that when the plaintiff paid the costs to the defendant, the defendant received them and told the plaintiff that he had no time to go and report satisfaction and, therefore, he must go and show the receipt to the Court and ask the Court to refrain from issuing the warrant of arrest, I am unable to subscribe to the opinion of the lower Court that a contractual obligation was thereby created which absolved the defendant from performing the legal duty which the Civil Procedure Code lays on him under Order XXI, Rule 2. A Vakil cannot evade the duties that rule lays on him by pleading that he told the judgment-debtor to go and report the matter on his own account. On the other hand, if plaintiff had taken the receipt to the Court, the Court might have withdrawn the order of arrest, and thus the damages would have been reduced to a negligible amount.2. I am surprised that it is argued before me that the defendant had no obligation to report to the Court s...
Tirumala Venkata Reddy and ors. Vs. Sikatapu Ramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad55; (1927)53MLJ733
Devadoss, J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of West Godavari Division. The case was tried by a Magistrate who had second class powers and the trial was continued by him after he got 1st class powers. The case was re-numbered after he got 1st class powers. He convicted the accused and an appeal against this conviction was preferred to the District Magistrate who quashed the conviction holding that the case against the accused was not made out. The question is whether the District Magistrate had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decision of a 1st class Magistrate. The District Magistrate seems to justify his action on the ground that the trial was started by a second class Magistrate and he thought that he had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Section 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, says 'any person convicted on a trial held by an Assistant Sessions Judge, a District Magistrate or other Magistrate of the 1st class or any person sentenced under Section ...
(Boddanapalli Andi) Lakshmamma Vs. (Venduri) Sreeramalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1066
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance filed by the plaintiff who is the widow of one Ramayya. She claims Rs. 40 a year for her lifetime with past maintenance to be charged on the properties mentioned in the plaint. Her husband Ramayya had a brother Brahmayya. Ramaya died issueless in 1912. Brahmayya died, three years after, leaving a son who is defendant 3.2. On 19th January 1911 Ramayya executed a will, Ex. A. At that time his brother Brahmayya was alive. The evidence of defendant 3 is that his father was an old decrepit man unable to sign. There is no question about the genuineness of the will or of Brahmayya's being of sound disposing mind. Both the Courts find that the will is genuine. Under that will he gives his wife the jewels and what he calls his self-acquired property and he gives his share in the ancestral property, which he held in common as a member of the joint family consisting of himself, his brother and defendant 3 to defendant 3. He has also made ...
In Re: Virumandithevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad207
1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 394, I.P.C., and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment, by the Sessions Judge of Ramnad Division. The appellants were tried for an offence under Section 395, and the charge as read out to them is in the following terms:That you along with others numbering five and more on or about the 9th June 1926, at Virudunagar during night did commit dacoity and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 395 I.P.C., and within my cognizance.2. The jury found that five people did not take part in the occurrence and their verdict was that both the accused were guilty of robbery in which hurt was voluntarily caused. The contention of Mr. Vaz for the appellants is that the conviction on a charge which was hot specifically placed before the jury and to which the accused were not asked to plead is irregular. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the offence under Section 394 is a minor offence and, therefore, it was open to the...
Valambalachi Vs. Duraiswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad344; 108Ind.Cas.782
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a curious case. The plaintiff was the purchaser of a certain piece of property under a document which was duly signed by the defendant vendor and delivered to the plaintiff purchaser. It was omitted to be registered. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that she was making demands upon the defendant for the registration of the document but that he was putting off. The present suit was instituted on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled, neglecting altogether the sale-deed that had already been executed, to a decree for specific performance against the defendant to carry out the original contract of sale. Of course for the purpose of performing a contract to sell the property the vendor has to perform his contract by duly executing a registered deed of sale. Until such a document is executed no transfer of property is effected and no performance of the contract by the vendor.2. With regard to this there has been, curiously enough, two series of de...
Meenakshisundaram Pillai Vs. S.T. Chenchu Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad459
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The point that arises for determination in this second appeal raises -a very nice and interesting question. The plaintiff is the appellant. He having obtained a decree against defendant 1, attached the suit property alleging that the same was defendant 1's property in which he had some right, title or interest. Defendant 2 thereupon made a claim to the executing Court and on such claim the property would appear to have been released from attachment. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit as a regular suit for having set aside the effect of that order in execution proceedings. The Court of first instance granted a decree to the plaintiff, but the lower appellate Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, The plaintiff has thereupon filed this second appeal.2. The manner in which this case would appear to have been presented to the lower appellate Court was that there was an oral contract by and between defendant 1 and defendant 2 to the effect that on defenda...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »