Chennai Court May 1928 Judgments
Vedappan Servai and ors. Vs. M. Periannan Servai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1108; 113Ind.Cas.279; (1928)55MLJ621
ORDERReilly, J.1. This is a revision petition filed against the order of the Taluk First Class Magistrate of Tiruppathur, dated 12th April, 1928 under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned vakil for the respondent that this petition does not lie. He argues that the High Court acting under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code can call for and examine the record of any proceeding only before any inferior Criminal Court and that, in the present case, the order of the Magistrate acting under Section 144 is not the order of a Court. In support of this argument he relies on the case reported in Nataraya Pillai v. Rangaswami Pillai : (1923)44MLJ328 which was a judgment of Ayling, J. and myself. That decision was passed prior to the amendment of Section 435 by the omission of Clause (3). It is true that Mr. Ranganadha Aiyar in his Criminal Procedure Code expresses the opinion that the decision in Nataraja Pillai v. Raxngaszmmi Pillai ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Muthuramalinga Sethupathi Vs. Muthu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ379
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff (respondent) instituted a suit in a Revenue Court under Section 55 of the Estates Land Act. His suit in respect of the plaint land was dismissed on the ground that he was not entitled to demand a patta. He has brought the present suit to obtain possession of the suit land, and the question that now arises for decision is whether the decision in the prior suit in the Revenue Court is res judicata or not. The Section applicable is Section 189 (3) of the Estates Land Act. It says:The decision of a Revenue Court or of an appellate or revisional authority in any suit or proceeding under this Act on a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court shall be binding on the parties thereto and persons claiming under them in any suit or proceeding in a Civil Court in which such matter may be in issue between them.2. This question has been considered in several cases, but in most of these cases the circumstances were not the same as...
Tag this Judgment!The East India Distilleries and Factories, Limited, Through their Mana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.234; (1928)55MLJ663
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. After careful consideration of this case I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff cannot succeed unless he can bring home negligence to the defendants. It is argued that the covenant in the lease imposes an absolute obligation on the lessees to restore the building at the end of their term in the condition in which they took it without regard to the provisions of Section 108, Transfer of Property Act. That such a result might be reached in England I do not contest. English authorities were quoted and there is no doubt much to be said for the view that, if you enter into a general repairing covenant and do not provide for the contingency of fire, you will be held strictly to the words of your covenant. But in India the Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly contemplates that a lessee should not be responsible for the consequences of fire unless he has definitely taken that burden upon his shoulders by his covenant. In my opinion th...
Tag this Judgment!Sami Chettiar and anr. Vs. T.R. Sesha Iyer and Co. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1057; 113Ind.Cas.663
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore granting the prayer of the plaintiffs for the amendment of a decree. The plaintiffs brought a suit on a mortgage bond executed in the year 1907 against defendant 1 and his three sons, of whom defendants 3 and 4 are minors. The plaintiffs asked the Court to appoint defendant 1 as guardian of the minor defendants. But as defendant 1 refused to be the guardian of his minor sons, an application was made by the plaintiffs to-have the mother of the minors appointed guardian ad litem and she was accordingly appointed guardian ad litem for minor defendants 3 and 4: This appointment was made on 19th October 1920. The suit was compromised and an application for sanction to compromise was put in on 14th October 1921, and a preliminary decree was passed in terms of the compromise on 13th December 1922. In drawing up the preliminary decree the father was mentioned as the guardian of the minors defendant...
Tag this Judgment!M.L.M. Ramanadan Chettiar Vs. Gundu Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1238; 113Ind.Cas.456
Phillips, J.1. The appellant sued upon three promissory notes executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 for Rs. 3000, Rs. 2000 and Rs. 500 respectively. The first two notes were executed on succeeding days 7th July 1920 and 8th July 1920 and the third one on 15th March 1921. The learned Judge has found that the consideration did not really pass and that whatever consideration did pass was of an unlawful nature being given for immoral purposes. This finding has been impeached by Mr. Somayya on behalf of defendant 2 but the circumstances of the case are so glaring that we must accept the finding of the learned Judge. Out of the Rs. 3000 under the first note only Rs. 1000 purports to have been paid and Rs. 2000 was left with the payee to be drawn as required. Notwithstanding this fact, the very next day the second note for Rs. 2000 was executed. This fact cannot be explained away and the evidence clearly establishes the finding as indicated. Under Section 58, Negotiable Instruments...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Alias Govinddoss, Minor by Next Friend M. Lauldoss Vs. Gokuldoss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1064; (1928)55MLJ132
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to property valued at several lakhs, and the points that have been raised have been argued very fully. In the following genealogical table, which sets forth the relationship of the parties, are also noted certain important dates: Ramdas Ghanshamdoss d. 17th October 1879 m. Kamalabai or Akka. | _____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | Muralidoss Govardhandoss Balamnkun- Bhaga Subroyadoss d. 24th April 1907 d. 26th Sept. 1999 doss (d. 1896) vandoss (alive) m. Yasodabai m. Kammubai, D. 5 m. Rukkubai d. 1911 m. Godavari. or Jessubai d. Jany. 26. m. Kun- or Jessu. danbai. | | ____________________________________________ | | | |Putlibai Krishna loss Gokuldoss Dwarakadoss. alias b. 16-5-84 (1st Deft.) (2nd Deft.)Nani or d. 13-8-08 b. 6-4-85 b. 12th Nov. 91 Nanu m. Radha- m. Ganga- d. 14-1-25m., Laul bai (4th bai. m. Jamna Bai. doss Deft.) | | | |Jaya- Babu alias Ramdoss (3rdKrishna Govinddoss Deft....
Tag this Judgment!(Chalikondi) Kunhammad Vs. Etakarati Ammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad195; 113Ind.Cas.289
Tiruvenkatachariar, J.1. The plaintiff in the lower Court is the petitioner and the only point pressed on his behalf is that he is entitled to a refund of so much of the manusham as is proportionate to the period of the kanom granted by Ex. A, the enjoyment of which he was deprived of by the decree in suit No 250 of 1925 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Badagara. 'Manusham' has been held to be the consideration given by the lessee for the full term of the kanom. The right of the lessee to a refund of the proportionate amount of the manusham for the period for which the lessee was deprived of possession has been recognized by Madhavan Nair, J. in C.R.P. No. 348 of 1926, following the decision of Oldfield and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ., in S. A. No. 365 of 1919. The view taken by the District Munsif that 'manusham' is a present is unsustainable.2. The material facts in this case relating to the plaintiff's claim are as follows:The 1st defendant's father who was the kanomdar fr...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Alias Govindoss Krishnadoss Vs. Gokuldoss Goverdhandoss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1928
Reported in: 112Ind.Cas.184
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to property valued at several lakhs, and the points that have been raised have been argued very fully. In the following genealogical table, which set forth the relationship of the parties, are also noted certain important dates. RAMDAS GHANSHAMDAS, died 17th October, 1879, married Kamalabai or Akka | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | | Muralidas, Govardhandas, Balamukundas, Bhagavandas, Subrayadas died 24th, April, died 26th September, died 1896, died 1911, (alive), 1907, 1909 married married married married Yasodabai married Kammubai, Rukkubai, Kuadanbai. Godavari, or Jessubai or defendant No. 5, Jesau died January, 1926 | | | -------------------------------------------- | | | | Gokuldas, Dwarakadas, | defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2, | Born 6th April, 1885, Born 12th November, 1891, | married Gangabai. died 14th January, 1925, | married Jamnabai | | | Ramdas, defendant No. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›