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.
A.N.B. Ramalinga Ayyar Firm Through Partner Ramalinga Ayyar Vs. N.M. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ170
1. The question raised by the appeal relates to the construction of the proviso to Section 78 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (V of 1920). That section enacts that where an order of adjudication has been annulled, in computing limitation in respect of an execution application, the period from the date of the order of adjudication to the date of the order of annulment shall be excluded. This rule is subject to the proviso that it does not apply to a debt provable but not proved.2. The decree that the respondent seeks to execute was obtained subsequent to the appellant's adjudication. It was obtained not only against the appellant, but also against the Official Receiver, who was impleaded as a party. It is the latter that under the rules has to admit or reject proof of debts. In this case, he was himself added as a defendant and the decree was passed in his presence. Although the Act provides a formal mode of proving a debt, which has not been here adopted, we are prepared to hold, havi...
(Pidugu) Mattayya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad192
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Sections 471 and 467, I.P.C. for filing a forged receipt in a suit on a promissory note in which he was defendant.2. Two points are taken in revision Firstly, that if a case is transferred only the Court which originally received the forged document can complain under Section 476 Criminal P.C. It is a continuing offence and any Court seised of the case can complain.3. Secondly, that the learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself when he observed that the burden of proof did not lie upon the prosecution to prove that the receipt filed by the pleader was the receipt given to the pleader by the accused. The observation is not happily worded because the burden is on the prosecution to make out its case. It might have been said rather, that there is a fair presumption that the document given to a pleader is the document filed, and the accused should offer some reb...
Lokandha Naiko and ors. Vs. Lokhono Naiko and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad738
Curgenven, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed to enforce a mortgage bond executed on 4th June 1894 by two brothers Durlobo Naiko and Ratno Naiko. The defendants are various descendants of these two mortgagors. Defendant 15 is a purchaser from defendants 13 and 14. These last three persons alone deny liability for the debt and the only question I have to consider is whether, so far as they are concerned, it is time barred. On 19th May 1913, there was a payment of interest made by two members of the family, Sombari Naiko and Ramo Naiko, and it is argued that this payment would save limitation against those persons who were still bound by the mortgage. The contention of defendant 13, however, who is a brother of Ramo Naiko is that he was divided from the family at the time when this payment was made. The point has been taken that this plea was not the plea set up during the trial of the suit and it is true that it was not expressly alleged in the written statem...
Firm A.N.B. Ramalinga Iyer Vs. Firm N.M. Rajalu Iyer-nagaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.341
1. The question raised by the appeal relates to the construction of the proviso to Section 78 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, (Act V of 1920). That section enacts that where an order of adjudication has been annulled, in computing limitation in respect of an execution application, the period from the date of the order of adjudication to the date of the order of annulment, shall be excluded. This rule is subject to the proviso that it does not apply to a debt provable but not proved.2. The decree that the respondent seeks to execute was obtained subsequent to the appellant's adjudication. It was obtained not only against the appellant, but also against the Official Receiver, who was impleaded as a party. It is the latter that under the rules has to admit or reject proof of debts. In this case, he was himself added as a defendant and the decree was passed in his presence. Although the Act provides a formal mode of proving a debt, which has not been here adopted, we are prepared to hold...
Pidugu Mattayya Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1929
Reported in: 126Ind.Cas.112
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Sections 47I and 467, Indian Penal Code, for filing a forged receipt in a suit on a promissory note in which he was defendant.2. Two points are taken in revision. Firstly that if a case is transferred only the Court which originally received the forged document can complain under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. It is a continuing offence and any Court seized of the case can complain.3. Secondly, that the learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself when he observed that the burden of proof did not lie upon the prosecution to prove that the receipt filed by the Pleader was the receipt given to the Pleader by the accused. The observation is not happily forded because the burden is on the prosecution to make out its case. It might have been said rather, that there is a fair presumption that the document given to a Pleader is the document filed, and the accus...
(Appana) Venkatasubba Rao and anr. Vs. Ripley and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad624
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by plaintiffs against the defendants claiming Rs. 6,215 as damages for non-performance of a contract to deliver jute. The contract sued upon is marked as Ex. A and is dated 3rd September 1925. Under that contract the defendants promised to deliver 224 candies of jute at Rs. 90 per candy of 506ths delivery to be completed before 30th September 1925, A portion of the goods was delivered before 30th September 1925 and after that date some further quantity was delivered. According to the plaintiffs, defendant 1 delivered from 17th September 1925 to 31st October 1925, 111 can dies. In para. 5 of the plaint the plaintiffs state:Defendant 1 has been demanded by letter dated 25th November 1925 to deliver the balance of jute on or before 30th November 1925 but defendant 1 has not complied with the same and has committed default in fulfilling the terms of the contract.2. Then the plaintiffs claim as damages in respect of the undelivered goods the differe...
Appana Venkatasubba Rao and ors. Vs. Pipley and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.225
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants claiming Rs. 6,215 as damages for non-performance of a contract to deliver jute. The contract sued upon is marked as Ex. A and is dated the 3rd of September, 1925. Under that contract the defendants promised to deliver 224 candies of jute at Rs. 90 per candy of 50o lbs. delivery to be completed before the 30th of September, 1925. A portion of the goods was delivered before the 30th of September, 1925, and after that date some further quantity was delivered. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant delivered from 17th September, 1925 to 31st October, 1925, 111 candies. In para. 5 of the plaint the plaintiffs state:The first defendant has been demanded by letter dated 25th November, 1925, to deliver the balance of jute on or before 30th November, 1925, but the 1st defendant has not complied with the same and committed default in fulfilling the terms of the contract.' Then the plaintiffs claim as da...
Muhammad Naina Maracair and ors. Vs. Ummanaikani Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad593
Wallace, J.1. The contesting defendants have not appeared in this Court.2. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the appellants, Plaintiff 1 died while the appeal was pending in the lower appellate Court and Ahmed Hussain, her brother, was brought on as her legal representative along with plaintiff 2 already on the record. He is respondent 6 here. It is argued that the lower appellate Court's reasons for holding Exs. B and C invalid are unsound in law. In the case of both, the lower appellate Court held that the gifts were not completed by any delivery of possession. As the gifts were of portions of the family dwelling house, in which the parties have all along been living, the actual divesting by the donors and delivery to the donees was not necessary. Such possession as was suitable and possible in the circumstances was given. See Hussain V. Shaik Mira (1). Further in the case of Ex. B the donee was a minor, who could not take possession, and the intention to give declared by the deed of gift was su...
A. Venkatasami Naidu-plaintiff Vs. Agaram Chenga Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad621
Wallace, J.1. The original suit was for ejectment of the defendants and for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit land. The suit land is in the ryotwari village of Machampattu. It was registered in the Government village registers as channel poramboke. In 1922 it was transferred by Government to assessed waste and assigned to the plaintiff on darkhast. The plaintiff alleges that he was put in possession at the time of the darkhast and that the defendants subsequently trespassed on it and dug a channel in it. The defence was that the darkhast of what was channel poramboke was fraudulent and invalid, and that the channel has been in use all along for taking water from the river Palar to irrigate the defendant's lands. The trial Court held that the darkhast was valid and binding on the defendants and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate Court in not a very clear judgment has decided that the 'ryots' have acquired ...
(Kaluri) Narasimham Vs. (Kaluri) Narasinga Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad707
Wallace, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to set aside the Court sale in execution of a decree obtained by defendant 6, the trustee of Vizianagaram Estate, against them and defendants 1 to 4 for arrears of quit rent. At the sale Survey No. 199 and 2/3 of 233 belonging to the plaintiffs and 1/3 of 233 and all lands belonging to defendants 1 to 4 were sold and purchased by defendant 5. Plaintiff's case was that the sale of their properties was fraudulent. The trial Court held that the inclusion of the plaintiff's properties in the sale proceedings was due to a fraud practiced by defendant 3 and defendant 6's gumastha, defendant 3 being the real purchaser, although defendant 5 was the nominal purchaser. The District Munsif, therefore, gave the plaintiffs a decree. Defendant 5 appealed. In the lower appellate Court, the plaintiffs and defendant 5 compromised and the appeal was withdrawn. The lower appellate Court exonerated defendant 3 from the plaintiff's costs, but directed him to bear his own c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »