Chennai Court February 1928 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.
Vemulapatti Krishnayya and anr. Vs. Katraqadda Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad590
Phillips, J.1. This is an appeal against an order as to costs. The appellants are defendant 3 in the suit and the guardian ad litem of defendants 1 and 2, who have been ordered to pay the costs of the suit on the ground that they have set up false defences. The suit is brought on a mortgage-deed executed by defendant 3, the father of defendants 1 and 2 as their guardian. The suit was defended by defendants 1 and 2 through their guardian ad Iitem, appellant 1. It is contended in the first place that defendant 3 is not liable for costs because he is not a necessary party to the suit. The Subordinate Judge thought that even though he was not a necessary party, still he was a proper party. To prove the execution of the suit document it was certainly necessary to include him in the plaint. It is possible that in certain circumstances, he might be exonerated from the suit after the facts had been ascertained, but he certainly must be impleaded when the suit is brought. He is, therefore, a pr...
Vemulapalli Krishnayya and anr. Vs. Katragadda Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.310
This is an appeal against an order as to costs. The appellants are the 3rd defendant in the suit and the guardian ad litem of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who have been ordered to pay the costs of the suit on the ground that they have set up false defences. The suit is brought on a mortgage-deed executed by the 3rd defendant, the father of the defendants Nog 1 and 2 as their guardian. The suit was defended by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 through their guardian ad litem, the 1st appellant. It is contended in the first place that the 3rd defendant is not liable for costs because he is not a necessary party to the suit. The Subordinate Judge thought that even though he was not a necessary party, still he was a proper party. To prove the execution of the suit document it was certainly necessary to include him in the plaint. It is possible that in certain circumstances he might be exonerated from the suit after the facts had been ascertained, but he certainly must be impleaded when the suit is broug...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Podimonu Beary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ499
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is by Government against the acquittal of an accused by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mangalore. The facts of the case, so far as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may be taken to be as follows. On 29th January, 1927, the accused as a carrier was entrusted by P.W. 3, the proprietor of Hosanalla Coffee Estate, Mysore, with 225 bushels of parchment coffee to be carried by him from the estate to Mangalore for delivery there to Volkart Brothers Coffee Works. When the consignment was handed over in Mangalore it was found that from 27 bags coffee had been abstracted and tailings of no value substituted. There was no evidence as to where or when the coffee was abstracted. On these facts the Police charge-sheeted the accused under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Part of the defence was that the Magistrate had no local jurisdiction to try the offence. This contention has found favour with the Magistrate who held that as there was no evidence that th...
Thiagaraja Mudali and anr. Vs. V.N. Kothandapani Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad980a; 113Ind.Cas.238
Wallace, J.1. The short point argued in this civil revision petition is whether it is open to a Court to refuse to permit a guardian ad litem to retire from a case. The petitioner argues first that the mere statement by the guardian that he wishes to retire is tantamount to a retiral and that after that statement he remains no longer a guardian; and secondly that even if he cannot actually retire without permission of the Court that permission cannot be refused.2. As to the first point: the petitioner relies on the wording of Order 32, Rule 11 (2) arguing that the phrase used is merely 'retires' and not 'retires with permission' but the phrase in this sub-section of the rule must be subject to the foregoing subsection and 'retires' as used in Sub-section 2 must import the conditions of a retiral set out in Sub-section 1.3. As to the second point; the petitioner argues that 'may permit' is equal to 'shall permit' and that the rule is mandatory. I am not able to accept that contention. I...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Pedimonu Beary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.238
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is by Government against the acquittal of an accused by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mangalore. The facts of the case, so far as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may be taken to be as follows: On 29th January, 1927, the accused as a carrier was entrusted by P.W. No. 3, the proprietor of Hosanalla Coffee Estate, Mysore, with 225 baskets of parchment coffee to be carried by him from the estate to Mangalare for delivery there to Volkart Brothers Coffee Works. When the consignment was handed over in Managlore it was found that from 27 bags coffee had been abstracted and tailings of no value substituted. There was no evidence as to where or when the coffee was abstracted. On these facts the Police charge sheeted the accused under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Part of the defence was that the Magistrate had no local jurisdiction to try the offence. This contention has found favour with the Magistrate who held that as there was no evidence tha...
Kandaswamy Koundan Vs. N.M.L. Subramanian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.409
Tiruvenkata Achariyar, J.1. The question which I have to consider in this case is whether this application which has been put in for the revision of an interlocutory order passed under Order IX, Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code should be entertained. The material facts bearing on the point are as follows : The applicant is the 6th defendant in O.S. No. 68 of 1925 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Dindigul. He did not appear when the suit was called on for hearing on a date originally fixed for the trial of the suit and he was declared ex parte. There were then several adjournments and the suit was finally disposed of on the 23rd of September, 1926. On the 21st September, 1926, he applied to the Court to set aside the order declaring him ex parte and permit him to file his written statement. That petition came on for hearing on the 23rd of September, 1926, and was dismissed and on the same day the decree in the suit was passed against the 6th defendant ex parte. Against ...
A.M. Appavoo Chettiar Vs. the South Indian Railway Company Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad177; (1929)56MLJ269
Ramesam, J.1. The points arising for decision in this case are substantially the same as those arising in C.R.P. No. 1259 of 1925 deckled by us on the 29th November last. In that case the Government was not represented, but now we have had the advantage of hearing the learned Advocate-General who appeared for Government. In the former case we relied on Cooper v. Phibbs (1867) L.R. 2 H.L. 149 and the observations of Stirling, J., in Allcard v. Walker (1896) L.R. 2 Ch. 369. No issue was raised in that case as to whether the payment was voluntary. On that ground we refused to consider the two decisions in Slater v. Mayor, etc. of Burnley (1888) 59 L.T. 636 and William Whiteley, Ltd. v. The King (1909) 101 L.T. 741 In those cases the ground of the decision was that the payments were voluntary and we therefore held there was no need to consider those decisions at length; but, towards the end of the judgment, there is an observation that even if it is necessary to consider them, we do not pr...
A.M. Appavaoo Chettiar Vs. the South Indian Railway Co. Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.358
1. The points arising for decision in this case are substantially the same as those arising in C.R.P. No. 1259 of 1925 decided by us on the 29th November last In that case the Government was not represented but now we have had the advantage of hearing the learned Advocate- General who appeared for Government. In the former case we relied on Cooper v. Phibbs (1867) 2 H.L. 149 : 16 L.T. 678 : 15 W.R. 1049 and the observations of Stirling, J., in Allcard v. Walker (1896) 2 Ch. 369 : 65 L.J. Ch. 660 : 74 L.T. 487 : 44 W.R. 661. No issue was raised in that case as to whether the payment was voluntary. On that ground we refused to consider the two decisions in Slater v. Burnley Corporation (1888) 59 L.T. 636 : 36 W.R. 831 : 53 J.P. 70 and Whiteley Ltd., v. Reg. (1910) 101 L.T. 741 : 26 T.L.R. 19. In those cases the ground of the decision was that the payments were voluntary and we, therefore, held there was no need to consider those decisions at length but, towards the end of the judgment th...
Al. A. Algappa Chettiar Vs. Vellachami Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad981
1. The appellant is an alienee of the insolvent's property. He appeals against an order admitting the proof of a creditor. He is not a person aggrieved by the order admitting proof. He may be very remotely affected by the decision in favour of the creditor. This case is governed by the principle that an aggrieved person must be one who is affected by the order appealed against as put by James, L. J., in Ex parte Sidebotham; In re Sidebotham [1880] 14 Ch. D. 458. The fact that the appellant was allowed by the lower Court to cross-examine the witnesses of the creditor would not give him a locus standi in the proceedings so as to enable him to present an appeal against the order in favour of the creditor. The cases in Alagappa Chettiar v. Nagaratna Mudaliar : AIR1918Mad497 and Kumarappa Chettiar v. Murugappa Chettiar [1916] 36 I.C. 771 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
A. Gopala Pattar and anr. Vs. Parvathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad47; 117Ind.Cas.785
Phillips, J.1. These two appeals are against a decree obtained by the plaintiff-respondent for maintenance and return of jewels. The former appeal is by defendant 1, respondent's father-in-law, against the latter portion of the decree and the latter appeal is by defendant 2, respondent's husband, against the decree for maintenance. So far as the respondent's right to maintenance is concerned the appeal is not pressed, for the relations between the respondent and her husband and his father, defendant 1 and the brother of defendant 2 have been so strained that criminal cases have arisen and undoubtedly the respondent suffered considerable ill-treatment at the hands of her husband and his family.2. Appeal No. 115 of 1924 relates to jewels which are said to have been given to the respondent at the time of her nuptials. The oral evidence is in some respects discrepant, but as it is given 12 years after the events took place, too much importance cannot be attached to such discrepancies in de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »