Chennai Court November 1929 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.
(Pakkiri) Mohideen Tharagan and anr. Vs. Muhammad Mustappah Rowther an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad665
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These second appeals preferred by the plaintiffs arise out of two suits instituted by the same plaintiffs against defendants 1 and 2 who are the same in both the suits, and against defendant 3 who is the purchaser from one or other of the other defendants of the properties mentioned in the plaint. The prayer in the suits was for a declaration that the plaint properties belong to defendants 1 and 2 and that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant 3 are not binding on the creditors of defendants 1 and 2. The purchaser is different in the two suits; he is defendant 3 in each case. The purchasers will be referred as defendant 3 in the judgment for the sake of convenience. Defendant 3 in O.S. No. 236 of 1921 purchased from defendants 1, and defendant 3 in O.S. No. 237 of 1921 from defendant 2.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 517 of 1916 and attached the plaint properties before judgment in the said suit; when final orde...
Pakkiri Mohideen Tharagan and anr. Vs. Muhammad Mustappah Rowther and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.604
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These second appeals preferred by the plaintiffs arise out of two suits instituted by the same plaintiffs against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who are the same in both the suits, and against defendant No 3 who is the purchaser from one or other of the other defendants of the properties mentioned in the plaint. The prayer in the suits was for a declaration that the plaint properties belong to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and that the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant No. 3 are not binding on the creditors of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The purchaser is different in the two suite; he is defendant No. 8 in each case, The purchasers will be referred as defendant No. 3 in the judgment for the sake of convenience. Defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 230 of 1921 purchased from defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 237 of 1921 from defendant No. 2.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 517 of 1916 and attached the plaint properties before...
Ramasami Mudaliar Vs. Ramalinga Udayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad448a
ORDERJackson, J.1. The question raised in this petition is whether in a warrant case tried under Chap, 21, Criminal P.C. when the accused leads evidence of good character by way of defence, the prosecution may as a matter of right claim to' lead rebutting evidence. The learned Magistrate is right in holding that the Criminal Procedure Code gives the prosecution no such privilege. If the Magistrate in his discretion thinks such evidence essential to the just decision of the case he may summon it, but the prosecution cannot insist upon his doing so.2. The reason for this rule is probably that it is only in rare cases that general evidence of good character is of much avail; especially as till the contrary is proved an accused person is always presumed to be of good character. Therefore, to make character a substantial issue in an ordinary case would be waste of time. Anyhow the law of procedure is clear, and there is no ground for this petition. The petition is dismissed....
(Thamarapalli) Surya Narayana Vs. (Gopavajhala) Joga Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad719
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff filed the suit to recover money due for certain instalments of interest which had accrued due under a mortgage bond executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plea of the contesting defendant 3 was that there was a part payment made by him which had not been given credit to by the plaintiff. The first Court found against that plea and he has preferred an appeal to the lower appellate Court to which he had made as party respondents the plaintiff in whose favour the decree had been passed as also the other defendants 1, 2 and 4. The appeal came on for hearing on 29th September 1925 and judgment was pronounced on 12th day of October 1925. But on 21st September 1925, plaintiff-respondent 1 had died. That fact was not known either to the learned vakil for the appellant or to the vakil who had been engaged by the deceased plaintiff-respondent. 1. The hearing of the appeal proceeded with the result that the learned District Judge confirmed the decision of...
Subbarayulu Naidu and ors. Vs. Vengama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad742
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by defendants 1 and 2 against the decree of the Court of the Small Causes of Trichinopoly reversing the decree of the Additional District Munsif of Kulitalai dismissing the plaintiff's suit upon a promissory note. The plaint alleged that the defendants jointly executed a promissory note, for Rs. 500 in June 1919 to Virasami Naidu, the divided brother of the plaintiff. Virasami Naidu died in October 1919 and about a month before his death executed a settlement deed, Ex. A, making his brother the plaintiff manager for the purpose of applying certain properties to charitable objects. One of the items of property named in the deed was the suit promissory note. This note was not produced in the case, the allegation in Ex. A, being that it was with Viraswami Naidu's wives, with whom the had quarrelled. A question for decision in second appeal is whether the entry relating to this promissory mote in Ex. A, is evidence of its existence upon which...
Subbarayalu Naidu and ors. Vs. Vengama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.197
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against the decree of the Court of Small Causes of Trichinopoly reversing the decree of the Additional District Munsif of Kulitalai dismissing the plaintiff's suit upon a promissory note. The plaint alleged that the defendants jointly executed a promissory note for Rs. 500 in June, 1919, to Viraswami Naidu, the divided brother of the plaintiff. Viraswami Naidu died in October, 1919, and about a month before his death executed a settlement deed Ex. A, making his brother the plaintiff manager for the purpose of applying certain properties to charitable objects. One of the items of property named in the deed was the suit promissory note. This note was not produced in the case, the allegation in Ex. A being that it was with Viraswami Naidu's wives, with whom he had quarrelled. A question for decision in second appeal is whether the entry relating to this promissory note in Ex. A is evidence of its existence upon whi...
Prasanna Chidambara Reddiar and anr. Vs. Nagammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad710
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, Nagammal, for a declaration that the defendant had no right to bring the holding known as Palamaram Punja to sale for arrears of rent and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from bringing the suit property to sale. Her main allegation was that the holding in question was an enfranchised Thandal Manyam, that the plaintiff had to pay quit rent to Government for it as such and that the mittadar had no right to collect rent from her. The plea of the mittadar defendant was that the land was really ryoti land and not Government inam. The first Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge, as I read his judgment, has not recorded any definite finding on the real question that arises in the case.2. Paragraph 3 of his judgment begins as follows:The bulk of the lower Court's judgment deals with the question whether the suit land was originally granted to the plaintiff...
Prasanna Venkatesa Rao and ors. Vs. K. Srinivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1929
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.235; (1930)59MLJ770
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with the previous sanction of the Advocate-General for the settlement of a scheme and for directions for the proper administration of an association called 'The Madhwa Siddhanta Onnahini Sabha' (an association for the uplift of the Madhwa doctrine), which was started in the year 1878 at Chirutanur, also called Tiruchanur, near Tirupati, a sacred place about 90 miles from Madras, and registered under Act XXI of 1860 in the year 1910. [His Lordship held on the evidence that the origin, objects aid the practice of the Sabha were as stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint, and continued:On the evidence, oral and documentary, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prior to 1910-11 there vas no precedence given to the Uttarathi Mutt.2. The next question is whether the resolution of 1912 giving precedence to the Uttarathi Mutt must be held to be binding on the other mut...
(Dasari) Lakshmiayya Vs. (Koppolu) Murahdri and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad547
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued to set aside a sale deed which he executed to defendant 1, a dancing girl, upon the allegation that it was intended not to confer an absolute title upon her but merely to afford security for her maintenance as long as she lived with him. The sale deed recites a consideration of Rs. 1,500 and it was defendant 1's case that this money actually passed. Defendant 2 is a purchaser of the suit property from defendant 1. Defendant 1 further denied that the plaintiff had been keeping her. The District Munsiff found that relations of this character had subsisted between them, that defendant 1's allegation with reference to the consideration of Rs. 1,500 was untrue and that the plaintiff was precluded by the terms of Section 92, Evidence Act, from establishing his plea that the transaction was other than the sale deed makes it out. He then found upon the evidence that there was a valid transfer and that the consideration for it was past cohabitation of defendan...
A.C. Abdul Azeez Sahib Vs. Bader Mull Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad559; 129Ind.Cas.656
1. Under Rule 6, Order 29, Rules of the High Court Original Side, the decree-holder's permission to bid could not be to bid for less than the market-valve of the lots unless the Court made an order allowing him to bid for less. It does not appear that any such order was made by the High Court in this case. The appeal is allowed with costs and the sale is set aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »