Chennai Court July 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.
Palepu Narayanamurthy Vs. Mallapudi Subrahmanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.655
Reilly, J.1. Second Appeals Nos. 751 and 885 of 1925 are cross-appeals in Original Suit No. 186 of 1923 on the District Munsif's file. It is not disputed before me that the plaintiff Narayanamurthy, and the defendant Subrahmanyam, in that suit and Achanta Satyanarayana and Kamali Chandrayya were partners in a firm formed for the purpose of selling toddy. It is contended for the plaintiff that that partner-sip was illegal. But the cases relied on Marudamuthu Pillai v. Rangasarni Moopan 24 M. 401, Thithi Pakurudasu v. Bheemudu 26 M. 430 and Ganapathi Brahmayya v. Kurella Ramiah 54 Ind. Cas. 45 : 43 M. 141 : 10 L.W. 476 : 38 M.L.J. 123 though they lay down that a partnership entered into in contravention of a license or of any rule under the Abkari Act is void and that a licensee of a toddy or arrack shop cannot legally take a partner without sanction, do not go so far as to lay down that it is illegal for persons to enter into a partnership for the purpose of carrying on a toddy shop bus...
Sri Rajah Satrucherla Sivaskandharaju Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Sr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1194; 114Ind.Cas.823
1. It is conceded in this appeal that the lower Court's order conformed to the procedure in force when it passed its order. It is argued that, since some months later the Agency rules were altered so as to render Order 34, Civil P.C., applicable to mortgage decrees, it is incumbent on this Court, in appeal to apply that law and reverse the lower Court's order. We are unable to accept this argument. The lower Court's; order issuing execution was perfectly correct and execution is going on under; authority of that correct order. We can see no ground for now ruling that the execution legally started has now somehow by a change in the processual law, which only affects the matter of initiation of the execution proceedings, become illegal. Further it appears to us that by the order of the lower Court the respondent has acquired a vested interest in having his decree realized under the procedure in force at the time.2. The argument that because this appeal may be regarded for certain purpose...
Mulumedi Jagannadhiah Vs. Peduri Narasimham Setty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1133; 113Ind.Cas.669
Wallace, J.1. The essential facts in this case which are not disputed are that plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 were carrying on a partnership trade from 1911 to 1918. In 1915 defendant 1 executed an anthakam for certain moneys which he had borrowed from the firm and later on executed a mortgage deed Ex. B over property which is not the property of the firm for the sum then due by him. In 1918 the partnership was dissolved, and some time before 5th July 1920 a settlement of the accounts-was come to, in which it was arranged that the plaintiff should have the mortgage as his share of the profits due to him. Plaintiff filed the present suit on the mortgage. Defendant 1 contested it until defendant 8 who had purchased the mortgage in execution of a decree obtained by him against defendant 1 came on the record and took up the defence.2. Various lines of defence were put for-ward, but in this appeal I am concerned' only with two, one of which has not been put forward until in this Court. The...
indur Pattabhirami Reddi Vs. Kamisetty Balliah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.380; (1928)55MLJ574
Reilly, J.1. It is not disputed that defendants 1 and 3 were partners in a firm with defendant 2 and that they had power to execute promissory notes binding on the firm. But Ex. A was signed only by defendants 1 and 3 in their own names without any words following their signatures to describe in what capacity they signed the note. Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar for defendant 2 contends that, as they did not sign the note in the name of the firm or, at any rate, did not add any words to their signatures showing that they signed as partners of the firm or even that they were not signing merely in their personal capacities, defendant 2 cannot be liable on the note. Koneti Naicker v. Gopala Aiyar : (1913)25MLJ425 and Sri Yerruganti Chinna Venkatanarayanan v. Kota Girt Vejtikatanarasimka (1913) M.W.N. 1005, on which he relies, do not go so far as to lay down that, if an executant of a promissory note is to be bound in any other than his personal capacity, that must be shown by his signature and can...
In Re: Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)55MLJ676
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, by the Sub-Magistrate of Aruppukottai and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. The conviction and sentence have been upheld on appeal by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ramnad. I propose to consider first whether there are grounds for revising the trial judgment, and then whether the appellate judgment is open to exception in revision.2. The trial judgment is attacked upon two grounds : (a) the learned Sub-Magistrate gave an unsustainable reason for disbelieving D.Ws. 1 and 7, and (b) evidence of a conversation between the accused and the Sub-Magistrate alleged to have occurred on 9th November, 1926, was excluded. I can see little substance in point (a). The Sub-Magistrate states that D.W. 7, the proprietor of the motor car which injured the complainant's son, was interested in the motor accident case and so naturally denied having paid any money. That is a fair comment upon the evidence....
Subramania Iyer Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.325
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner was convicted of an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, by Sub-Magistrate of Aruppukottah and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10. The conviction and sentence have been upheld on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramnad. I propose to consider first whether there are grounds for revising the trial judgment, and then whether the appellate judgment is open to exception in revision.2. The trial judgment is attacked upon two grounds (a): the learned Sub-Magistrate gave an unsustainable reason for disbelieving D. W's. Nos. 1 and 7, and (6) evidence of a conversation between the accused and the Sub-Magistrate alleged to have occurred on 9th November 1926, was excluded. I can see little substance in point (a). The Sub-Magistrate states that D. W. No. 7, the proprietor of the motor car which injured the complainant's son was interested in the motor accident case and so naturally denied having paid any money. That is a fair comment upon the evid...
Muthukrishna Pillai and anr. Vs. Ayyaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.416; (1928)55MLJ382
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. In my opinion the Court of first instance is clearly right in its view of the law. An interim order of attachment of 2nd defendant's immoveable property before judgment was passed on 15th January, 1926 and the attachment was made absolute when the decree was passed on 30th March, 1926. Meanwhile, Act I of 1926 had come into force on 24th February, 1926. This, was an explanatory Act passed with reference to the conflicting views which had been taken as to the power of a Small Cause Court to attach immoveable properties before judgment. By that Act, to Order 38, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure was added another Rule 13 declaring that Small Cause Court had no such powers. There is no dispute, therefore, that when the attachment order in this case was made absolute on 30th March, 1926, it was an order beyond the powers of the Court to pass.2. Act I of 1926 being a declaratory Act, the usual presumption that an Act is not retrospective does not apply vide Attorne...
In Re: Rangaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.545; (1928)55MLJ503
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner who prefers this Criminal Revision Petition has been convicted under Section 216, Indian Penal Code, for harbouring a person for whose apprehension orders had been issued, knowing of those orders and intending to prevent his being apprehended. The person in question, Marappa Goundan, was himself convicted under Section 215, Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted on appeal. The main argument now addressed to me is that when the person harboured has been found to be not guilty, an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 216 is lacking and accordingly that the conviction is bad. In order to support this argument, a number of cases relating to other sections have been cited. I do not consider that it is necessary for me to examine them in detail, as it will be found in each instance that it was held to be implicit if not expressed in the terms of the section dealt with that the person in respect of whom the offence was committed was himself an of...
NA. Ayyakutti thevan Vs. Sigappi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1236; 114Ind.Cas.364
1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura decreeing a portion of 'the plaintiff's claim. The only question before us is one of limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge has applied Article 89, Lim. Act., and has given a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing an account; to be taken and the profits of the plaintiff ascertained for his share of the income from the plaint property for three years prior to the date of Ex. A. He finds that defendants 1 to 4 were the agents of the plaintiff and his brother, defendant 5 and that they are accountable for the rents and profits received from the plaint property. The finding as to agency is supported by the evidence on record and we cannot say that that finding is wrong.2. Agreeing that that finding is correct and the proper article to be applied is Article 89, it is difficult to see how the learned Judge could give a decree only for the share of the income of the property for three years...
Lakshmana Dola Behara Vs. Jujisti Pandi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.547
Wallace, J.1. The appellant has raised for the first time in this Court the contention that the suit was barred by Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has been objected that I should not allow that plea to be raised at this stage, but this Court has on other occasions allowed, it to be raised [see Jainulabdin Sahib v. Krishna Chettiar : AIR1921Mad420 and as it is a pure matter of law affecting the very validity of the suit, it is a point of jurisdiction that must be decided.2. It is clear from the judgment of the trial Court that the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were parties to the original mortgage suit and were exonerated by the then plaintiff mortgagee. They are, therefore, 'parties to the (mortgage) suit' within the meaning of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma 23 M. 361 : 10 M.L.J. 126 Sethu Konar v. Ramaswami Konar : AIR1926Mad484 and Medisetti Venkataswami v. Kunchalla Chidambaram 45 Ind. Cas. 671 : 23 M.L.T. 206 Any claim by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »