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.
Santhu Mohideen Pillai Tharaganar Vs. Jamal Mohammad JamaludIn Labbai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1092
Wallace, J.1. The finding of fact by the lower Court is that defendant 2 did not sign the note. That being so, the conclusion follows that the note in part is not genuine. The question them arose, and should have been dealt with by the lower Court, whether plaintiff was a party to this fraud on defendant 2; if he was he could not be given a decree on a document vitiated by his own fraud; if he was not, the lower Court's decree would be right. The-case in Amirtham Pillai, v. Manjah-Goundan : AIR1914Mad369(1) , relied on by petitioner, does not seem to be in point, as here there could arise no suggestion that defendant 1 agreed to be bound only if defendant 2 was jointly bound, since defendant 1 was himself' a party to the forging of defendant 2's mark on the note.2. I remand the case for a finding, on the evidence on record, as to whether the plaintiff was a party to the fraud by which defendant 2's mark was put on the pro-note. Time for submission of findings one month and for objectio...
Abdulla Sahib Vs. Vageer Beevi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1199; 117Ind.Cas.138
Reilly, J.1. For the appellant here, Abdulla, the only contentions argued are (1) that, as he was brought on record in the Subordinate Judge's Court out of time as the legal representative of defendant 13, the appeal in that Court .abated because all the legal representatives of defendant 13 were not on record in time and (2) that at least it abated as against Abdulla. The plaintiffs brought on record among others within time Khatissa Bibi as widow of defendant 13; and the Subordinate Judge has found that she was the legally married wife of defendant 13. There was therefore on record within time one proper legal representative of defendant 13. If the plaintiffs had done nothing more and had made no attempt to bring in Abdulla as legal representative of defendant 13, an effective decree could have been made against defendant 13's estate represented by Khatissa Bibi: see Kadir Mohideen Maracayar v. Muthukrishna Ayyar [1903] 26 Mad. 230. But later on, long out of time, they applied for th...
C.T.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Rajah of Ramnad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Mad1254; 113Ind.Cas.559
Reilly, J.1. It has been argued for the defendants in this appeal that what is claimed by the plaintiff is tree-tax, not rent within the meaning of the Estates Land Act. It is true that all but a small fraction of the amount claimed is calculated on the trees on the land in question; but it has been admitted before me that the defendants hold the land as ryots, and they are now willing to pay rent on the land as ryoti land. According to the muchilika Ex. A, they clearly hold the land and do not merely enjoy the trees on it. But according to the muchilika what they are to pay to the plaintiff except for areas on which crops are raised is to vary with the number of mature trees. That method of calculating rent for the land appears to be permissible under the Estates Land Act: see Rajah of Ramnad v. Kamid Rowthen A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 22. It is admitted that the amount now claimed is in accordance with the calculation in a previous suit regarding the same land and trees between the same partie...
V. Rangasioami Moopanar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad842
ORDERRamesam, J.1. This is a petition to quash proceedings taken under Section 107, Criminal P.C. before the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam in M.C. No. 27 of 1927. The history of the case may be stated. One Seethalakshmi, owner of a ryotwari estate called Kapistalam, died on 9th March 1926. She had previously leased one of the villages of the estate, Satya-mangalam to her daughter's son Nagaraja Moopanar. She herself was enjoying the estate as the daughter of the last male owner. She afterwards leased the whole estate to Rangaswami Moopanar, the petitioner who is admittedly the next agnate reversioner to the estate.2. After the second lease was effected, the second lessee as well as the lessor gave notice to Nagaraja Moopanar informing him of the lease and asking him to pay rent to the second lessee. But Nagaraja Moopanar repudiated the title of Seethalakshmi herself. After the death of Seethalakshmi, disputes began between the parties. On 16th April 1926, there was a rioting in the vi...
In Re: V. Rangaswami Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.504
ORDERRamesam, J.1. This is a petition to quash proceedings taken under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, before the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam in M. C. No. 27 of 1927. The history of the case may be stated. One Seethalakshmi, owner of a ryotwari estate called Kapistalam, died on 9th March, 1926. She had previously leased one of the villages of the estate, Satyamangalam to her daughter's son Nagaraja Moopanar. She herself was enjoying the estate as the daughter of the last male owner. She afterwards leased the whole estate to Rangagwami Moopanar, the petitioner who is admittedly the next agnate reversioner to the estate. After the second lease was effected, the second lessee as well as the lessor gave notice to Nagaraja Moopanar informing him of the lease and asking him to pay rent to the second lessee. But Nagaraja Moopanar repudiated the title of Seethalakshmi herself. After the death of Seethalakshmi, disputes began between the parties. On the 16th April. 1926, there was a ri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›