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.
Balasundara Naicker and anr. Vs. Ranganatha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad794; 122Ind.Cas.641; (1930)58MLJ503
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on the footing of a mortgage bond, Exhibit A, for Rs. 8,000, dated 11th January, 1903, executed in favour of four persons, namely, (1) father of 3rd plaintiff, (2) father of 17th defendant, (3) father of 2nd plaintiff, and (4) the 1st plaintiff, by defendants 1 to 3 and their undivided father. 4th defendant is the son of the 1st defendant. Defendants 5 to 9 are sons of 2nd defendant. Defendants 10 to 16 are subsequent vendees and mortgagees of defendants 1 to 9. The four obligees of the bond belong to one family. The first two belong to one branch of the family. The third and the fourth who are sons of brothers belong to another branch. The two branches were separated even before 1909. Under the terms of the mortgage bond, the interest was to be paid at 9 per cent, per annum on the 11th January of each year, and if it was not so paid the interest should be compounded and bear further interest at 10 1/2 per cent, per annum with annua...
Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. Bappu Iyer Alias V. Sambasiva Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.844
1. Before deciding that the appellant (mortgage, decree-holder) should go through the form of bringing all the properties in Schedule I to sale before he applies for sale of the properties in Schedule II, we must have some findings on the facts of the case. There is no general rule that the mortgagee should literally stick to the terms of a decree even if it involves a mere farce. In Periasami Kone v. Muthia Chettiar 23 Ind. Cas. 515 : 38 M. 677 : 15 M.L.T. 232 it was held that the mortgagee cannot, at his own option, abandon his right of selling some of the properties mentioned in the decree before proceeding against other properties of the judgment-debtor. But if it appears that the judgment-debtor has no saleable interest in the properties directed to be sold, the decree-holder need not go through the farce of putting them up to sale. The decision in Kasi Krishnama Chariar v. Bogiammal 12 Ind. Cas. 439 : 22 M.L.J. 125; (1911) 2 M.W.N. 355 : 10 M.L.T. 525 and Shanmuga Pillai v. Raman...
Gurusami Raja and ors. Vs. Perumal Raja
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad815; 122Ind.Cas.789
Pandalai, J.1. This second appeal is from a decree ordering the defendants to cut off the branches of defendant's trees which are overhanging the plaintiff's land to the extent shown in the plan attached to the decree within three months from the date of the decree, and, on defendants' default, enabling the plaintiff to cut them and claim the cost of such cutting from the defendants. The plaintiff and defendants are neighbouring owners of land. For some reason which is not plain from the record, they have resorted to this most unusual form of litigation, I suppose, to give vent to their animosity. The plaintiff's complaint was that certain trees which had been growing upon the defendant's land for several years, namely mango trees and tamarind trees, were casting a shadow upon the plaintiff's land and some of the branches wore touching the ground, so that the shadow portion became less useful for agriculture and it was impossible to plough the parts where the branches touched the groun...
Doraiswami Nadan and ors. Vs. Nagasami Naicken and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad898; 121Ind.Cas.863
1. Two points have been argued before us in this appeal, firstly, that the decision of the learned Judge that the partition was effected by the razi decree Ex. B dated 16th November 1914 is incorrect and secondly, that even assuming it to be correct the share of the plaintiffs in the family property was not liable to be sold in execution proceedings obtained against their father, defendant 3. The father of the plaintiffs executed a pronote dated 14th September 1914. The creditor defendant 1 brought a suit upon the pronote, obtain-ad a decree and in execution of that decree purchased the property in the name of his father, defendant 2, on 12th February 1919. The argument addressed to us is that the date of the partition should be regarded as the date on which the sons (plaintiffs) brought O.S. No. 65 of 1912 on the file of the Principal District Mutisif's Court of Srivilliputtur which became O.S. No. 77 of 1914 on the file of the Additional District Munsif. No doubt the filing of a part...
(Rokapalli) Mallikharjuna Rao Naidu Vs. (Pillarisetti) Butchi Venkatar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad793
Jackson, J.1. Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Iyer has narrowed the discussion of this petition to one point, whether the learned Judge was justified in holding to be valid ballot paper 252, which contains a cross in Col. 2, instead of in Col. 3 of the voting paper.2. I do not see how this can be other than a question of fact in which under Rule 12 of the Rules for decision of disputes the Judge's order is final : vide M. Appaya Goundar v. Dawood Sahib [1927] M.W.N. 842. The petition must therefore be dismissed with costs.3. I may remark, however, that the voting paper is not as clear as it might be. The heading of Col. 3 is:The mark should show the pleasure of the voter.4. Why not 'Put a mark here after the name of the candidate you choose?' In the hurry of an election everything cannot be left to oral instruction....
Mir Hameed Sahib Vs. Abdul Khadir and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad849
Wallace, J.1. The present petitioner, on the referred charge sheet, put in a complaint of his own on 8th February 1928. I can find no order by the Magistrate disposing of that complaint. I gather, since the Magistrate has apparently taken no further action on that complaint, that he regarded it as disposed of by the order on the referred charge sheet. This is not a method of disposing of a complaint known to the Criminal Procedure Code. Unless, therefore, there is some other order, unknown to me, disposing of the complaint in a legal manner, that complaint must be regarded as and is still pending and the Magistrate must take it up for disposal after taking sworn statement and holding such enquiry as ho considers necessary. I am asked to hold that there is no case on the merits worth enquiry. That is a master for the trial Court to consider, and decide whether the complaint ought to be thrown out without notice to the accused or whether notice ought to issue to them. The Sessions Judge'...
(Devavarapu) Venkataramayya Vs. (Devavarapu) Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad337
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant before me. The plaintiffs, four in number, filed the original suit for partition and delivery of four out of seven shares in the property described in the plaint schedule, which the plaintiffs allege belonged to one Chandrayya, the last male holder. Chandrayya died about 1876 leaving a widow Punnamma. Punnamma died on 24th March 1924, and the present suit for partition was filed on 2nd May 1924. Defendant 4 and defendants 1 and 2 are cousins of the plaintiffs and are according to the plaintiffs the other three sharers who are entitled to the other three shares in the property as reversioners to the estate of Chandrayya.2. The main pleas of the appellant, who was defendant 2 in the lower Court, were that the properties did not belong to Chandrayya and that defendant 2 had been adopted to Chandrayya after Chandrayya's death by his widow. Both the lower Courts held against the defences set up by defendant 2, and the first contention h...
Rekapallai Mallikharjuna Rao Naidu Vs. Pillarisetti Butchi Venkataras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.32
Jackson, J.1. Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Iyer has narrowed the discussion of this petition to one point, whether the learned Judge was justified in holding to be valid ballot paper 252 which contains a cross in col. 2 instead of in cot 3 of the voting paper.2. I do not see how this can be other than a question of fact on which, under Rule 12 of the Rules for Decision of Disputes, the Judge's order is final. [Vide M. Abboya Goundar v. Sheik Dawood Sahib (1927) M.W.N. 842]. The petition must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.3. I may remark, however, that the voting paper is not as clear as it might be. The heading of col. 3 is 'The mark should show the pleasure of the voter.' Why 'not put a mark here after the name of the candidate you choose.' In the hurry of an election everything cannot be left to oral instruction....
Devavarapu Venkataramanayya Vs. Devavarapu Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.653
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant before me. The plaintiffs, four in number, filed the original suit for partition and delivery of four out of 7 shares in the property described in the plaint schedule, which the plaintiffs allege belonged to one Chandrayya, the last male holder. Chandrayya died about 1876 leaving a widow Punnamma. Punnamma died on 24th March, 1924, and the present suit for partition was filed on 2nd May 1924. The 4th defendant and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are cousins of the plaintiffs and are, according to the plaintiffs, the other 3 sharers who are entitled to the other 3 shares in the property as reversioners to the estate of Chandrayya.2. The main pleas of the appellant, who was the 2nd defendant in the lower Court, were that the properties did not belong to Chandrayya and that the 2nd defendant had been adopted to Chandrayya after Chandrayya's death by his widow. Both the lower Courts held against the defences set up by the 2nd defendant, ...
In Re: Venkatarama Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ239
Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.1. This man was convicted and fined under the joint effect of Sections 116 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code in the following circumstances. He was anxious to become a policeman and by the orders of the District Superintendent of Police he presented himself before the Reserve Inspector who found that he was below the minimum height accepted for the Police and rejected his application. He thereupon tendered a five rupee note to the Officer, no doubt in the hope that the Officer would reconsider his decision and make a report to the District Superintendent of Police to that effect. The Officer had the man charged. He was convicted and he appeals.2. The law relating to what I may shortly call bribery under the Penal Code is very curious. It is confined in effect to public servants or those who regard themselves as on the way to public service and the operative Section 161 refers' only to the taker and not to the giver of the bribe, the latter of course being...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »