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.
A.M. Narayana Sah Vs. A. Sankar Sah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad865; 121Ind.Cas.1; (1929)57MLJ685
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for partition of joint family properties and for delivery of his share. One Munusami Sah, Sankar Sah (1st defendant), Chinnasami Sah and Ponnu-sami Sah were four brothers. The 1st defendant is one of the above four who is alive. Munusami Sah had three sons and a daughter. One son Sudarsana Sah filed C.S. No. 63 of 1910, got a share and separated himself from the family; the second son Chender Sah is the 10th defendant and plaintiff is the third son. Various other members of the family are set out in the genealogical tree and it is unnecessary to particularise them further here. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. There are only two questions in the appeal: one of fact and one of law. The one of fact is, whether the contract with the Madras Corporation was a separate business of the 1st defendant or a joint family business. The learned Judge has found on the question of fact that it is a joint-family business and I have no hesitati...
(Gudipati) Seshamma Vs. (Kunchanapalli) Butchiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad781
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaint was filed in the Small Cause Court, as one for money due for use and occupation on the ground of permissive possession. The plaint was returned by the Small Cause Court under Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as a question of title was involved. In these circumstances. I think that on a proper construction of the plaint (reading para. 6 with the other parts of the plaint)' no second appeal lies in this case : see M. Ankaya v. A. Rattamma : AIR1926Mad622 . The second appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.2. I am asked to convert this second appeal into a revision petition, but in the circumstances, I do not find any ground on which I could interfere in revision.3. I do not find any ground for granting leave to appeal in this case....
Ramakrishna Ayyar Vs. Ramanatha Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad819; 122Ind.Cas.497
1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff and defendant 1 are the owners of the adjoining premises, the plain-tiff's premises being to the west of: defendant 1's. A wall running north to the south separates the plaintiff's from the defendant's, and the same belongs to defendant 1. The roof of the plaintiff's house has been resting on this wall. The defendant tried to pull down that wall, and the plaintiff instituted the suit which gave rise to this appeal for a declaration of his right to have the roof of his house rested on the wall and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from doing anything which would interfere with the right of support which the plaintiff claims. The learned District Judge of South Malabar recorded the following finding:I agree with the findings of the learned District Munsif that both the wall and the house (plaintiff's house) are old and the roof must have rested on this wall for more than 20 years...it is not necessary for a person ...
Gudipati Seshamma Vs. Kunchanapalli Butchiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.370
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The plaint was filed in the Small Cause Court, as one for money due for use and occupation on the ground of permissive possession. The plaint was returned by the Small Cause Court under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Gauss Courts Act as a question of title was involved. In these circumstances, I think that on a proper construction of the plaint (reading para. 6 with the other parts of the plaint) that no second appeal lies in this case. See Mikkili Ankaya v. Allaparti Rathamma : AIR1926Mad622 . The second appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.2. I am asked to convert this second appeal into a revision petition, but in the circumstances, I do not find any ground on which I could interfere in revision.3. I do not find any ground for granting leave to appeal in this case....
King Emperor Vs. Abdul Malik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad744; 121Ind.Cas.762; (1929)57MLJ470
ORDERWallace, J.1. Accused does not appear. I am asked to enhance the sentence of imprisonment passed on accused on the ground that it is much too light for an old offender. I agree that it is much too light if accused is an old offender. The difficulty is that I find no proof of that. I am told that the practice in the Presidency Magistrate's Courts is to accept a mere certificate by the Police as proof that an accused is an old offender and that the particulars of previous convictions are neither entered in the statement of charge nor read out to him. All the information given to accused is that he is charged under Section 75, Indian Penal Code, which of course conveys nothing to him. He is clearly entitled to challenge the fact of the various previous convictions made matter of charge against him, and if he challenges these, then proof of these convictions and of his identity with the person previously convicted must be given. If the present practice is as I am now informed then the...
Ganapathi Mudali Vs. Meera Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad303
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is presented in the following circumstances: A decree for Rs. 17,000 and odd passed by the High Court on its original side dated 20th September 1912 was transferred for execution to the Chingleput District Court on 29th January 1917, and the sale of certain property was asked for. The execution in that Court (under E.P. No. 40 of 1917 dated 28th February 1917) was opposed by the judgment-debtors on the ground that there had been no attachment of the property in execution. The District Judge on 28th November 1917 overruled the objection on the ground that an attachment effected before judgment enured. On appeal the High Court on 20th November 1918 confirmed that view. During the pendency of the appeal, the District Court, following a practice which has been condemned many times: see Patannayya v. Pattayya, A. I R 1926 Mad. 453 and Munisami Mudali v. Meenakshi Ammal A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 215 'recorded' the execution petition with permission to the decree-holder to re...
Ganapathy Mudali Vs. Minor Meera Sahib by Guardian Ismoil Sahib and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.845
1. This appeal is presented in the following circumstances.2. A decree for Rs. 17,000 and odd passed by the High Court on its Original Side dated the 20th September 1912, was transferred for execution to the Chingleput District Court on the 29th January, 1917 and the sale of certain property was asked for. The execution in that Court (under E.P. No. 40 of 1917 dated 28th February 1917) was opposed by tbe judgment-debtors on the ground that there had been no attachment of the property in execution. The District Judge on 28th November, 1917, overruled the objection on the ground that an attachment effected before judgment enured. On appeal the High Court on the 20th November 1918, confirmed that view. During the pendency of the appeal the District Court following a practice which has been condemned many times [see Pattamayya v. Pattayya 92 Ind. Cas. 782 : 50 M.L.J. 215; (1926) M.W.N. 262 : A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 453 and Muniswami Mudali v. Meenakshi Ammal 106 Ind. Cas. 660 : 51 M. 244; (1927) ...
(Sri) Govinda Ramanuja Das Goswami Vs. (Appala) Vijiaramaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad803
1. The appellant appeals against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore in the matter of a temporary injunction in the following circumstances.2. The minor plaintiff in O.S. No. 14 of 1923 on the file on the lower Court is suing to set aside a Court sale in O.S. No. 39 of 1921 so far as it relates to his share of the property sold. The appellant was the decree-holder purchaser at the Court sale. Unable to get possession under his sale, he filed O.S. No. 56 of 1925 to eject the present plaintiff and his father. The trial of that suit was stayed for a long time but a decree was passed in it ex parte in favour of the present appellant on 10th March 1928. In the meantime on 30th January 1928, the minor respondent filed his suit, O.S. No. 14 of 1928, and with it an application for a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from executing his decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1925. That application came on after notice to the appellant for hearing on 10th September 1928. The appellant...
Rasan Chettiar Vs. Rangayan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad105
Walsh, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows: The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree in a mortgage suit on 23rd March 1928. Three months' time was given for the payment of the mortgage debt. An application was put in by the plaintiff on 28th June 1928 and a final decree was passed. Notice of this application was not sent to defendant 2 in the suit. The appellant who is defendant 2 put in a petition on 19th October 1928 to have the ex parte final decree set aside and to stay execution of the proceedings on the ground of an adjustment made between himself and the plaintiff some time during April 1928,. The Court passed an order as follows:I think therefore that the grounds for setting aside the final decree are not strong. But I think I may in the interest of justice give the petitioner a chance of proving the so called adjustment, if he shows his bona fides to satisfy the decree by paying half the decree amount in two weeks.2. Defendant 2 not having paid the...
N. Purushothama Rao Vs. Mallavarapu Rama Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad326; (1929)57MLJ720
Ramesam, J.1. These three appeals are filed against the judgment in O.S. No. 43 of 1925 on the file of the Subordinate judge's Court of Nellore. The original plaintiffs were two brothers. The first was a major and the second a minor appearing by his elder brother as next friend. The 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The 1st defendant was their father, the 2nd defendant was the brother of the 1st defendant and the other defendants were the alienees of defendants 1 and 2. The 8th defendant was the special Receiver appointed in the Insolvency Proceedings in connection with the insolvency of the 1st defendant who became insolvent while the suit was pending. The suit was filed to declare that the partition between the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant in 1915 was unfair and therefore not binding on the plaintiffs, to set aside certain alienations made by defendants 1 and 2 and also for a partition of the shares of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and recovering possession of them. The...