Chennai Court February 1928 Judgments
(Vadlamudi) Bhimayya and ors. Vs. (Putcha) Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad820
Phillips, J.1. In this case an adopted son brought a suit to set aside a large number of alienations effected by his adoptive mother and guardian. The appellants are some of the alienees and they present this appeal relying on the contention that the suit was not maintainable in the Sub-Court, Guntur, on the ground that the properties alienated to them were situate within the jurisdiction of the Bezwada Court. In the first place it is contended that the suit in respect of all these alienations is bad as it does not come within the provision of O.1, Rule 3. That point has been finally settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Govindaraja Mudaliar v. Alagappa Thambiran A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 911 where it was held that a suit to set aside a number of alienations by a previous trustee was not bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The facts here are similar and, following that case, it must be held that O.1, Rule 3 does apply.2. It is then contended that, inasmuch as some of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Vaclamudi Bhimayya and ors. Vs. Putcha Lakshminarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.672
In this case an adopted son brought a suit to set aside a large number of alienations effected by his adoptive mother and guardian. The appellants are some of the alienees and they present this appeal relying on the contention that the suit was net maintainable in the Sub-Court, Guntur, on the ground that the properties alienated to them were situate within the jurisdiction of the Bezwada Court. In the first place it is contended that the suit in respect of all these alienations is bad as it does not come within the provision of O.I, Rule 3. That point has been finally settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Govindaraja Mudaliar v. Alagappa Thambiran : AIR1926Mad911 where it was held that a suit to set aside a number of alienations by a previous trustee was not bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The facta here are similar and following that case it must be held that Order I, Rule 3 does apply.It is then contended that, inasmuch as gome of the properties were situate o...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatapathi Nayakar, Minor Through His Mother and Next Friend Suppamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad788; 113Ind.Cas.158; (1928)55MLJ489
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit by a minor plaintiff represented by his mother and next friend to set aside a deed of sale, Exhibit XX, dated 21st November 1920, executed by his father, the late Subba Naick, in favour of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff claimed to be the adopted son of Subba Naick and was so found by the Courts below. Subba Naick died on the date of the sale deed soon after the execution. His father Pappia Naick (i.e., the grandfather of the plaintiff) died on the 1st December 1920. The sale deed was executed for Rs. 600. The vendee was the minor son of Subba Naick's wife's brother Lakshmipathi, who is the second defendant. The plaintiff alleged that Subba Naick was not in a sound disposing state of mind when he executed the sale deed. But this point was found against the plaintiff by the District Munsiff and is not pressed before the Subordinate Judge or before us. The plaintiff alleged that the property sold was joint family property of the vend...
Tag this Judgment!Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachala Chettiar and anr. Vs. Virappa Chettiar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad800
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs, defendant 1's father and some others were joint decree-holders in a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 330 of 1911 on the file of the Sub-Court of Ramnad. Defendant 1's father, Murugappa Chetti, applied for execution of the decree and collected some amounts. Plaintiffs have brought this suit for their share of the decree amount against Murugappa Chetti's son, defendant 1, and his grandsons, defendants 2 and 3. The defendants raised several contentions. The District Munsif found that Murugappa Chetti received the amount? from the judgment-debtors on behalf of all the judgment-creditors, but dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. On appeal the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that the amounts were not realized in execution and that they were paid to Murugappa Chetti towards his own share of the decree amount and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to participate in them. The plaintiffs have prefer...
Tag this Judgment!N. Muniswami Mudaliar Vs. R. Rajagopala Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: (1928)54MLJ644
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an action for passing-off. The plaintiff publishes a journal known as 'Ananda Bodhini' and he complains that the defendant recently started a periodical under the name 'Ananda Guna Bodhini' and that the use of this name is calculated to deceive and to cause the defendant's goods to be taken for the goods of the plaintiff. Mr. S. Doraiswami Aiyar for the plaintiff now asks for permission to amend his plaint by alleging fraud. That the imitation of the plaintiff's name is calculated to mislead, is distinctly alleged in the plaint. For the plaintiff, it is contended that the allegation of fraud is already there, but that it is sought to put forward this case more clearly in the pleadings. I do not agree that the plaint contains a charge of fraud and the question therefore is, is the plaintiff now to be given liberty to amend his plaint?2. In a passing-off case, it is well settled that fraud is not a necessary element of the right of action. The cause of acti...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Ayyar Vs. Swaminatha Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad746
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this appeal may be stated as follows: One Swaminatha Chettiar brought a suit on the foot of a simple mortgage in O.S. 33 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate-Court of Negapatam and obtained a decree for sale. The properties directed to be sold consisted of items in three schedules. Those in Sch A and Schedule C are situated in Pattukotta taluk which was then within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Tanjore. Those in Schedule B are situated in the Mannargudi taluk which was then within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam. As some of the properties were within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam the suit was rightly instituted there. While the suit was pending: a notification, dated September 1921, was issued by which the district of Tanjore was divided into two districts, East. Tanjore and West Tanjore. The jurisdictions of the Subordinate Courts were, re-arranged, and under this re-arrangement the Mannargudi ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Ramabhadra Odayar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1198
ORDERWallace, J.1. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203, and the Sessions Judge after notice to accused and hearing them, ordered further enquiry. On this the Magistrate, without taking any further evidence, appears to have issued a notice under Section 204. Two points are raised on this, viz., that the Sessions Judge's action in issuing a notice to the accused was illegal and (2) that the further enquiry must be still under Chap-16.2. As to the first point a Full Bench of this Court has held that accused persons have no locus standi in enquiries under Chap. 16. This principle is, to my mind, equally applicable when the order in such an enquiry is under revision either in the Sessions Court or in this Court. The Sessions Judge's action in issuing notice to accused was therefore improper, if not illegal. As to the second point the Sessions Judge does not say whether the further enquiry is under Chap. 16 or Chap. 17. While the Magistrate's action in issuing notice str...
Tag this Judgment!N. Munisami Mudalar Vs. T. Rajagopala Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.763
This is an action for passing off. The plaintiff publishes a Journal known as 'Ananda Bodhini' and he complains that the defendant recently started a periodical under the name 'Ananda Guna Bodhini' and that the use of this name is calculated to deoeive and to cause the defendant's goods to be taken for the goods of the plaintiff. Mr. S. Duraiswami Ayyar for the plaintiff now asks for permission to amend his plaint by alleging fraud. That the imitation of the plaintiff's name is calculated to mislead, is distinctly alleged in the plaint. For the plaintiff, it is contended that the allegation of fraud is already there, but that it is sought to put forward this case more clearly in the pleadings. I do not agree that the plaint contains a charge of fraud and the question, therefore, is, is the plaintiff now to be given liberty to amend his plaint?In a passing off case, it is well settled that fraud is not a necessary element of the Tight of action. The cause of action set forth in the plai...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: T.S. Rambadra Odayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.563
ORDERWallace, J.1. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 and the Sessions Judge after notice to accused and hearing them ordered further enquiry. On this the Magistrate, without taking any further evidence appears to have issued a notice under Section 204. Two points are raised on this viz., (1) that the Sessions Judge's action in issuing a notice to the accused was illegal, and (2) that the further enquiry must be still under Chap. XVI.2. As to the first point a Full Bench of this Court has held that accused persons have no locus standi in enquiries under Chap. XVI. This principle is, to my mind equally applicable when the order in such an enquiry is under revision either in the Sessions Court or in this Court. The Sessions Judge's action in issuing notice to accused was, therefore, improper, if not illegal. As to the second point the Sessions Judge does not say whether the further enquiry is under Chap. XVI or Chap. XVII. While the Magistrate's action in issuing no...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Iyer Vs. Swaminatha Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.545
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this appeal may be stated as follows: One Swaminatha Chettiar brought a suit on the foot of a simple mortgage in O.S. No. 33 of 1921, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Negapatam and obtained a decree for sale. The properties directed to be sold consisted of items in three schedules. Those in A and C schedules are situated in Pattukottai Taluq which was then with in the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Tanjore. Those in schedule B are situated in the Mannargudi Taluq which was then within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam. As some of the properties were within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court of Negapatam the suit was rightly instituted there. While the suit was pending a Notification, dated September...1921, was issued by which the Districts of Tanjore was divided into two Districts-East Tanjore and West Tanjore. The jurisdictions of the Subordinate Courts were re-arranged and under this re arrangement the M...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »