Chennai Court August 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.
(Bethu) Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. (Satnam) Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad807
Ananthakrishna Aiyar, J.1. Suit to eject the defendants and to recover Rs. 600 being the value of 100 bags of paddy for past rent and for future mesne profits, on the basis of a Kadapa executed by the defendants in favour of Veerasami, the power-of-attorney-holder of plaintiffs' father. The defence was that the kadapa Ex. B represented only a nominal transaction. The second issue raised in the case was whether the suit lease was nominal, and the third issue-whether such a defence was open to the defendants. Now it is necessary to state the case of the parties with some more details. The case of the plaintiffs was that their father purchased the suit lands from the defendants under Ex. A on 26th September 1919, for Rs. 2,000 that he was in possession of the properties, and that he delivered possession to the defendants when Ex. B was executed by them on 20(.h June 1922. The case of the defendants was that Ex. A the sale-deed, was a nominal transaction, that the lands mentioned in Ex. A ...
S.K. Raghavendra Rao Vs. Venkatasami Naickan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad251
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage bond dated 17th October 1908, executed by one Venkatasami Naidu. Defendant 2 is the father of the executant. Defendants 3 and 4 are the assignees of a mortgage decree obtained against the suit lands. Defendants 5 and 6 are subsequent mortgagees. Defendants 7 and 10 are purchasers of portions of the mortgage property. Defendants 8 and 9 are purchasers in Court auction of portions of mortgage property in execution of a decree on a prior mortgage. The mortgagor became an insolvent and his property became vested in the Official Receiver who is defendant 1. Defendant 1. pleaded that the mortgagor was not the managing member of the family at the time of the alleged execution of the suit bond. He put the plaintiff to proof of the execution of the mortgage bond and of its consideration. He also alleged that there were misunderstandings between the mortgagor and his father and that they were executing fictitious documents in favour of...
Sultan Mahomed Rowther Vs. Muhammad Esuf Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad476; 122Ind.Cas.501
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,999-0-0 (Rupees two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine) alleged to be due under a mortgage bond (Ex. A) dated 10th July 1929 (after relinquishing a large portion of the sum due for the reason that the hypotheca would not be worth more than the suit amount). Ex. A was executed by defendant 1 through his agent under a power-of-attorney viz., defendant 3 in favour of the deceased Shaik Dawood Rowther for Rs. 2,500 (Rupees two thousand five hundred). The mortgagee died in December 1909. He was the brother of plaintiff 1 and defendant 2, and a cousin of defendant 1. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of Shaik Dawood Rowther whose widow is plaintiff 6. The claim was resisted by defendant 1, on the ground that Ex. A was executed nominally, without any consideration, for the purpose of defrauding the creditors. The first Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit accepting def...
Vedavalli Ammal Vs. C. Raghavaohari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.760
Pandalai, J.1. This is an application to set aside an award under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, on the ground that the arbitration was incompetent for want of jurisdiction and also that there was no dispute such as would have furnished the basis for an award.2. The 1st respondent was the lessee of some land a portion of which he sub-leased to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent erected superstructures upon the leasehold property under the terms of the lease, For so doing, he borrowed money from the 1st respondent and mortgaged his own leasehold interest to him although the mortgage deed was taken in his mother's name. All this seems to have taken place about the year 1912. On the 23id of July, 1928, the 2nd respondent lessee agreed to transfer or sell his leasehold interest to the present petitioner. The 1st respondent apparently wanted to prevent the petitioner from acquiring the leasehold right and with that object, wrote on the 28th of July to the petitioner's lawyer,...
Juppalli Rajagopal Rao Vs. Putheli Narayana Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad844; (1929)57MLJ547
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. Following the view of Mr. Justice Jwala Prasad in H.C. Cases No. 42 and of the learned Judges in Sheodhari Rai v. Jhingur Rai A.I.R. 1925 Pat 918 and Bagh Ali v. Muhammad Din A.I.R.1926 Lah 156 I accept that the expression 'a party interested' in Section 526(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not necessarily mean only a complainant, i.e., a person presenting a 'complaint' as defined in Section 4, Clause (h) of the Code, but may include a Police informant. To this however, following the same authorities, I would join the principle that where the conduct of a case is in the hands of a Public Prosecutor, and where there is a conflict between the Public Prosecutor and 'the party interested,' the right of the former must prevail. This principle derives sup-port from the circumstance that it is the Public Prosecutor and not the informant who is primarily responsible for the conduct of the case. In the present case, the petitioner who applies for the re-transfer of...
Onthath Sabju Sahib Vs. the Malabar District Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad16; (1929)57MLJ673
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. On the 12th March, 1923, the District Board of Malabar passed proceedings permitting the President of the District Board to lease a particular roadside poramboke vested in the District Board for occupation by the present defendant. The proceedings made it a condition for allowing such temporary occupation that the applicant should pay a sum of Rs. 6 a year and that he should deliver back possession of the plot without claiming any compensation for improvements of any sort that he might make on the property. On such conditions the President, District Board, Malabar, leased to the defendant the roadside poramboke on the 4th April, 1923, as per Ex. A. Subsequently, as it was resolved to take possession of the property, a notice to quit, Ex. B, was served upon the defendant on the 7th May, 1925, requiring him to quit the premises and deliver possession to the District Board. The defendant not having done so, the President, District Board, Malabar, has instituted t...
Chengalraya Reddy and ors. Vs. Kollapuri Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad12
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Certain immovable properties belonged to two brothers, Murgapillai and Adiyapada Pillai. On 30th February 1895 Muruga Pillai executed a mortgage hypothecating the properties in favour of the present defendant 1. On the foot of that mortgage the present defendant 1 instituted O.S. No. 755 of 1910 against both Muruga Pillai and Adiyapada Pillai. But the decree passed in that suit exonerated the share of Adiyapada Pillai. Subsequently Adiyapada Pillai filed a suit for partition against his brother Muruga Pillai to which suit he made the present defendant 1 also as party defendant. That suit was O.S. No. 421 of 1915.. The partition suit was compromised and a definite half share in the suit properties was allotted to Adiyapada Pillai, the suit being dismissed against the present defendant. The defendant 1, decree-holder in O.S. No. 755 of 1910, proceeded to execute his decree by bringing to sale the entire lands. Adiyapada Pillai naturally intervened and objected a...
Rallabandi Sobhanadri Vs. Syamala Ramireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ515
Sundaram Chettiar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of a certain sum of money on account of mesne profits for faslis 1328 and 1329 either from defendants 1 and 2 or from defendants 3 and 4. In the first Court, the plaintiff got a decree for a less amount and he preferred an appeal and the other side put in a memorandum of objections. The Lower Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal and allowing the memorandum of objections, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on a preliminary ground that it is unsustainable.2. In the written statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 they took an objection that this suit was barred under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, but no issue was framed on that point. In the Lower Appellate Court that question was, however, considered. The real position in this case is this. In the former suit between the same parties, the present plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract of sale by the executi...
Rallabandi Sobbanadri Vs. Syamala Ramireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1929
Reported in: 123Ind.Cas.6
Sundaram Chettiar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant, for the recovery of a certain sum of money on account of mesne profits for Faslies 1328 and 1329 either from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 or from defendants Nos. 3 and 4. In the first Court, the plaintiff got a decree for a lesser amount and he preferred an appeal and the other side put in a memorandum of objections. The lower Appellate Court in dismissing the appeal and allowing the memorandum of objections dismissed the plaintiff's suit on a preliminary ground that it is unsustainable.2. In the written statement filed by defend-ants Nos. 1 and 2 they took an objection that this suit was barred under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, but no issue was framed on that point. In the lower Appellate Court, that question was however considered. The real position in this case is this. In the former suit between the same parties, the present plaintiff sued for the especially performance of a contrac...
Sorimuthu Thondaman and anr. Vs. Perumal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad708; 126Ind.Cas.632
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of two items of property described in the plaint. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 set up title to the suit property by virtue of a sale effected by defendant No. 3 (now dead), who was the elder brother of the plaintiff. That the suit properties constituted the stridhanam properties of the plaintiff's late mother is a fact beyond dispute in this case. That being so, the plaintiff would be the nearest heiress entitled to the suit properties on the death of her mother Parvati, which took place in 1901. The main question for consideration in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's claim to the suit properties is barred by limitation under Article 144, Limitation Act, by reason of the alleged adverse possession of defendant No. 3 and his alienees, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. According to the finding of the lower Appellate Court the plaintiff's father who married a second wife p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »