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.
Govindaraja Mudali Vs. Samarapuri Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad112
Wallace, J.1. The only direct authorities on the point of law cited before me are three, Gopal Daji v. Gopal Sonu [1904] 28 Bom. 248, Sami Aiyangar v. Laxmi : (1911)21MLJ455 and Harbans Lal v. Nathu [1930] 105 P.R. 1919. Of these the two former are against the view taken by the learned District Judge and the latter is in his favour, relying, however, on a decision of this Court in Velayudan Pillai v. Vythilingam Pillai [1912] 24 M.L.J. 66, which deliberately refrains from deciding the point at issue here. So the weight of authority is against the lower appellate Court's view, and I see no reason why I should take a different view from that taken by this Court, already in Sami Aiyangar v. Laxmi : (1911)21MLJ455 . The liability of the surety is, therefore, not saved from the bar of limitation by the payment by the principal.2. I reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the District Munsif Appellant will get his costs here and in the lower appellate Court....
Pynda Venkatachalapati Garu Vs. Pynda Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad168
Phillips, J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff to recover two loans given to a firm of four brothers, defendants 1 to 4. For each of the loans a promissory note was executed by defendant 3 alone which he signed in his own name and not in the name of the partnership, On the promissory notes therefore defendant 3 can alone be held liable; but it is contended for the plaintiff appellant that as the loans were given to the partnership, the other three partners will also be liable for their amount. The plaint is not worded so as to indicate clearly that the plaintiff bases his suit not only on the promissory notes but on the independent liability of the partnership, but it is I think capable of such interpretation; no question of amending it was raised in the lower Court because the Subordinate Judge held that because the promissory notes had been executed for the loans by defendant 3, it was not open to the plaintiff to base his claim on any other cause of action.2. One of the earlie...
Mallavarapu Rama Rao Vs. Mallavarapu Hanumantha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.837
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 are peering by his elder brother as next friend The 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit. The 1st defendant as their father, the 2nd defendant was the brother of the 1st defendant and the other defendants were the alienates from defendants Nos. 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 Nos. 1 and 2 and also for a partition of the shares of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and recovering possession of t...
Sukratendra Tirtha Swami Vs. N.N. Prabhu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad100
1. The plaintiff, a Konkani Brahmin of Mangalore, dined on 24th October 1920 in company with members of various communities, including three panchamas. This was reported as a caste offence by members of his caste to the defendant the Swami of Kasi Mutt, who is the recognized tribunal for deciding such matters. The defendant took care to discover the true facts of the case (Ex. 18, 20th November 1920) and interviewed several persons on be-of the plaintiff; Sreenivasa Pai and Venkata Rao first on 11th November, and again on 15th November, two Bhandarakars at about the same date; and, after 20th November a regular deputation with full instructions of all that had to be said the plaintiff's behalf. There is some suggestion that these persons instead, of stating plaintiff's case merely applied for an adjournment and fuller inquiry. This is very improbable, but the point need not be laboured because plaintiff himself sent to the defendant a document Ex. G, which is obviously the statement of...
Balasundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad191
ORDERReilly, J.1. The information given in the charge sheet in this case is not very full; but I cannot say that it does not comply with the provisions of Section 173, Criminal P.C. The contention that section requires that an abstract of the evidence to be given by each of the witnesses mentioned should be entered in the report of charge sheet appears to me unsound. Nor is there in my opinion anything in the suggestion that this form of charge sheet, prescribed by G.O. No. 3,487 Law (General), dated 16th October 1928, and published in the Port St. George Gazette dated 23rd October 1928, could not legally be prescribed under Section 173, Criminal P.C., because it requires less details to be given than were required in the form previously prescribed. This petition is dismissed....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›