Chennai Court February 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.
Attili Venkanna Vs. Parasuram Byas Trading Under the Name of Parasuram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad522; (1929)56MLJ633
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff (1st respondent) sued on a hundi which was proved by the 1st defendant. Subsequently a clerk of the Court stamped the usual endorsement as to the production and admission in evidence of the document and the District Munsif's initials were affixed to this endorsement by a rubber-stamp. Whether that was done by his own hand or by some one else does not appear. The District Munsif on a consideration of the document held that it was not duly stamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence and rejected it. The Subordinate Judge relying on Sungappa v. Govindappa : (1902)12MLJ351 , held that when the District Munsif had admitted the document and made the endorsement required by Order 13, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, it was not open to him to subsequently reject it and remanded the suit for disposal. The 1st defendant now appeals against this order.2. Under Order 13, Rule 3, 'the Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it co...
(Neyna Moona Kavanna) Muhammad Moideen and ors. Vs. S.K.R.S.K.R. Chint ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad469
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a foreign judgment. The lower Court granted a decree. The defendants appeal. The plaintiffs-respondents are members of the S.K.R.S.K.B. firm. This firm acting through their agent Nachiappa Chetti and another A.V.R.V. Andappa Chetti filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Colombo, No. 46088. When the case came on for trial, both the parties filed a joint application to the effect that the trial of the case be postponed for three months with a view-to settlement and that if not settled, judgment be entered for plaintiffs as prayed for with costs less Rs. 50 and that the property mortgaged with the plaintiffs be sold by Messrs. A. Y Daniel and Sons, Licensed Auctioneers forthwith. This was on 16th March 1917. The case accordingly stood over for 18th June. On that day, the case was called on again and the District Judge passed this order:Case called. Mr. Somasundaram for plain-tiff states that the case has not been settled. The d...
Secy. of State Vs. Sree Rajah Vasireddi Sri Chendra Mouleswara Prasada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad676
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise cut of suits filed by the Zamindar of Chintalapativantu, also called Mukthyala, against the Secy. of State for India praying for a decree establishing the plaintiff's right of resumption over the suit lands, for possession and for loss of profits. Defendant 1 is the Secy. of State. Defendant 2 is the karnam of the suit village in each of the cases. The question of fact and law arising in both suits are similar. They were tried together in the lower Court and also heard together here. For convenience, I shall refer to one of the suits throughout this judgment, namely O.S. No. 27 of 1920, the subject of Appeal No. 245 of 1922, relating to. the village of Peddavaram. The plaintiff's case is that the suit land was granted by the plaintiff's ancestors to the ancestors of defendants 2 to 4 subsequent to the Permanent Settlement as service inam on condition of rendering private service, namely, to work as gumasthas to write the private 'accounts and render ot...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›