Chennai Court April 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.
G.R. Adikesavalu Naidu Vs. C.S.B. Lakshmana Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad204
Devadoss, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of suits filed by the Shrotriemdar of Chintadripet for quit rent in respect of certain houses. The trial Judge gave a decree in plaintiff's favour and Full Bench of Small Causes Court dismissed the suits on the ground that defendants' houses were exempt from payment of quit rent. The learned Chief Judge who wrote the judgment of the Full Bench fell into an error in thinking that the cowle of 1787 was to be read along with the cowle of 1st November 1734. The so-called cowle of 1734 was not really a cowle. It was a notification by the President and Governor of Port Saint George for the erection and building of a town in Chintadripet and it contained an invitation to people to come and settle there and the people who were asked to settle were weavers, spinners and others for the purpose of carrying on weaving industry. Some exemptions were made in the case of persons whose services were required for the temple in Chintadripet. In that cowl...
(Chennamangalath Illath) Govindan Nambiar and anr. Vs. (Janala Perikam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1930Mad421; 114Ind.Cas.635
Ramesam, J.1. If there is the smallest possibility for saying that we do not know where the mistake lies, this is not a case to be taken in revision. But on the plaint and on the judgment, there is no scope for saying that we do not know where the mistake lies. The mistake lies on the person who did the arithmetical work, District Munsiff or another. The mistake is purely an arithmetical error and to refuse to correct it is sheer arithmetical laziness. The case of Pitchayya v. Subba Rao [1916] 3 M.L.W. 499 does not help the respondents, That was not a case of arithmetical error and where the decree is in accordance with the judgment in such a case, there is no reason to amend. In the case of Kishori Mohan v. Chhanga Lal : AIR1925All187 , there was an appeal, a final decree and complete execution of the decree and as a matter of discretion, the amendment was refused. There is no discretion in this case as I already pointed out, I allow the petition and substitute the figure Rs. 837-8 fo...
Chegamull Suganmull Sowcar by Agent Chunnilal Vs. V. Govindasawmy Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.491
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Several questions of law have been argued by Mr. Rangaswami Aiyangar; but I do not think that I need, on that account, reserve judgment. The case now comes up before me after report by the Commissioner, who has been appointed to enquire into certain matters, but I understand, that for the purpose of this judgment, it is unnecessary either to look into that report or to go through the pleadings. The facts, as stated from the Bar, may be briefly summarised. The plaintiff lent monies to a firm known as Govindaswami and Co. It originally consisted of two divided brothers, Govindaswami and Chengayya. The former had sons, who do not matter for the present, excepting one of them, Lingayya by name. During the continuance of the firm, Chengayya died in 1916, his widow Chinna Kannammal took her husband's place in the partnership and the business was continued in the same manner as before. She died on the 20th of April, 1920, having ten days before her death, adopted Lingay...
Chennamangalagath Illath Govindan Nambudri and anr. Vs. Janala Perikam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.635
Ramesam, J.1. If there is the smallest possibility for saying that we do not know where the mistake lies, this is not a case to be taken in revision. But on the plaint and on the judgment, there is no scope for saying that we do not know where the mistake lies. The mistake lies on the person who did the arithmetical work--District Munsif or another. The mistake is a purely arithmetical error and to refuse to correct it is sheer arithmetical lazine Sections The case of Pitchayya v. Subba Rao 34 Ind. Cas. 787 : 3 L.W. 499 does not help the respondents. That was not a case of arithmetical error and where the decree is in accordance with the judgment in such a case, there is no reason to amend. In the case of Kishori Mohan v. Chhanga Lal : AIR1925All187 there was an appeal, a final decree and complete execution of the decree and as a matter of discretion, the amendment was refused. There is no discretion in this case as I already pointed out. I allow the petition and substitute the figure ...
Rukumani Ammal Vs. T.S.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.652
Kumaraswami Sastriar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order refusing stay in C.M.A. No. 108 of 1928 filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge in execution under Order XXI, Rule 66, while settling the sale proclamation. Various contentions were raised when the sale proclamation was fixed. One was as regards the value of the property and the other was as regards certain encumbrances. There were two encumbrances, one wasa mortgage to one Subramania Sastri and the other was the security given to the District Court in the Tanjore Palace Estate suit, where certain parties withdrew money from Court. As regards the security the contention on one side was that the Tanjore Palace suit encumbrances did not subsist and as regards Subramania Sastri's mortgage the contention was that it was not for a cash consideration but as a charge for some running account. It was also contended that there was no mortgage amount due to him and that Subramania Sastri and the plaintiff conse...