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.
Govindaswami and ors. Vs. Annamalai Udaiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1071
Devadoss, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The suit is on a mortgage against defendants 1 and 2, the mortgagors and other defendants. The Subordinate Judge has given a decree for the full amount in favour of respondents 1 and 2. The mortgagee was the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 who died pending the suit. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 sought to be made legal representatives on the ground that they and their father were undivided and defendant 5 their brother was divided from his father. Notice of this was given to defendant 5 who was already a party to the suit as he had acquired some right under. Ex. II. He did not contest the application though he appeared by a vakil Plaintiffs 2 and 3 were made legal representatives of plaintiff 1 and they proceeded with the suit. The District Munsif gave a decree for two-thirds of the mortgage amount. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has given a decree for the full amount.2. Two points are raised before me by Mr. Bhashyam for the appellant. The firs...
Thuna Runa Ana Vellachami Servai and ors. Vs. Samusuvava Rowther and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad392
Devadoss, J.1. Defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants in this ease. The first contention of Mr. Krishnaswami Iyer for the appellants is that his clients are not liable for damages for breach of contract by defendant 1. The Subordinate Judge has not made the appellants liable for breach of contract by the defendant, but he has made them liable for the value of the number of cart-loads of firewood removed by them.2. The facts are: Defendant 1 sold the trees standing on a piece of land to the plaintiff. Before the plaintiff could cut and remove the trees he seems to have interfered with his possession and defendants 2 to 4 joined defendant 1 and cut and carried away the trees. The allegation that they purchased the trees from defendant 1 without the know ledge of the sale to the plaintiff was found against. The simple question therefore is whether defendants 2 to 4 were justified in carrying away timber trees, the property in which had already passed to the plaintiff. They, having cut and c...
Haji Shakoor Gani Sait Vs. the B.i.S. N. Co., Ltd., by the Agents, Bin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad671; 103Ind.Cas.323; (1927)52MLJ693
1. This is a reference by the Chief Judge and Judges of the Madras Court of Small Causes through their Registrar under Section 69 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act submitting for the opinion 'of the High Court the following questions: The goods in question in this suit, namely, sugar, having been found to be imported into Calcutta from Java, and from there shipped by the plaintiff to Madras in the bags in which such sugar had come from Java under the Bills of Lading covering the carriage thereof from Calcutta to Madras, do such goods come under the category of 're-shipped or re-exported goods' within the meaning of the Bills of Lading in question?If such goods do come under such category in the clause in question in the Bill of Lading, is the shipping company protected from liability for loss or slackage in such consignments, by the stipulation in such Bill of Lading that they are 'not responsible for the condition or contents of re-shipped or re-exported goods'?2. The plaintiff...
R. Narayanaswami Aiyar Vs. Vadambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1065
Devadoss, J.1. The first point raised in this second appeal is that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to send the case down to the Sub-Court for sending up revised findings. The Subordinate Judge who tried the case in the first instance refused a short adjournment to the plaintiff and closed the case. On appeal the District Judge held that the Subordinate Judge could have granted the adjournment prayed for in the circumstances of the case and he sent the case down to the lower Court to take the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and any evidence adduced by the defendants and to submit revised findings. On receipt of the revised findings the District Judge disposed of the case. Mr. Sankara Iyer's contention is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to call for revised findings in the case and he relies upon a recent decision of a Bench of this Court in Venkatarama Iyer v. Sundaram Iyer (1). If the appellate Court want additional evidence to be taken it must take the evi...
(Paruchuru) Sudarsanacharyulu Vs. Kotimarla Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad205
1. This appeal arises out of a scheme which has been settled by the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla with reference to the temple of Sri Venugopala Swami. There are several items of property mentioned in the plaint. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is that the temple owns only item 1 and that the income is about Rs. 360 per annum and that items 2 to 10 are the separate properties of the archakas. The archakas-contention was that even item 1 was a gift to them burdened with the expenses of the temple. The Subordinate Judge found that it was a gift to the God and not to the archakas burdened with any trusts. He framed a scheme appointing trustees. Against this decree the appellant, one of the archakas, raises certains contentions. His main grounds are that the suit is bad as the plaint at present filed does not conform to the sanction given by the collector. Secondly that there is no necessity for a scheme being framed and thirdly that 'the amount given for expenses is too small. A memor...
Paruchuru Sudarsana-charyulu Legal Representative of the Deceased Paru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.130
1. This appeal arises out of a scheme which has been settled by the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla, with reference to the temple of Sree Venugopala swami, There are several items of property mentioned in the plaint. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is that the temple Owns only item No, 1 and that the income is about Rs. 360 per annum and that items Nos. 2 to 10 are the separate properties of the archakas. The archakas' contention was that even item No. 1 was a gift to them burdened with the expenses of the temple. The Subordinate Judge found that it was a gift to the god and not to the archakas burdened with any trust. He framed a scheme appointing trustees. Against this decree the appellant, one of the archakas, raises certain contentions. His main grounds are that the suit is bad as the plaint, as at present filed, does not conform to the sanction given by the Collector; secondly, that there is no necessity for a scheme being framed; and thirdly, that the amount given for expenses ...
Maddirala Jagannadham and anr. Vs. Maddirala Venkata Subba Rao and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad844; (1927)53MLJ864
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a reversioner to recover certain properties of a deceased person named Punnayya. Defendants 1 and 2 claim to be nearer heirs than the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the son of one Pakeerayya. His present suit is based on the ground that his father who survived the deceased was a nearer heir than the defendants and after the property vested in Pakeerayya he succeeded to his right. The learned Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiff and gave a decree. The defendants appeal.2. The first question argued in appeal is the question of res judicata. Immediately after the death of Punnayya there was a suit by the present defendants to recover the property in which the defendant was the present plaintiff. But the father of the present plaintiff was not a party to the suit. In that suit the defendant, that is, the present plaintiff pleaded his own title and did not rely upon any title of Pakeerayya because he could not, as Pakeerayya was t...
Chinnan Chetty Vs. V. Vilathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad27
Devadoss, J.1. The point argued in this second appeal is that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation under Article 7, Limitation Act, inasmuch as it is a claim for salary as a domestic servant. The contention of Mr. Srinivasagopalachariar for the appellant is that the plaint as laid is only for salary as a domestic servant and the suit having been brought more than one year after the wages became due the suit is barred by limitation. No doubt the plaint recites the circumstances under which the plaintiff entered into the service of the defendant and it also mentions when and where he worked. The defendant pleaded limitation and in the course of the evidence it transpired that there were entries in plaintiff's favour in the defendant's account books in his branches at Sokkatranga and Annoy. Both the lower Courts have relied upon these entries as saving the bar of limitation. The suit for wages as a domestic servant no doubt must be brought within one year after the same became due...
Ratnakalli Guranna Saheb Vs. Vachalapu Appala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad434
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a Civil R. P. in a small cause case. Plaintiff is the petitioner. His suit in the Court below was dismissed as the lower Court held that under Section 30, Contract Act, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the amount, I am glad to have been able to come to the conclusion that there is no reason in this case to interfere with the decision of the lower Court. The facts are these. The plaintiff and another person entered into what was admittedly a wagering contract with regard to cock fighting. It was agreed that both of them should pay into the hands of the stake-holder ( defendant ) a sum of Rs. 60 on the condition that the total sum of Rs. 120 should be paid over by the stake-holder to the person whose cock should win in the fight. The plaintiff's case is that the fight or match ended in a draw. On that basis he has instituted this suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 60 paid by him into the hands of the stake-holder. The defendant pleaded that ...
K. Ragavendra Rao Vs. K.S. Shivji and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.758
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in this civil revision petition which has been filed to revise the judgment of the Small Cause Court at Kumbakonam. The claim in the suit relates to the value of one of six pertomax lights sold by the defendants to the plaintiff, and consigned by rail as goods to the plaintiff at Kumbakonam. The Railway receipt in respect of the consignment was first taken in the name of the defendants and on or about 8th August, 1915, endorsed in favour of the plaintiff and sent to him by post. Two questions were argued by the learned Vakil for the petitioner. The first was that because the Railway receipt was taken by the defendants in their own name the property did not pass to the plaintiff at Kumbakonam. That contention is not sustainable. The Railway receipt is a document of title relating to the goods and so view-(sic) plaintiff on the endorsement of the Railway receipt and delivery thereof to the plaintiff which was we may take it about the 9...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »