Chennai Court April 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.
K. Subbaroya Chetty Vs. Nagappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ311
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the elder brother of the 1st defendant who was adjudicated an insolvent and whose estate the 2nd defendant the Official Assignee represents. The suit is withdrawn against the 4th defendant. The other defendants are alienees of various items of immovable properties, claiming on the strength of alienations made by or on behalf of the 1st defendant. The defendants 9, 10 and 11 were on their application removed from the record, the plaintiff not objecting to that course.2. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of one Ratnavelu Chetti who died on the 29th of December, 1913. His father is Ramaswami Chetti who died in 1895. A deed of release (also termed partition deed) was executed on the 30th of August, 1911 by the plaintiff. The joint family properties were valued at Rs. 12,900 and for the plaintiff's one-third share amounting to Rs. 4,300, he was given houses Nos. 15 and 16, Ramanan Street, Madras. On the sam...
Venna Tatayya Vs. Kakarla Gangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad965; (1927)53MLJ562
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam dismissing the defendant's petition to accord satisfaction pro tan to of the first instalment of a razinamah decree passed in O.S. No. 24 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. The decree was made, we are told, in a mortgage suit and incorporated a razinamah by the parties, and the essential parts of it are as follows : 'The Court doth hereby order and decree that defendants do pay to the plaintiff according to the following instalments as between themselves fixed, the amount of Rs. 30,447-6-0, together with interest thereon at Re. 0-10-0 per cent. per month from this date, being the balance remaining after deducting the Rs. 2,500 which defendants obtained as remission from the entire amount of this suit and costs together with subsequent interest up to this date.' Then the decree proceeds to details of instalments. Rs. 4,000 was payable on or before the 23rd August, 1925; Rs....
Commissioner, Corporation of Madras Vs. T. Ekambara Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad980
1. This is an appeal against an order made under Section 45, Specific Relief Act, and relates to the holding of the election of a councillor for the 29th division of this city. A great many objections to the validity of the preceedings prior to the actual election were taken before the learned Judge in the lower Court, but he has disposed of nearly all of them in favour of the appellant. The ground on which he granted this order staying the election was that the order of Government and its notification in the Fort St. George Gazette fixing the date of election as the 30th September 1926 were invalid because they were not proved to be orders framed in accordance with law. The learned Judge held that the order had to be one made by the Governor in Council meaning thereby the Governor in consultation with his ministers. It was suggested that there were rules under which the order had been issued and that in accordance with those rules the order was a perfectly valid one within the meaning...
K. Srinivasamoorthi Vs. Narasimhalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ309
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The question which arises on the merits of this case is whether a stolen currency note for Rs. 1,000 should be returned to the complainant, who lost it by the theft, or to the innocent third party, from whom it was recovered after passing through a Bank. Before, however, coming to the merits, a question of procedure arises. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tanjore, who disposed of the theft case, directed that the note should be returned to the camplainant. The subsequent recipient, now the petitioner, appealed against this decision to the District Magistrate, and the case was disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore. He held that an appeal lay under the terms of Section 520, Code of Criminal Procedure, to the District Magistrate, but that the petitioner's appeal was time barred, and no satisfactory explanation had been given of the delay. He therefore dismissed it holding at the same time that he could not treat the application as a revision pe...
In Re: Kunnammal Mayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1927
Reported in: (1927)53MLJ656
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The seven petitioners have been convicted of rioting and voluntarily causing simple hurt under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and these convictions have been upheld on appeal. The learned vakil who argues this Criminal Revision Petition endeavours to make three points against the convictions. It is said in the first place that the common object has not been clearly found by the Appellate Court to be established, but I do not think that the view expressed in paragraph 36 of its judgment, that the riot is unlikely to have been organised from Mokkam, has that meaning. On the other hand it is clearly made out that the appellants all joined together to beat the estate writers and from their community of action a common intention could be inferred.2. The next point is that separate sentences should not have been imposed for the offence of rioting and causing hurt. Two cases have been cited to me as authority for this proposition. One is an unreported case, Crim...
K. Srinivasa Moorthi Vs. Narasimhalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad797
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The question which arises on the merits of this case is whether a stolen currency note for Rs. 1,000 should be returned to the complainant, who lost it by the theft, or to the innocent third party, from whom it was recovered after passing through a bank. Before, however, coming to the merits, a question of procedure arises. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Tanjore, who disposed of the theft case, directed that the note should be returned to the complainant. The subsequent recipient, now the petitioner, appealed against this decision to the District Magistrate, and the case was disposed of by the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore. He held that an appeal lay under the terms of Section 520, Criminal P. C., to the District Magistrate, but that the petitioner's appeal was time barred, and no satisfactory explanation had been given of the delay. He, therefore, dismissed it, holding, at the same time, that he could not treat the application as a revision petition....
S. K. Veeraswami Pillai Vs. Kalyanasundaram Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1009
1. It has never been held that the omission to state the value of the property is a material irregularity. When the decree-holder and the judgment-debtor differ hopelessly as to the probable value of the property, a statement as to the value by the Court is at best a guess and the Court may, in the circumstances of a particular case, consider it better to abstain from such guess. The case in Saadatmand Khan v. Phul Kuar [1898] 20 All. 412 decided that where a Court has chosen to state the value in the proclamation, a gross under-statement is a serious irregularity. The other cases relied on by the vakil for the appellant do not help him The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Kaliappa Nadar and ors. Vs. Muthu Vijaya Thambayasami Chunnichi Naicka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad984
1. There is no point of law in this batch of second appeals except in the few cases noticed below. In A. S. 561 of 1823, the pattadar died in February 1921, and the patta was prepared in May 1921. It is urged by Mr. Subramania Aiyar, for the appellant that the tender of patta with the name of the deceased ryot is not a proper tender of proper patta. But the tender was made on the daughter who was the heir of the pattadar. In the case of a ryot coming under the Madras Estates Land Act the heir stands in the shoes of the ryot and is entitled to bring a suit under Section 112. That being so, there is no force in the argument that the tender made to the heir with the name of the deceased pattadar is bad.2. With regard to second appeals 1515, 1520 and 1526, it is urged that the learned District Judge was wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground that all the persons interested in the holding did not join in the suit. It is an elementary principle of law that persons who have got joint righ...
S. P. S. A. L. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. V. C. T. N. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1009a
Jackson, J.1. This petition is against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah allowing an amendment of the written statement on condition of defendant's paying plaintiff Rs. 150 by way of costs. Defendant paid the money which was taken by plaintiff's vakil,'under protest' as he intended to challenge the order in this Court.2. Respondent raises a preliminary point whether the plaintiff having taken the money although under protest is not estopped from questioning the order.3. It has long been recognized that where a party accepts costs under a Judge's order which, but for the order, would not at that time be payable, he cannot afterwards object that the order was made without jurisdiction. King v. Simmonds [1881] 7 Q. B. 289 and Tinkler v. Hilder 4 Ex. 187 This ruling was followed in Banku Chandra Bose v. Marium Begum 21 C. W. N. 232 in circumstances similar to those of the present case. But the petitioner relies upon an obiter dictum in that case of the Chief Justice:Personal...
Alaganan Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad1030
1. This is a revision petition against an order under Section 73, Civil P. C. It may be that, if the order of the Court is obviously wrong and if one can say that the proper order should be in favour of the petitioner, we may interfere in civil revision petition: vide Sree Krishna Das v. Chandook Chand [1909] 32 Mad. 334 But the matter here is not obvious. The question turns on the meaning of the words 'receipt of assets' in a case where the decree-holder has been allowed to bid and set off. The petitioner relies on Arunachalam Chetty v. Somasundaram Chetty [1920] 12 M .L. W. 328.2. In these circumstances we think we ought not to decide the matter in revision. The petitioner has got another remedy by a regular suit.3. The petition is dismissed, but under the circumstances of the case, without costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »