Chennai Court August 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.
Daivanayaga Reddiar and ors. Vs. Renukambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Mad977
ORDER1. The respondent's vakil takes the preliminary objection that the appeal does not lie to the High Court but to the District Court. The plaintiff, a widow, claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 a month including value of cloths, etc., and valued her claim in the plaint at ten times the amount payable for the year under Section 7, Clause (2) of the Court-fees Act. She also claimed past maintenance and a house to reside in. The total value of her claim according to the plaint is Rs. 14,600. The Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore gave her a decree for maintenance at Rs. 60 a month together with past maintenance. He also decreed thatshe should be given possession of a house for her residence during her life. The defendants have preferred this appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge. In their appeal they have valued the relief for maintenance at the amount allowed for one year under the Court-fees Amendment Act, Section 5. The total value of the appeal together with the pas...
(Guturi) Nagalu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad136
Jackson, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother, I entirely agree with the finding of fact, and take up the story from the fatal fight:The accused who was then standing near the tree abused in return and defied the deceased and told him to come on. The deceased caught hold of the accused by the tuft and gave him two blows with his fist. There was a struggle and the deceased held accused firm by the tuft. The accused then gave the deceased a blow on the left side with a 'baku,' which he had in his hand.2. I think that the only exception in Section 200, I.P.C., possibly applicable to such circumstances is Exception 4 a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage.3. When a man defies another and tells him to come on, in brief, challenges him to fight, and a fight ensues, he cannot claim that he has been gravely and suddenly provoked merely because he is getting the worst of it. Suppo...
Mahommadalli Sahib Vs. Abdul Khadir Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1927
Reported in: (1930)59MLJ351
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, in C.M.P. No. 299 of 1925.2. The petitioner was defendant in O.S. No. 308 of 1922 brought by counter-petitioner, the plaintiff, for specific performance of a contract to sell immoveable property. It was decreed against the petitioner that, on counter-petitioner depositing Rs. 300 in three weeks from the date of the decree, the petitioner should execute a sale-deed and put counter-petitioner in possession of the property (Appeal No. 39 of 1923, Additional Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam). The counter-petitioner did not deposit the amount within three weeks and applied after the expiry of that period for extension of time. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge extended the time accordingly and hence this revision petition.3. There is clear authority that in suits under the Specific Relief Act where the decree has named as here a time within which payment should be made the Court can...
A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramanian Chetty by His Agent, Narayana Chetty Vs. Siva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad362; (1928)54MLJ278
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. C.R.P. No. 39 of 1926: A preliminary objection is taken to this Civil Revision Petition that there is a right of suit reserved by statute for persons who feel aggrieved by erroneous orders passed under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code. and that therefore this Court should not interfere in revision. This Court has repeatedly held and it seems to me unnecessary to refer in particular to the decided cases on the question that in proper cases this Court not only may, but should, interfere. I am satisfied that the case before me is one in which this Court should interfere by way of revision, even though the parties might have under the law a right of finally adjusting their difference in a regular suit.2. The petitioners are certain decree-holders who have obtained decrees against two brothers Kasturisami and Rama-swami'. There were other decree-holders who obtained decrees only against one of the brothers, namely Ramaswami. It is now practically conceded that the p...
Purushothama Rajaliar Vs. Kannayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad139
Jackson, J.1. The main point argued in revision is that the breach of the river bank and consequent flood which diminished counter-petitioner's crop was not an act of God as contemplated in the lease. The cases referred to by petitioner afford a definition of act of God which can fairly be applied to this Tamil lease. An extraordinary flood is such a flood as no reasonable person would anticipate. The Queen v. Commissioners of Sewers for Essex 14 Q.B. 561; Nitro Phosphate and Odam's Chemical Manure Co. v. London and St. Katharine Docks Co. [1879] 9 Ch. D. 503, is to the same effect.2. The usual criterion in this Presidency to decide whether a flood is one which can reasonably be anticipated or not is whether it is one such as to cause breaches. The agriculturist may reasonably assume that the irrigation works which control the flow of water will be properly maintained and if they are swept away he may reasonably claim to have been taken by surprise. Therefore the finding of the learned...
T.V. Devaraja Reddiar Vs. Liptons, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad367
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. This is a civil revision petition to revise an order of the Chief Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court at Madras. The necessary facts may be briefly stated. The respondents in this Court, Liptons, Limited, instituted this suit against two defendants, defendant 2 being described as one A. P. Devaraja Reddy, brother-in-law of defendant 1. For some reason defendant 1 seems to have been exonerated and, as defendant 2 in the suit was not properly served, there was apparently an order for service on him by substituted service and thereupon a decree was passed ex parte, against him. The decree was passed in or about December 1923, and an application seems to have been made about two years afterwards on, or about 22nd December 1925, on behalf of the plaintiffs for amending the decree by describing the judgment-debtor, the original defendant 2, as T. V. Devaraja Reddy instead of A.R. Devaraja Reddy; that is, a simple application for the amendment of the initials of...
M.O. Veerayya Chetty and anr. Vs. N.S.R. Doraiswamy Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad393; 110Ind.Cas.737
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. It seems perfectly clear that the order of the lower Courts cannot possibly be upheld. The present revision petition has been filed by the debtor who was adjudicated an insolvent by the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad on the petition of certain creditors. For the purposes of the present discussion it is unnecessary to consider who the creditors were. The learned Subordinate Judge before whom the application came on says this:The debtor's vakil admits that the 2nd petitioner's debt is true, and that he should pay it, but he is unable to pay it. This itself shows that he has committed an act of insolvency.2. On appeal the learned District Judge in effect says the same thing. All that he says isthat the appellants have had to concede that the debt is duo to the second petitioner in that case and that they are not in a position to pay it.3. As very properly observed by the learned vakil for the petitioners, both the lower Courts seem to have taken what can only be rega...
T.V. Devaraya Reddiar Vs. Liptons, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1927
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.433
This is a civil revision petition to revise an order of the Chief Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court at Madras. The necessary facts may be briefly stated: The respondents in this Court, Liptons, Ltd., instituted this suit against two defendants, the 2nd defendant being described as one A.R. Devaraya Reddy, brother-in-law of the 1st defendant. For some reason the 1st defendant seems to have been exonerated and as the 2nd defendant in the suit was not properly served, there was apparently an order for service on him by substituted service and thereupon a decree was passed ex parte against him. The decree was passed in or about December, 1923, and an application seems to have been made about two years afterwards on or about 22nd December, 1925, on behalf of the plaintiffs for amending the decree by describing the judgment-debtor, the original 2nd defendant aa T.V. Devaraya Reddy instead of A.R. Devaraya Reddy; that is, a simple application for the amendment of the initials of the j...
Vadlamannaty Bala Tripura Sundaramma Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad282
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by two members of the Muhammadan community (i) for a declaration that the resumption of the suit inam by the Government and conversion into a ryotwari land is not binding on the plaintiffs and other Muhammadan members of the community: and (2) for a declaration that the two mortgages, dated 16th March 1914, which were executed in favour of defendant 2, by defendants 3 to 7 and grandmother of the 8th are in' valid and cannot bind the suit property. Defendant 1 is the Secretary of State for India in Council and defendant 2 is the mortgagee.2. The history of the suit inam may now be briefly stated. The earliest document we have got on record is an extract from Oakes' Inam Register, Ex. X prepared in 1797. This was a register of inams probably prepared with a view to the passing of Regulation 31 of 1802, but, whatever it may be, it describes the suit land merely as an inam, fixes a certain amount of kattubadi in kind on it and shows that the i...
Sutharsana Chariar and anr. Vs. S. Samarapuri Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad690; 110Ind.Cas.837
Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.1. In this case, we have heard arguments at some considerable length but before dealing with the points that arise for determination in the appeal itself, an objection to the competency of the appeal raised on behalf of the respondents may be disposed of. The objection that was taken was really two-fold. The facts relating to the objection may be very briefly stated. In the Court of first instance, before the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiffs obtained a decree and defendant 2 filed an appeal to the District Court. During the pendency of that appeal, defendant-appellant 2 became an insolvent and all his right, title and interest became vested in the Official Assignee of Madras, who was brought on the record as appellant 2. The appeal proceeded and the District Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' action. It was thereupon that the plaintiffs preferred this second appeal. The objection that is now taken is that the real party interested in o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »