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.
Thayammal and ors. Vs. A.T. Muthukumaraswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ588
1. Appel No. 132 of 1927 - In this Appeal defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants before us. The plaintiff brought the suit on a mortgage bond, dated the 24th October, 1907. The present suit was filed on the 17th October, 1925. To save the bar of limitation the plaintiff relied on a payment of Rs. 10 towards interest on the 17th October, 1913, which purports to be endorsed on the mortgage bond and is exhibited as Ex. A-l. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit as framed with further interest. Hence this appeal.2. Ex. A-l the endorsement was signed by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant for himself and as guardian of his younger brother the 4th defendant. It is said that the 3rd defendant was then absent at Singapore and that the endorsement was signed on his behalf also, but there is no signature which purports to be on his behalf. So far as the 1st and 2nd defendants are concerned, the main point that was argued for the appellants was that though the signatures on the end...
Lakshumi Achi and anr. Vs. Narayanaswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1929
Reported in: (1929)57MLJ746
Ramesam, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed on the basis of a mortgage bond, dated the 5th March, 1914, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of one Subramaniam Chettiar, who was the son of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of the 2nd plaintiff. At the time of the mortgage the 1st defendant had a brother Natarajulu and they were undivided. The plaintiffs claim that the 1st defendant Narayanaswami was the manager of the family and the mortgage deed was executed for purposes binding on the family. The defendants denied these allegations and contended that the debt is not binding on Natarajulu's share. This point was found by the Subordinate Judge against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs. who are the appellants before us do not attack this finding so far as the state of things existing at the date of the mortgage is concerned. A few months after the execution of Ex. A, a suit was filed by Natarajulu for specific performance of an agreement to sell Narayanaswami's s...
A.V.A. Audinatha Ayyengar Vs. S.S. Bharathi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad890
Phillips, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant has brought this suit upon a mortgage executed by defendants 1 and 2 and this appeal relates only to the properties mentioned in plaint Schedule 2 in which defendant 16, the only contesting respondent, is interested. These properties were mortgaged in 1911 for Rs. 15,000 and again in 1913 for Rs. 9,000. The plaintiff's mortgage which was executed in 1914 is the third mortgage on the properties. The first mortgagee brought a suit, O.S. No. 65 of 1916, and obtained a decree for sale. The mortgagee himself purchased the property in 1919 for Rs. 19,000 and odd and. resold it to a vakil, Mr Bharathi, defendant 5 in this suit, for Rs. 22,000. Defendant 1 then filed a suit, O.S. No. 38 of 1920, contending that the purchase by Mr. Bharathi was on his behalf. That suit was compromised on 10th March 1921 and it was de-creed that the plaint properties should be handed over to defendant 1 on payment of Rs. 29,000 before 13th July 1921. On 11th July defendant ...
Thayammal and ors. Vs. A. Muthukumaraswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad881; 121Ind.Cas.858
1. Appeal No. 132 of 1927.2. In this appeal, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the appellants before us. The plaintiff brought the suit on a mortgage bond, dated the 24th October, 1907. The present suit was filed on the 17th October, 1925. To save the bar of limitation, the plaintiff relied on a payment of Rs. 10 towards interest on the 17th October, 1913, which purports to be endorsed on the mortgage bond and is exhibited as Ex. A-l. The Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit as framed, with further iuterest. Hence this appeal.3. Exhibit A 1, the endorsement, was signed by the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant for himself and as guardian of his younger brother, the 4th defendant. It is said that the 3rd defendant was then absent at Singapore and that the endorsement was signed on his behalf also.but there is no signature which purports to be on his behalf. So far as the 1st and 2nd defendants are concerned, the main point that was argued for the appellants was that though the signa...
In Re: D. Viraswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.617; (1929)57MLJ520
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 19(d) of the Indian Arms Act of transporting a weapon in contravention of a regulation or prohibition issued under Section 10 of that Act, and the conviction has been upheld on appeal. The learned Sessions judge has set forth the relevant facts in paragraph 2 of his judgment and they have not been disputed before me. They show that the petitioner ordered a gun from a dealer in Bombay ostensibly for an intending purchaser but in fact upon his own account and, as the learned Sessions Judge says, the only question is whether his act amounts to the offence of transporting without a license.2. Rule 24 of the Indian Arms Rules provides for the grant of a license, for the transport of arms, ammunition or military stores, and the form in which it is granted is Form VII. I think it is clear both from the language of that rule and the contents of the Form that where arms are to be sent from one place to another, it is for the c...
Kolluri Subbarao Vs. Kolluri Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: AIR1929Mad828; 121Ind.Cas.857; (1929)57MLJ677
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit for partition and delivery to him of his share in the properties alleging that he is a member of an undivided family with defendants 1 to 6, that the immove-able properties in the plaint schedule are joint family properties and praying that the decree in Suit No. 24 of 1922 should be set aside as not binding on him. He paid a stamp duty of Rs. 250 valuing the suit as one by a coparcener to be in possession with the other coparceners. The suit was filed on the 17th April, 1923, written statements were filed and preliminary objection was taken as to the valuation of the suit and the Court-fee paid. Issue 12 is: 'Are the valuation of the suit and the Court-fee paid not correct?' The Subordinate Judge in dealing with it disposed of the preliminary point and held that the valuation was not correct. He held that the plaintiff should not value the suit under Section 7, para. 4(b) and was not entitled to pu...
In Re: Sami Karuppa thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.655; (1929)57MLJ743
Beasley, C.J.1. There were three accused in Sessions Case No. 110 of 1928 in the Sessions Court at Madura and they were charged with house-breaking by night and theft in a building punishable under Sections 457 and 380, Indian Penal Code. The 2nd accused was charged in addition with liability to enhanced punishment under Section 75, Indian Penal Code and Section 23(1)(6) of Act VI of 1924. The case was tried by the Sessions judge sitting with a jury and they unanimously found the first accused not guilty of any offence and the 2nd and 3rd accused guilty under Sections 457 and 380, Indan Penal Code.2. The 1st accused was acquitted the 3rd accused was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment as the offence was not a very serious one, having regard to the value of the stolen property. The 2nd accused, the appellant here, was sentenced to transportation for life; that was, in the view of the learned Sessions Judge, the only sentence which could be passed upon him because he had been p...
Challapalli Appalaswami and anr. Vs. Konduru Appalaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: 124Ind.Cas.606
Anantakrishna Iyer, J.1. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decision of the first Court relying on the decision of the Privy Council reported as Dyal Singh v. Indar Singh 98 Ind. Cas. 508 : 53 I.A. 214 : 551 M.L.J. 788 : A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 94 : 24 A.L.J. 807 : (1926) M.W.N. 602 : 3 O.W.N. 634 : 24 L.W. 396 : 44 C.L.J. 97 : 7 P.L.T. 661 : 28 Bom. L.R. 1372 : 31 C.W.N. 125 : 28 P.L.R. 10 (P.C.) where their Lordships held that an agreement of sale, wherein payment of premium, or whole or part of the consideration, amounting to Rs. 100 or more is acknowledged or recited, is inadmissible in evidence if not registered. Subsequent to that decision, the Indian Legislature has interfered, and by Act II of 1927, which in express terms is said to be retrospective, the Legislature has restored the law relating to the admissibility of such documents to the law as it was understood here prior to the above Privy Council decision. An explanation has been added to Section 17 by the Registration Act I...
Poluru Chinna Venkataiah Vs. Poluru Venkatanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1929
Reported in: 120Ind.Cas.573
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The three plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 888 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Kurnool to recover by metes and bounds 3/5 share in the properties mentioned in the plaint which are a house and some lands. The main allegations in the plaint were that the properties belonged to one Polur Ramana, that he died about forty years ago leaving him surviving his widow Pullamma, that the suit properties which belonged to Ramanna devolved on his death on his widow Pullamma, his nearest heir, that Pullamma was in possession of the properties and that she died two months prior to the date of the plaint (para. 1). In para. 3 it was alleged that Ramanna and his brothers were divided in interest. The plaintiffs who are the sons of the brothers of the said Ramanna filed the suit to recover. 3/6 share of the suit properties, alleging that the defendants who are the sons of another brother of the deceased Ramanna are entitled to the remaining 2/5. The 2nd defend...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›