Chennai Court March 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.
Arunachalam Chetty and ors. Vs. O.S. Ramasamy Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad933
Phillips, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and Vena Odayan, father of defendants 3 to 5. In 1921 under Ex.1, defendants 1 and 2 sold the mortgage property with the exception of 22 acres and a house to defendant 3 for Rs. 10,000. The consideration was made up of two sums, one of Rs. 9,460 in discharge of this mortgage and a cash payment of Rs. 540. It was recited that the father of defendants 3 to 5 was to take Rs. 4,730 for his share of the mortgage money and was to pay a similar amount to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 5 have filed a joint appeal although their cases are not identical.2. On behalf of defendants 1 and 2 it is contended that by executing Ex.1, they fully discharged the plaint mortgage, it being alleged that the plaintiff was a consenting party to Ex. 1. The Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiff was not a party to this agreement and that it was arrived at behind his back. The mortgage amount was calculated by allowing intere...
Sri Bashyam Konayamma Vs. Sri Bashyam Ramaswami Garu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad851
1. The plaintiff is the widow of a divided brother of defendant 1. The plaintiff's deceased husband and defendant 1 were gurus who offered spiritual advice and ministrations to a large number of persons. Though divided the plaintiff's late husband and defendant 1 had joint disciples. The plaintiff alleged a family custom that if one guru dies his widow should continue to enjoy a half-share of the offerings (technically called sishyadayam) made by joint disciples and collected by the other guru. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to recover her portion of the offerings said to have been collected by defendant 1 basing her right on the alleged family custom. Defendant 1 contended that the offerings made by the sishyas do not form heritable property and that he had not made any collections. The District Munsif held that the alleged customs were proved, but was of opinion that the offerings were not heritable property, that they were not made to...
Rathina thevan Vs. Packirisami thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1088
Devadoss, J.1. The plaintiffs suit is on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 16th November 1921, at Kaulalampur, Federated Malay States, for 70 dollars- The defence is limitation. The District Munsif has decreed the suit and defendant prefers this civil revision petition. The petition came on before the learned Chief Justice who directed it to be posted before a Bench of two Judges as the question involved is of some importance.2. The plaintiff and defendant are natives of Mannargudi taluk, Tanjore District. They went to the Federated Malay States to earn their livelihood; and while they were there, the defendant borrowed 70 dollars of the plaintiff and executed the promissory note sued on. The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 166 of 1923 on the promissory note in Kaulalampur Magistrate's Court in the Native State of Selangor and obtained judgment on 15th March 1925. He filed O.S. 319 of 1924-in the District Munsif's Court at Mannargudi on the foreign judgment obtained by...
Polapragada Sreeramulu Vs. Polapragada Naghabhushanam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad963
Devadoss, J.1. Plaintiff is the petitioner in these two connected petitions In C.R.P. 660 of 1926 he applies for revising the order of the District Munsif declining to appoint a commissioner in pursuance of the preliminary decree In C.R.P. 661 of 1926 he applies for revising the order of the District Munsif refusing to restore the suit to file which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition and a preliminary decree was passed on 16th February 1921. The Court fixed 24th February 1921 for the plaintiff to apply for the appointment of commissioner. But on that day the plaintiff did not turn up and so the Court adjourned the suit to 4th March 1921. On that day also there was no appearance for the plaintiff and therefore the suit was dismissed. The application for restoration of the suit to file was made on 7th August 1925. The District Munsif rightly dismissed the application as being out of time and the application for passing a final decree wa...
M.R.A.L. Lakshmanan Chetty Vs. M.R.A.P.L. Palaniappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1052
Devadoss, J.1. The respondent applied for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 151 of 1913 and relied on an application of 1922 for saving the bar of limitation, and the contention of the appellant that the application of 1922 was barred by limitation was rejected by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that he was barred by res judicata from raising the contention. Hence this appeal. It was well settled so far back as Mungal Pershad Dichit v. Grija Kant Lahiri [1882] 8 Cal. 51, that orders in execution operated as res judicata. In that case the Privy Council held thatalthough the execution of a decree may have been actually bired by time at the of date an application made for its execution, yet, if an order for such execution has been regularly made by a competent Court having jurisdiction to try whether it was barred by time or not, such order, although erroneous, must, if unreversed, be treated as valid.2. This case was followed in Subbiah Naicker v. Ramanathan Chettiar [1914] 37 Mad....
Rathina Tevan Vs. Packrisami Tevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.139
1. The plaintiff's suit is on a promissory note executed by the defendant on 17th November, 1921, at Kaulalampur, Federated Malay States, for 70 dollars. The defence is limitation. The District Munsif had decreed the suit, and defendant prefers this civil revision petition. The petition came on before the learned Chief Justice who directed it to be posted before a Bench of two Judges as the question involved is of some importance.2. The plaintiff and defendant are natives of Mannargudi Taluk, Tanjore District. They went to the Federated Malay States to earn their livelihood; and while they were there the defendant borrowed 70 dollars of the plaintiff and executed the promissory note sued on. The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 166 of 1923 on the promissory note in Kaulalampur Magistrate's Court in the native state of Selangor and obtained judgment on 15th March, 1924. He filed O.S No. 319 of 1924 in the District Munsifs Court at Mannargudi on the foreign judgment obtained by him, a...
Sri Bhashyam Konayamma, Minor, by Her Next Friend and Father Nedamamar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.782
The lower Appellate Court has not given a finding oa the question whether the custom set up by the plaintiff in para. 3 (9) of the plaint has been proved to exist. We must call for a lading on the question and also on the question as to the amount due to the plaintiff on account of the offerings.The parties will not be allowed to adduce fresh evidence. The findings are to be submitted in one month from the date of this order. One week will be allowed for objections.In compliance with the order contained in the above judgment the District Judge of Ganjam submitted the followingFindings.This appeal has been sent back by the High Court for findings on two points.The first point is 'whether the custom set by the plaintiff in para. 3 (9) of the plaint has been proved to exist.' Not the least difficult part of my task has been to ascertain what is the custom sat up in para. 3 (9) of the plaint. It is clearly a family custom so much is clear. Plaintiff a family and defendant's family are two ...
Muthuswami Kavundan and ors. Vs. Ponnayya Kavundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.613; (1928)55MLJ436
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover Rs. 5,035 alleged to be due on a deed of mortgage executed by the 4th plaintiff in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the 29th November, 1918.2. One Ponnia Gounden died in 1909 leaving a widow (4th plaintiff), three daughters and a son by another wife. On Ponnia Gounden's death his son succeeded him and died in 1910. His step-mother, though not the heir under Hindu Law, took possession of the estate, got pattas transferred to her name and was in enjoyment of the properties. The defendants claiming to be reversioners filed a suit in 1915 which they withdrew and filed another suit O.S. No. 478 of 1916 to recover possession of the properties on the ground that the 4th plaintiff was not the heir to the last male holder. The suit was disposed of on an alleged compromise. The widow denied she ever compromised the suit and the case was remanded by the Appellate Court and finally disposed of in 1920 in fav...
Sri Sri Sri Srinivasa Rajamani Raja Deo, Rajah of Mandasa Vs. Senapati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1928
Reported in: (1929)56MLJ81
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. Second Appeal No. 289 of 1927.-This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 95 of the Estates Land Act. The plaintiff is the tenant of the defendant who is the Rajah of Mandasa. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant illegally distrained certain properties of his and the suit is to set aside the distraint. The plaintiff in paragraph 8 of the plaint states that the attachment made by the defendant is illegal, being contrary to the provisions of the Estates Land Act, and that there was no valid exchange of patta and muchilika or even a tender of a proper patta. To this the defendant replied in the written statement stating that the patta issued by the Settlement Officer continued in force, and that it is not correct to say that the attachment was illegal. It is not disputed that during fasli 1333 a record of rights under Chapter XI of the Estates Land Act was prepared and in 1333 rent was settled under that Chapter and before the record of rights was p...
R.K. Abdul Rahim Sahib and Co. and the Official Assignee of Madras Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1928
Reported in: 110Ind.Cas.606; (1928)54MLJ715
ORDERWaller, J.1. The question originally raised was as to the regularity of issue of this summons and whether the Official Assignee is entitled to apply for the issue of a summons, under Section 36 of the Act, to compel a witness under that section to appear when such witness resides at a distance of over 200 miles from the court-house. In other words, can a summons be issued under Section 36 to compel a witness residing over 200 miles from Madras to attend and give evidence.2. After the argument had been addressed to me on this section Mr. V. Vaardaraja Mudaliar, on behalf of the Official Assignee, said that the summons in this case was not issued or applied for under Section 36 of the Act, but was applied for under Section 7 of the Act, or, in the alternative, that it was applied for under either Section 36 or Section 7. As the matter has been fully argued before me, I shall record my views on both sections and discuss the various authorities cited before me.3. The first case referr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »