Chennai Court September 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.
Firm of R.B. Poddar (Boddar) and Co. Vs. D.D. Thathachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad234
ORDERWallace, J.1. There are two points which require elucidation before this civil revision petition can be settled;1. Whether the application to set aside the decree is not out of time, having been presented more than 30 days from the date of the ex-parte decree.2. Whether the pleader who reported no instructions in the suit filed a fresh vakalat before he appeared to put in the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.2. The lower Court will submit findings on these points. Evidence may be taken on the first point, if parties desire, as the point seems to have been overlooked until now. (The findings were accordingly submitted and then the following judgment was delivered.)3. The findings are that the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was in time and that a fresh vakalat was put in with the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. I accept them. The finding on the second point shows that the pleader did not continue to act on his original vakalat after he reporte...
Yenamandra Ganapati Rao Vs. Dulla Sattamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad960
Wallace, J.1. The original suit from which this second appeal arises is a suit to eject a tenant of what is called dumbala inam land. The real point for decision is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The first Court held that it had not and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court agreed that the civil Court is not the proper forum, but held and rightly held that the District Munsif should not have dismissed the suit but should have returned the plaint and he decreed accordingly. The plaintiff has appealed contending that the civil Court has jurisdiction.2. It is admitted that the land is ryoti land and that the defendant was let into possession by the plaintiff in 1908 and was in possession after the coming into force of the Madras Estates Land Act. Prima facie by force of Section 6 of that Act the defendant would have acquired occupancy right i the plaintiff was the landholder. But the plaintiff contends that he himself was then and is now the ryot h...
Rajagopala Aiyer Vs. A.N.K. Raman Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.754
1. The appellant before us is the 3rd defendant in the suit which was brought to enforce a mortgage bond. Exhibit A, dated the 20th May, 1920, executed in favour of the plaintiffs by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and by the 3rd defendant's mother on his behalf as his guardian, he being then a minor. The plaintiffs who are the mortgagees under Ex. A, are the proprietors of four different firms which have their principal place of business at Madras. Their case is that each of the said firms had dealings with the firms of R. Rangaswami Aiyar & Sons which was carrying on business in Javali or cloths at Madras having also a branch of the same business at Madura. The plaintiffs say that for purposes of the trade of R Rangaswami Aiyar & Sons Hanumantha Aiyar who was the managing proprietor of the said business borrowed moneys from each of them from time to time and also purchased piece-goods from them and that in connection with his Madura branch, the said Hanumantha Aiyar also borrowed moneys ...
The Firm of R.B. Poddar and Co., by Its Authorized Agent Harkchand Dam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1927
Reported in: 107Ind.Cas.815
ORDER1. There are two points which require elucidation before this civil revision petition can be settled:1. Whether the application to set aside the ex parte decree is not out of time having been presented more than 30 days from the date of ex parte decree.2. Whether the Pleader who reported no instructions in the suit filed a fresh vakalat before he appeared to put in the application to set aside the ex parte decree.2. The lower Court will submit findings on these points. Evidence may be taken on the first point, if parties desire, as the point seems to have been overlooked until now.3. Time for submission of findings is two weeks after re-opening of this Court after vacation, and for objections ten days.4. In compliance with the above order the District Munsif of Madura submitted the following.Findings. The High Court has called for findings on the following two points: * * * * * *2. The plaintiff's Pleader was present and adduced no evidence. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 (respondents in ...
Nallaperumal Pillai Vs. Sakul Hamed Maracayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1927
Reported in: 108Ind.Cas.406; (1928)54MLJ721
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The main ground argued in this second appeal on behalf of the appellant who is the 1st defendant in the suit from which this second appeal has arisen is that the lower courts were wrong in holding that the plaintiff's suit was not barred by the provisions of Section 47 of the Procedure Code. For the purpose of making good an objection on the footing of that section it is necessary to make out two matters : first, that the person who comes in as plaintiff in the subsequent suit was a party to the suit in which the decree was passed within the meaning of Section 47 of the Code and secondly, that the subject-matter of the suit was one relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree in the previous suit. Mr. K. V. Sesha Aiyangar, the learned vakil for the appellant, wished to argue both the positions, namely, that the plaintiff in this suit must in law be regarded as having been a party to the previous suit within the meaning of Section 47 of the...
K.R.S.V. Muthayya Chetti and ors. Vs. Narayanan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad317
Phillips Offg. C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs seek to recover from defendants 1 and 2 or in the alternative defendants 3 and 4 certain moneys paid by the firm of plaintiff 1 and defendants 5 and 6 to the firm of A.P.S. in Rangoon on behalf of the firm of defendants 1 and 2. The Subordinate Judge has found that defendants 1 and 2 were indebted to the firm of A.P.S., Rangoon, and that the firm of plaintiff 1 and defendants 5 and 6 called K.R.S.V. did actually pay moneys to A.P.S. firm on behalf of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff made a claim in the alternative against defendants 3 and 4 who constitute the A.P.S. firm, but subsequently withdrew that claim. The Subordinate Judge has found that although the plaintiff made these payments they do not come within the provisions of Section 70, Contract Act, on the ground that the plaintiffs were not individuals who were interested in making the payments and the payments, therefore, will not be lawful within the meaning of Section 70, Cont...
Kunhi Kurumban and anr. Vs. Uppukootu Parambil Lakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad387
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J. 1. In these three connected second appeals the alienees of certain items of property, the subject-matter of the suit, which the plaintiff sought to recover with mesne profits, are the appellants, but the questions that arise for determination are the same. 2. The first point that was argued by Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar on behalf of the appellants was that the lower Courts were wrong in their finding on the question of title raised in the case. It was argued that though both the lower Courts found that the title to the property claimed was not with Thanu, the husband of Parvathi, but with Parvathi; still such finding should be regarded as vitiated by the misconstruction by the lower Courts of the document Ex. 8 in O.S. 52 of 1921. That was an instrument by which Thanu Chetty, the husband of Parvathi, gave these properties as security to the Government. The document is purported to be attested by Parvathi and her daughters and others as prospective heirs of Thanu Chett...
Kuppuswami Goundan Vs. Chinnaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Mad546
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The question for determination in this second appeal has turned out to be one of considerable difficulty. It has reference to and bears upon the terms of Section 50, Registration Act. The facts on the basis of which the question has been raised may be briefly set out. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Court. He instituted the suit from which this second appeal has arisen for recovery of possession of certain items of property. He claimed a right to such possession on the title acquired by him under a registered sale-deed, Ex. A, in the case bearing date 15th June 1922. The defendants who are the respondents here claim a right to the properties under an unregistered sale-deed, Ex. I in the case bearing date 5th June 1917. There was some dispute at some stage with regard to the extent of the properties covered by these two deeds of sale, but for the purpose of the present appeal we must take it that both the documents cover and include the properties, the su...
Tirupathi Naicken and anr. Vs. Venkatasubba Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1927
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.243
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The point for determination in this second appeal is as observed by Mr. Varadachariar in his opening, in a very narrow compass. The whole argument ranged round the proper construction of Ex. 2 in the case. It. was in. the nature of a deed of settlement made by one Subba Nayak and his first wife Gangammal and was obviously made at a time when Subba Nayak contemplated taking a second wife. The plaintiffs are the sons of Subba Nayak by the second wife whom ha subsequently married. Their claim in the action was on the footing that on a proper construction of the clauses in Ex. 2 there was a defeasance of the estate created in favour of Gangammal and her daughter Krishnammal and that therefore, the plaintiffs have become entitled to the property to recover which they have instituted the suit. The 2nd defendant who claimed in the written statement to be the adopted son of Krishnaminal has defended the action on the ground that there was no such defeasance as on the b...
Sonachalam Pillai and ors. Vs. Kumaravelu Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1927
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ8
1. The plaintiffs are Vaniyars or oil-mongers of Tiruchendur. They sue for a declaration that they are entitled to worship in the Subrahmaniaswami temple at Tiruchendur by going into the inner Mayil Maha Mantapam, to go round all the prakarams in the temple, to place their Kavadies on the koradu in front of the Valliamman shrine, etc., and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of worship. 2. The defendants, who are the Dharmakarthas, Stanikars of the temple and the three Vellala inhabitants of Tiruchendur, deny the plaintiffs' right to go into the Mayil Maha Mantapam for the purpose of worship and their right to place Kavadies on the koradu in front of the Valliamman shrine and contend that they and their caste-men are prohibited from going beyond the Irawatha Mantapam or going round any of the prakarams. The Subordinate judge of Tuticorin has granted the plaintiffs the declaration and injunction prayed for. The defendants prefer this appeal.3. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »