Chennai Court October 1929 Judgments
Yagammal Vs. Arulayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad158; (1929)57MLJ781
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The main question in the Civil Revision Petition is, is a suit liable to be dismissed for default after the passing of the preliminary decree? The plaintiff filed this suit for partition and in 1923 obtained a decree directing certain items to be partitioned. From this judgment, she filed an appeal and the Appellate Court varied the decree in her favour by directing partition of some additional items. When the case went back to the Trial Court, it fixed a date for the appearance of parties. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant having appeared on the day fixed, the Court made an order on the 9th of May, 1925, dismissing the suit for default. It is this order that is impeached in the revision petition before us. On the merits there can be no question that this order cannot be supported. As pointed out by the Privy CouncilAfter a decree has once been made in a suit, the suit cannot be dismissed unless the decree is reversed on appeal. The parties have, on the mak...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pantam Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.763; (1930)58MLJ111
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Rajahmundry and sentenced under Section 171-F, Indian Penal Code, to a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a month.2. The offence of which he was convicted was that of personation at an election. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on the 16th April, 1928, there was an election to fill vacancies on the Peddapur Taluk Board. There were two vacant seats for Peddapur firka and eight candidates and eight polling stations. The petitioner's name was by mistake on the roll of two different villages, namely, Geddanapalli and Bhupalapatnam. The petitioner voted once in the morning in the polling station for Geddanapalli and in the afternoon for a second time in the polling station for Bhupalapatnam.3. The offence of personation at elections is defined in Section 171-D of the Indian Penal Code as follows:Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of an...
Tag this Judgment!Kocherlakota Subba Rao Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ698
Wallace, J.1. The original suit out ,of which this second appeal arose was a suit against the Secretary of State to declare that an order of the Board of Revenue, dated 8th July, 1922, is invalid and for consequential relief. The original Court decreed for the plaintiff, the Appellate Court reversed that decree and the plaintiff appeals.2. The plaintiff was a karnam of the ryotwari village of Voonagatla. On 4th October, 1921, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ellore, dismissed him.- He appealed to the District Collector, who modified the order into one of suspension for one year. He preferred a second appeal to the Board of Revenue, the result of which was that the Board on 8th July, 1922, restored the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dismissing him. The plaintiff maintains that that order is ultra vired and invalid. The above proceedings were taken under Act III of 1895. The original dismissal was under Section 7 and the appeals were under Section 23.3. It is quite clear, I think...
Tag this Judgment!The Imperial Bank of India Vs. V.P. Avanasi Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad874; (1930)59MLJ513
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 10,053-1-0 with further interest and costs claimed to be due in respect of a guarantee by the defendant guaranteeing payment of the sums that may be due by a firm which carried on business in the name of N. Nanchappa Chettiar. It is stated in the plaint that one N. Nanchappa Chettiar and two others, N. Krishnappa Chettiar and T. N. Krishnappa Chettiar, were carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of N. Nanchappa Chettiar at Olavakkod, that this firm required an overdraft to the extent of Rs. 10,000 and that this transaction was put through by the Bank on the guarantee of the defendant. The form that the guarantee took was the execution of a promissory note in favour of the firm by the defendant for Rs. 10,000 on the 15th March, 1923, the endorsement of the note to the Bank and the passing of a letter on the same date in which the terms of the guarantee are set ...
Tag this Judgment!Pazhancheri Panangat Blahayib Karnavan Kunhunni Nair (Dead) and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad502; (1930)59MLJ117
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the decree of Mr. Justice Odgers dismissing Second Appeal No. 945 of 1924 with costs. The facts are shortly these: the plaintiff is the landlord, the defendant the tenant and the suit is to redeem the kanom for Rs. 200 evidenced by Exhibit A. The plaintiff gave the kanom to one Subramania Pattar and the matetrial terms, of Exhibit A which is the melkanom in favour of the 1st defendant are that the kanom in favour of Subramania Pattar should be redeemed by the 1st defendant and that he should pay Rs. 200 towards the redemption of that kanom. As regards the value of improvements which Subramania Pattar was claiming or might claim, Exhibit A also says that the 1st defendant should pay for those improvements if necessary. The material clause is:I shall therefore pay up the edukkudi amount of Rs. 200 and also the value of the kuzhikkurs (improvements) effected in the schedule-mentioned properties by the said Subramania Pattar,...
Tag this Judgment!Gadde Venkatarayudu and ors. Vs. Anumolu Chinna Ramakrishnayya and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad268; (1930)58MLJ137
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These three Civil Revision Petitions have been posted and argued together, as they raise a common point of law. When an order consists of two parts embodying directions, one against, and the other, in favour of a party, can the latter, after taking advantage of that part which confers a benefit on him, object to the other part on the ground that he is not bound by it? This is the point of law which is common to the three cases, although, in the application of the principle, each case raises certain different questions. The order under consideration in C.R.P. No. 248 of 1928 being typical, I shall set that out. A suit was dismissed for default and the plaintiff applied for its restoration. The Judge held that there were no sufficient grounds, but restored the suit as a matter of grace (as the Judge calls it) on the plaintiff paying the defendant's costs. The defendant, after receiving the costs, files the Civil Revision Petition objecting to the order. The questio...
Tag this Judgment!Subbarayulu Chettiar Vs. Ratnam Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1931Mad615
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the lower appellate Court in a suit by three minor sons in a Hindu joint family to set aside a sale of joint family property by their father and to recover the property. The original Court dismissed the suit holding that the sale was binding on the plaintiffs. The lower appellate Court held that it was not binding on the plaintiffs' share, and decreed them possession under certain conditions. Defendant 1, the alienee, appeals and the plaintiffs have put in a memorandum of objections.2. The sale deed is Ex. 1 dated 11th May 1922 and is for Rs. 2,500. It was executed by the father and two adult brothers of the plaintiffs, all the members of the family who were then majors, for themselves and on behalf of their minor brothers, the plaintiffs. The main consideration recited in it is a mortgage debt evidenced by Ex. 3, executed on 2nd July 1920 by the above members of the joint family in favour of their maternal uncles for a principal sum...
Tag this Judgment!(Chanda) Pullamma Garu Vs. (Jasti) Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad0
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 and the plaintiff were brothers. Defendant 3 for himself and as guardian of his younger brothers (defendant 4 and plaintiff) both of them then minors, executed a hypothecation bond in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on 14th December 1922 for Rs. 700. A suit was instituted by defendant 2 (O.S. No. 511 of 1918) making the present defendants 3 and 4 party defendants to recover money due on the mortgage. Defendant 3 would seem to have become a major at the time of that suit. The present plaintiff being a minor at that time, in fast he is a minor even now was represented by his elder brother, defendant 3, as guardian ad litem. None of the defendants appeared, and the result was that a decree was passed in favour of the mortgagee (plaintiff). Execution proceedings were started and the properties were sold and purchased by the decree-holder himself. The present suit, O.S. No. 226 of 1922 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada, was...
Tag this Judgment!Ghanda Pullamma Garu Vs. Jasti Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.45
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and the plaintiff were brothers. The 3rd defendant for himself and as guardian of Ms younger brothers (4th defendant and plaintiff) both of them then minors, 'executed a hypothecation bond in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the 14th of December, 1922, for Rs. 700. A suit was instituted by the 2nd defendant (O.S. No. 511 of 1918) making the present defendants Nos. 3 and 4 party defendants to recover money due on the mortgage. The 4th defendant would seem to have become a major at the time of that suit. The present plaintiff being a minor at that time-in fact he is a minor even now--was represented by hie elder brother, the 3rd defendant, as guardian ad litem. None of the defendants appeared, and the result was that a decree was passed in favour of the mortgagee (plaintiff). Execution proceedings were started and the properties were sold and purchased by the decree-holder himself. The present suit O.S. No. 226 of 1922 on the file of t...
Tag this Judgment!V. Seeniah Naidu Vs. Abdul Wahab Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad483; (1930)58MLJ414
ORDERKrishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chittoor dismissing the appeal to him from an order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Chittoor whereby the petitioner who was the complainant in a case of assault before that Magistrate was ordered to pay under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code Rs. 100 by way of compensation to the accused as, in his opinion, the complaint was false and vexatious.2. Two points are taken in this petition, viz., (1) that the Appellate Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in taking further evidence purporting to act under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because, according to the appellant's advocate, the appeal was not one under Chapter XXXI of the Criminal Procedure Code to which alone Section 428 applies, and (2) that the Appellate Magistrate acted illegally in omitting to record reasons for taking further evidence as he was required to do under Section 428.3. As to the first o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »