Chennai Court April 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.
S.L Ramaswamy Chetty and anr. Vs. M.S.A.P.L. Palaniappa Chbttiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.37
1. The defendants appeal from a decree declaring that the respondent (plaintiff) is entitled to redeem eleven jewels pledged by him with the appellants, ordering the appellants to produce the same in Court on or before 30th January, 1928, and in default to pay the respondent the price thereof, i. e., Rs. 11,000 with. interest thereon, less Rs. 11,712-9-0 being the amount due to the appellants under the decree in O.S. No. 10 of 1921 or a net amount of Rs. 627-9-8, and also ordering the appellants to pay the respondent his costs of suit. All the parties are Nattukottai Chetties and 1st appellant is 2nd appellant's brother's son.2. On 3rd November, 1918, at Karaikudi in the Ramnad District the respondent borrowed from the appellants who are jointly carrying on a money-lending business in India and the F.M.S., the sum of Rs. 6,000 at 12 per cent, interest and pledged with them the jewels mentioned in the schedule to the decree. The debt being unpaid the 1st appellant as agent on behalf of ...
Koppaka Brahmanandam Vs. the Secretary of State for India Representing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ357
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The question that has been referred to me is whether an appellant whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894) but who, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Court on a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, appeals to the High Court is bound to include in the valuation of his appeal the amount of 15 per cent of the excess market value and pay Court-fee thereon, or whether he is entitled to value his appeal only at the excess market value claimed by him and pay Court-fee on that amount only, while insisting in case of success in the appeal that he should be decreed not only the excess market value claimed by him but also 15 per cent on the same.2. The answer to this question turns on the proper construetion to be placed on Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. Section 8 runs in these terms:The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation...
(Badakara) Krishna Bhatta Vs. Govinda Bhatta
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad775; 122Ind.Cas.499
Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.1. In this case the defendant is the appellant. The defendant sold certain immovable properties to the plaintiff under Ex. A dated 24th. April 1918. The plaintiff, not having been able to obtain possession of the properties, filed O.S. No. 403 of 1918 against the present defendant and certain others not parties to the suit for recovery of possession of the properties. O.S. No. 403 of 1918 was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's vendor, that is, the present defendant was only a benamidar for his vendor. Subsequently, the present plaintiff who, under the terms of and towards the consideration for the sale-deed executed by the defendant to him, executed a promissory note in favour of one Narayana Bhatta for the amount due to Narayana Bhatta from the defendant, filed O.S. No. 458 of 1920 for cancellation of that note, on the ground that the plaintiff did not obtain possession of the properties sold to him and that consequently there was no consideration for...
Tavva Venkata Subba Rao Vs. Ranga Lakshmikantamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad785
1. The point of law raised in this Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of Madhavan Nair, J., in Second Appeal No. 144 of 1922, is a contention that, in a Hindu joint family, the father cannot dispose of his self-acquired property by will. No authority was cited before us for this contention. It is opposed to Mayne's exposition of Hindu Law : see paras. 276 and 417 of Mayne's. Hindu Law, 9th Bin., and to the principles underlying Alami v. Komu [1883] 12 Mad. 126, and Achutan Nayar v. Cheriotti Nayar [1899] 22 Mad. 9. It is not shown that the learned Judge has committed any error of law. We therefore dismiss this appeal with costs....
(Koppaka) Brahmanandam Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad45
Anantakirshna Ayyar, J.1. The question that has been referred to me is whether an appellant whose lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), but who, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Court on a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, appeals to the High Court, is bound to include in the valuation of his appeal the amount of 15 per cent of the excess market value, and pay court-fee thereon, or whether he is entitled to value his appeal only at the excess market value claimed by him and pay court-fee on that amount only, while insisting in case of success in the appeal that he should be decreed not only the excess market value claimed by him but also 15 per cent on the same.2. The answer to this question turns on the proper construction to be placed on Section 8, Court-fees Act. Section 8 runs in these terms:The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation un...
(Guda) Balambhotlu Vs. Mandela Bapanamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad172
Venkatasubba rao, J.1. The point I have to decide is whether the execution petition No. 1066 of 1921 is in time or not. There were certain previous execution applications filed. The question is, whether they were in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182, Lim. Act. The present petition was filed within three years of the last of the previous petitions, but it is contended for the respondent that those petitions are defective and cannot, therefore, be taken into account for the purpose of the statute.2. The facts are these: The plaintiff obtained decrees in two mortgage suits. They were against two different sets of defendants. Let us call them A and B in the first suit, C and D in the second. The suits related to different sets of properties. We are now concerned with what I may call the suit against A and B. The defect alleged in the previous petitions arose thus. When the plaintiff applied for execution of the decree in that suit, he gave the names of the defendants wr...
(Kommineddi) Kotayya and anr. Vs. (Manuri) Venkata Gopala Rao Pantulu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad466
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by three plaintiffs under Section 92, Civil P.C., for a scheme respecting the temple of Sri Sitharamaswami Varu at Koritepad formerly a village but now a nourishing suburb of Guntur included within its municipal limits. There are eight items of lands in the plaint schedule. The Subordinate Judge held:that items 1 to 7 of the plaint schedule do not constitute a grant to the suit deity as its absolute property, but they are inams granted in favour of the defendants' ancestors to be held by those grantees and their hairs burdened with the trust of doing the specific services mentioned in Ex. 4(a) for the benefit of the deity.2. He similarly found on issue 8 that item 8 of the plaint schedule was not an endowment to the suit deity. He therefore thought that a scheme was not necessary and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.3. The history of the connexion between the suit lands and the suit temple may now be discussed. First we have got t...
Gadu Balambhotlu Vs. Mandela Bapanamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: 119Ind.Cas.596
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point I have to decide is, whether the Execution. Petition No. 1086 of 1921 is in time or not. There were certain previous execution applications filed. The question is, whether they were in accordance with law within the meaning of Art 182 of the Limitation Act. The present petition was filed within three years of the last of the previous petitions, but it is contended for the respondent that those petitions are defective and cannot, therefore, be taken into account for the purpose of the Statute.2. The facts are these: The plaintiff obtained decrees in two mortgage suits. They were against two different sets of defendants. Let us call them A and B in the first suit, C and D in the second. The suits related to different sets of properties. We are now concerned with what I may call the suit against A and B. The defect alleged in the previous petitions arose thus. When the plaintiff applied for execution of the decree in that suit, he gave the names of the def...
Kapaka Brahmanandam Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.523
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The question that has been referred to me is whether an appellant whose lands are acquired under the Land Acquistion Act (i of 1894) but who, being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Court on a reference made to it under Section 18 of the Act, appeals to the High Court, is bound to include in the valuation of his appeal the amount of 15 per cent, of the excess market value, and pay Court-fee thereon, or whether he is entitled to value his appeal only at the excess market-value claimed by him and pay Court-fee on that amount only, while insisting in case of success in the appeal that he should be decreed not only the excess market-value claimed by him but also 15 per cent, on the same.2. The answer to this question turns on the proper construction to be placed on Section 8 of the Court Fees Act. Section 8 runs in these terms: 'The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensat...
Komminedi Kotayya and anr. Vs. Raja Manuri Venkata Gopala Rao Pantulu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1929
Reported in: 125Ind.Cas.237
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by three plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for a scheme respecting the temple of Sri Seetharamaswami Varu at Koritepad, formerly a village but now a flourishing suburb of Guntur included within its Municipal limits. There are 8 items of lands in the plaint schedule. The Subordinate Judge held 'that items Nos. 1 to 7 of the plaint schedule do not constitute a grant to the suit deity as its absolute property, but they are inams granted in favour of the defendants' ancestors to be held by those grantees and their heirs burdened with the trust of doing the specific services mentioned in Ex. IV(a) for the benefit of the deity.' He similarly found on the 8th issue that Item No. 8 of the plaint schedule was not an endowment to the suit deity. He, therefore, thought that a scheme was not necessary and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appeal.2. The history of the connection between the suit lands and the suit temple may now ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »