Chennai Court August 1924 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.
S. Venkata Sastri Vs. Y. Venkatagopaladu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad353
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts necessary for deciding this ease are not sufficiently stated in the appellate judgment. The plaintiff is the appellant. He entered into a contract of sale of some properties with one Gangadharudu for Rs. 1,500 and after receiving Rs. 200 from him, as earnest money, pub him in possession of those properties. Subsequently, he executed a sale deed to Gopaludu (the defendant in the present suit) for a consideration of Rs. 2,000. Both the vendees instituted suits against the plaintiff, for appropriate reliefs; O.S. No. 352 of 1909 was by the second vendee (the present defendant) against his vendor (the present plaintiff). Gangadharudu and another for possession of the properties and O.S. No. 473 of 1909, was by Gaugadharmlu (the first vendee) for specific performance of the contract against his vendor (the present plaintiff), subsequent vendee (the present defendant) and another Seshayya. Both suits were ultimately, tried together. O.S. No. 352 of 1909 was dism...
Rangappa Nayakar Vs. Rangaswami Nayakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad1005
1. The facts relating to this appeal may be set out very briefly. One Gopal Nayak died in the year 1900, leaving him surviving no son but only his daughter, one Kuppammal, and grandson by that daughter, one Ganga Nayak. That he left a Will seems undisputed, but the terms of this will are in dispute. Soon after the death of Gopal Nayak, his daughter Kuppammal and grandson Ganga Nayak began alienating various items of property pertaining to his estate. Exhibits C series and D series and 24, 34 series and 35, are all deeds of hypothecation or sale so made in the years 1901 and 1902. By a registered instrument marked F in the case, Kuppammal and Ganga Nayak purported to sell and convey to one Govindappa Nayak all the items of immovable property set out in Schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint. It also appears that some time after the death of Gopal Nayak, his daughter and grandson applied for succession certificate to the District Court of Tinnevelly and that the petition was opposed by or on be...
In Re: Turka HussaIn Saheb and 3 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR68Mad385
Ramesam, J.1. I entirely agree with, the remarks of the Sessions Judge in his letter of reference. The decisions mentioned by him, viz., Ramtohal Dusadli v. Emperor I.L.R., (1909) Calc., 385 and Rangacharlu v. Emperor I.L.R., (1905) Mad., 236 both lay down, that a criminal appeal should not be heard at the time of the presentation of the papers, even for the purpose of dismissal under Section 421. The posting for the purpose of hearing under Section 421 must be a special posting after a reasonable time not less than a week. Ramtohal Duaadh v. Emperor I.L.R., (1909) Calc., 385. This is the practice in the High Court and ought to be the practice in the mufussal wherever it is not.2. I may also point out that the view of the learned Sub divisional Magistrate, viz., that a pleader who has looked into the papers of a case for the purpose of drafting grounds of appeal is guilty of professional misconduct if he is not prepared to argue the appeal at the time of presentation of the appeal pape...
Sistla Venkata Sastri Vs. Zernini Venkatagopaludu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.209
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts necessary for deciding this case are not sufficiently stated in the appellate judgment. The plaintiff is the appellant. He entered into a contract of sale of some properties with one Gangadharudu for Rs. 1,500 and after receiving Rs. 200 from him as earnest money, put him in possession of those properties. Subsequently, he executed a sale-deed to Gopaludu (the defendant in the present suit) for a consideration of Rs. 2,000. Both the vendees instituted suits against the plaintiff for appropriate reliefs, O.S. No. 352 of 1909 was by the second vendee (the present defendant) against his vendor (the present plaintiff), Gangadharadu and another for possession of the properties; and O.S. No. 473 of 1909 was by Gangadharudu (the first vendee) for specific performance of the contract against his vendor (the present plaintiff), subsequent vendee (the present defendant), and another Seshayya. Both suits were ultimately tried together. Original Suit No. 352 of 1909 w...
Brahma Subbayya Vs. Kanala Ranga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.385; (1925)48MLJ32
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The District Judge of Kurnool has made an order, admitting at the instance of the 1st plaintiff, additional evidence while hearing an appeal and the 1st defendant attacks the correctness of this order, in the Civil Revision Petition before me. The point in controversy is : Had the District Judge jurisdiction to make the order in question? Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, deals with the production of additional evidence in an Appellate Court. The material portion runs thus:27. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the appellate Court.(b) But if the appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined.2. The argument of Mr. Seshachari, the learned vakil for the 1st defendant, is, that u...
(Pothi) Annapurnayya Vs. (Pothi) Nagaratnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Mad591
Jackson, J.1. Petition against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada on C.M.P. No. 471 of 1923 in O.S. No. 6 of 1923. Petitioner filed a plaint valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 and with a Court-fee of Rs. 100 on the assumption that he was at liberty to put his own value on the suit which was for the appointment of a Receiver, and for an injunction restraining the defendant, a widow from wasting her estate. In the light of Nandan Mal v. Salig Ram A.I.R. 1922 Lah. 236. and Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasawmy Pillai [1915] 38 Mad. 922 the learned Subordinate Judge has held that plaintiff must pay an ad valorem fee and that is now admitted. The order concludes:In the present case he has valued the suit as Rs. 10,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. So he cannot give another valuation for purposes of Court-fee.2. To this petitioner objects urging that he is at liberty to give another value for purposes of Court-fee. I see from C.M.C. No. 942 of 1923 that ...
B. Subbayya Vs. K. Ranga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad181
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The District Judge of Kurnool has made an order, admitting at the instance of the 1st plaintiff, additional evidence while hearing an appeal and the 1st defendant attacks the correctness of this order, in the Civil Revision Petition before me. The point in controversy is : Had the District Judge jurisdiction to make the order in question? Order 41, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, deals with production of additional evidence in an Appellate Court. The material portion runs thus:27. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court.(b) But if the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.2. The argument of Mr. Seshachari, the learned vakil for the 1st defendant, is, that unde...
In Re: Section 45, Specific Relief Act, 1877, Section 66 of the Income ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad157; 85Ind.Cas.478
C.V. Kumaraswami, J.1. In this matter a reference is asked for on two questions. The, first is as regards the sum of Rs. 3,309 disallowed on the ground that it is capital expenditure and the other is as regards a sum of Rs. 8,653 which is claimed as the loss on a car which was so damaged by an accident that it had to be sold as scrap iron.2. As regards the first point the Commissioner was of opinion that what was done was not merely a renewal of wasting assets but that new parts were put on to the car. It is not disputed that 20 per cent of the value of the car is allowed on the footing that the life of the car was only 5 years. It is also not disputed that the cost of repairs is allowed. The point which is now raised is that Sub-clause 9 of Section 10, Clause 2 allows a further deduction. Sub-clause 9 of Section 10, Clause 2 runs as follows: ' Any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) incurred solely for the purpose of earning such profits or gains.' Where a cla...
Pothi Annapurnayya Vs. Pothi Nagaratnamma Minor by Next Friend and Fat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1924
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.730
Jackson, J.1. Petition against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada on C.M.P. No. 741 of 1923 in O.S. No. 6 of 1923. Petitioner filed a plaint valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 10,000 and with a Court-fee of Rs. 100 on the assumption that he was at liberty to put his own value on the suit which was for the appointment of a Receiver, and for an injunction restraining the defendant a widow from wasting her estate. In the light of Nandan Mal v. Salig Ram 66 Ind. Cas. 34 : A.I.R. 1922 Lah. 236 and Arunachalam Chetty v. Rangasawmy Pillai 28 Ind. Cas. 79 : (1915) M.W.N. 118 the learned Subordinate Judge has held that plaintiff must pay an ad valorem fee and that is now admitted. The order concludes: 'In the present case he has valued the suit at Rs. 10,000 for purposes of jurisdiction. So he cannot give another valuation for purposes of Court-fee'. To this, petitioner objects urging that he is at liberty to give another value for purposes of Court fee. I se...
In Re: (Yeleswarapu) Gangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Mad980
1. The Courts below have found that the sale was not benami. It. is open to them to find from all the facts appearing in the case (including the custody of the document) that the sale was really in favour of plaintiff even if the purchase-money was actually paid by the 3rd defendant. There is no rule of law laid down in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh A.I.R. 1915 P.C. 96 regarding the custody of documents. It cannot be regarded as a decision on the facts. In considering whether a purchase is benami, the source of the money is only one criterion.2. The second appeal is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »