Chennai Court October 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.
Venkateswara Iyer Vs. Ramanatha Dheekshitar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad622
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of money due under a promissory-note executed to him by the defendant Though the promissory-note now bears a stamp it has been found by the lower appellate Court that it was not stamped at -the time of its execution. The defendant raised the plea that the promissory-note ' is not valid according to law and cannot be admitted,' obviously because it was not properly stamped; but there was no issue whether the promissory-note was inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it, has not been duly stamped. The issues that were framed related to the other pleas raised by the defendant. These issues were, whether the discharge pleaded is true, whether the endorsement for Rs. 200 for interest is true, whether the suit is barred by limitation and what relief the plaintiff is entitled to. Overruling the contentions of the defendant on these issues, the District Munsif gave the plaint...
Ramalinga Iyer Vs. Sankara Narayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1928
Reported in: 114Ind.Cas.843
Walsh, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Dharapuram in I.A. No 338 of 1928 in O.S. No. 64 of 1928 to examine a witness, on commission. It is not denied that the witness lives beyond the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court and beyond the limits under which he is compellable to attend and give evidence in person under Order XVI, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code. The order, therefore, is one passed under Order XXVI, Rule 4, though the reason for passing the order is the alleged ill-health of the witne Sections The petitioner claims some property as having come to him from his father; the defendant claims it as having bought it from the witness in question. The latter is an aged High Court Vakil who has retired from practice. The plaintiff has summoned him as his witness to show, I understand, that the sale-deed was executed in the name of the defendant for plaintiff's benefit. The witness certainly appears to be an important witness in the case. Th...
K.S. Rama Ayyar and ors. Vs. Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad345
Mackay, J.1. The only point arising in revision is whether the learned District Judge was right in exercising his jurisdiction by dissolving a temporary injunction issued by the Subordinate Judge restraining the Municipal Council of Madura, the contesting respondent, from filing fresh complaints against the plaintiffs in a suit before him, the present petitioners, under Section 249, District Municipalities Act, on condition of their depositing certain-license fees in Court, pending disposal of the suit.2. The plaintiffs' own rice mill in Madura town and sued for a declaration of their right to work the mills without interference by the Municipal Council. Their contention was that their mills do not come within the scope of Section 249 inasmuch as they are not used for one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule 5 to the Act, Clause (E). Whether these mills come within the schedule is, of course, a question of fact.3. It has already been decided by the High Court that the owners o...
(Marella) Akshayalingam and anr. Vs. (Donepudi) Ramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad426
Odgers, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam wherein he reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The suit was by the plaintiffs as mortgagees to recover a certain sum due on a mortgage by way of sale of the mortgage properties. The mortgage was executed in their favour (but as they were minors at the time they were represented by their mother as guardian) by defendant 2 and the late Kondayya, the deceased father of defendant 1 and husband of defendant 2 The plaintiffs now file the suit as mortgagees and the question involved is a certain site in the village of Lakshmipuram which is included in the mortgage-deed. The defendants-mortgagors contended that this site never belonged to themselves or the late Kondayya, but belongs to the family of the plaintiffs themselves and was inserted in the mortgage-deed with the view of perpetrating a fraud on the registration law.2. The finding of the Subordinate Judge is that this is the f...
K.S. Ramaiyer and ors. Vs. the Municipal Council Through Its Chairman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.465
Mackay, J.1. The only point arising in revision is whether the learned District Judge was right in exercising his jurisdiction by dissolving a temporary injunction issued by the Subordinate Judge restraining the Municipal Council of Madura, the contesting respondent, from filing fresh complaints against the plaintiffs in a suit before him, the present petitioners, under Section 249 of the District Municipalities Act, on condition of their depositing certain license fees in Court, pending disposal of the suit.2. The plaintiffs own rice mills in Madura Town and sued for a declaration of their right to work the mills without interference by the Municipal Council. Their contention was that their mills do not come within the scope of Section 249 inasmuch as they are not used for one or more of the purposes specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Act, Clause (c). Whether these mills come within the Schedule is, of course, a question of fact.3. It has already been decided by the High Court tha...
P.M.A. Velliappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Saha Govinda Doss and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad721; 118Ind.Cas.73; (1929)57MLJ190; MANU/TN/0077/1928
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment about to be pronounced by my brother Ramesam, and I entirely concur in it. I only add a few words of my own in order to bring out certain points which he has made with which I find myself in specific and emphatic agreement.2. The first is that our opinion is directed to a concrete and isolated case, that of a suit by a purchaser of land for specific performance against his vendor of the contract for the sale of land entered into by his vendor; and is not to be considered as containing in gremio analogies which can be usefully applied to such subject-matters as vendors' suits for specific performance, suits on mortgages, suits for maintenance, suits for the wrongful removal of surface trees or subterranean coal. A number of decisions have been cited to us on these and kindred topics. Some of them I think to be wrong, others very doubtful, but of all of them it appears to me to be enough to say that they ...
S. Kuppuswami Ayyar Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad383
Devadoss, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Munsif Chidambaram dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner. Some cases of saccharine were seized on 5th May 1926, by the Customs authorities at Kanda-mangalam on the British frontier. On 29th June 1926, the Collector of Sea Customs, Madras, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Section 167, Clause 8, Sea Customs Act and under Section 7, Land Customs Act of 1924, on Raju Naidu, the person who tried to smuggle the cases of saccharine into British India territory. The order imposing the penalty was served on Raju Naidu on 15th July 1926. On 20th July 1926, the Sub-magistrate of Vanur was requisitioned by the Customs authorities to issue a warrant for attachment of a motor car which was seized by the customs authorities on 5th May 1926 along with the cases of saccharine. The attachment was effected on 17th September 1926 under Section 386, Criminal P.C., and it was sold on 28th January 1927. On 19th January 19...
Somu Ayyar Vs. Chelliah Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Mad718
Thiruvenkatachariar, J.1. The appellant in this Civil Misc. Second Appeal is the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 311 of 1919 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Manamadura and the respondent is the decree-holder therein. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the District Munsif of Madura Town. On 24th October 1925, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree both by arresting the judgment-debtor and for attaching his moveables. This application having been put in more than a year after the immediately preceding application for execution of the decree, the decree-holder further prayed in an affidavit setting out the grounds therefor that the execution may be ordered as prayed without first issuing notice as required by Order 21, Sub-rule 1, Rule 22. On this petition the Court made the following order on 26th October 1925. 'Notice and arrest and attach.' It is clear that in ordering arrest and attachment without notice the Court acted under Sub-rule (...
Somu Iyer Vs. Chelliah Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1928
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.43
Tiruvenkata Achariar, J.1. The appellant in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is the judgment-debtor in Order 8. No. 311 of 1919 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Manamadura and the respondent is the decree-holder therein. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the District Munsif of Madura Town. On the 24th October, 1925, the decree-holder applied for execution of the decree both by arresting the judgment-debtor and for attaching his moveables. This application having been put in more than a year after the immediately preceding application for execution of the decree, the decree-holder further prayed in an affidavit setting out the grounds therefor that the execution may be ordered as prayed without first issuing notice as required by Order XXI, Sub-rule 1 of Rule 22. On this petition the Court made the following order on 26th October, 1925. 'Notice and arrest and attach'. It is clear that in ordering arrest and attachment without notice the Court ...
In Re: T. Sivasankaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.462; (1929)56MLJ157
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This case arises out of an occurrence which took place at a meeting of the Taluk Board of Penukonda held on the 24th August, 1927 and which resulted in the conviction of six persons by the Joint Magistrate of that place. The first petitioner, Mr. T. Sivasankaram Pillai, was a nominated member of the Taluk Board and had been elected President. Whether he was still President when the meeting in question was held is in dispute, but he took the Chair in that capacity. While the meeting was proceeding, one of the members, R. Siddanagoud, who was the complainant in the criminal case entered and took the attendance register for the purpose of signing it. The President told him not to do so, as he had disqualified himself as a member by failure to attend some previous meetings. As he persisted the President told another member, now the second petitioner, to take the book from him, and in so doing the second petitioner pushed the complainant so that the chair in which he wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »