Chennai Court September 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.
In Re: A.V. Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.799; (1929)57MLJ780
ORDERRamesam, J.1. There may be cases in which the fee due to a vakil may be otherwise adjusted, by which I mean an adjustment amounting to more than a mere agreement to pay, though no actual money has passed. In such cases the fee certificate cannot be said to be false. When a promissory note especially a negotiable instrument is given it may be equivalent to payment and I doubt if Note (it) to Rule 30 in Legal Practitioners' Rules is strictly correct. But, as a matter of policy, the object of the rule seems to discourage the taking of promissory notes by Advocates.2. The cases abovementioned show that a certificate may not be really dishonest even if no fee was received. In such cases it may be too strong an expression to describe the certificates as 'false certificates.'3. In the present case, the Judge himself says 'no personal criticism was intended.' I take this to be an expression of the Judge's opinion that the Advocate was an esteemable person and is incapable of improper cond...
(Yella) Ramayya and ors. Vs. (Chukkapalli) Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad748
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Defendant 2 sold certain properties to plaintiff 1, Chukkapalli Kotayya and Bollineni Seshayya (father of plaintiffs 3 to 5) under Ex. B dated 2nd January 1902. As the result of O.S. No. 39 of 1918 instituted by one Somayajulu as the adopted son and heir of defendant 1's husband, the plaintiffs lost about two acres of land, it being held that defendant 2 had not acquired a good title to the same himself and that consequently he could not convey a good title in his turn to the plaintiffs with reference to these two acres. The judgment in O.S. No. 39 of 1918 was passed on 30th September 1919. On the ground that the possession of the said two acres was lost on the same date, the plaintiffs instituted the present suit to recover damages from defendant 2 in respect of the same. Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of defendant 2. Defendants 2 to 5 contended that defendant 2 was merely a benamidar vendee under Ex. A dated 19th May 1900, and that the sale by defendant 2 to...
Halekote Kunhi Kalanda Beari Vs. Kunhipakki Alias Suleman, Minor by Ne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad69; (1929)57MLJ712
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question we have to decide arises in execution of a decree passed in a suit brought to enforce a mortgage. The first three defendants in that suit were father, mother and son respectively. The 4th defendant is the wife of the 3rd. The 2nd defendant, the mother, died before the passing of the preliminary decree. The 5th and the 6th defendants, her daughters, were added as her legal representatives, the 3rd defendant, her son, another heir, being already on the record. I may mention, though it is not necessary for the purpose of this case, that the 5th defendant died and her children were brought in her place on the record. It was after these changes in regard to parties that the preliminary decree came to be passed. Subsequent to the passing of that decree, the 3rd defendant died. His legal representatives were his father, the 1st defendant, his widow, the 4th defendant and his infant son, who now intervenes in execution and impeaches certain proceedings as be...
Sri Saladi Nagabushanam Vs. Vardhinidi Venkanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad21; (1929)57MLJ726
Sundram Chetty, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in both these appeals. The two suits filed by him are for the recovery of rent and cess from the ryots (defendants). The only question in dispute in these second appeals is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover one-half of the education cess which the Government has levied and recovered from him. It would appear from the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court that it was conceded on behalf of the plaintiff that he is not entitled to recover land cess from the defendants. The defendants have set up a contract or agreement by which the plaintiff's predeces-sor's in title agreed not to collect land cess from them. That agreement was no doubt prior to the passing of Act VIII of 1920 which is the Madras Elementary Education Act. Under Section 34 of this Act, the education tax can be levied in the area which is not within a municipality not exceeding 25 per cent of the taxation leviable in that area, under all or any of the following ...
Devalur Pitchayya and anr. Vs. Divi Venkatakrishnamacharlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1929
Reported in: (1930)58MLJ39
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code by two plaintiffs who obtained the sanction of the Collector. The Collector's sanction which is filed as Ex. A in the case runs as follows:Permission under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, is granted to the three persons named below to bring a scheme suit in respect of the affairs of the temple of Sree Varadarajaswami Varu of Pedapulivarru Village, Repalle Taluk, which are reported to be mismanaged by the present trustees (1) Kavata Venkatasubramaniam, (2) Davuluri Pichayya, and (3) Kosaraju Reddayya. Time, six months.2. The Tahsildar, Repalle, will please report the result at the end of the period.2. This sanction was obtained without notice to the defendants but this makes no difference as regards the validity of the sanction. Having got the sanction, two out of the three persons, namely, Pichayya and Reddayya, filed the suit. Though the sanction was only given to bring a scheme suit, the prayers ...
Meyyappan Servai Vs. Sellappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad489
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. A preliminary objection has bean taken that this Letters Patent appeal does not lie. The decision depends upon the question:Was it a second appeal or a civil revision petition that was disposed of by the judgment of Waller, J., 2. If the party aggrieved had a right of second appeal, we must hold that the learned Judge disposed of that appeal by his judgment. The facts are these: The judgment-debtor applied to the District Munsiff's Court for the setting aside of a sale. He urged various grounds, one of them being that he had no notice under Order 21, Rule 66, Civil P.C., of the settling of the proclamation. It has been held that an application of that kind falls under Section 47 and not under Order 21, Rule 90 and that a second appeal is therefore open to the party: see Neelu Neithiar v. Subramania, Moothan [1920] 11 M.L.W. 59 and Venkataswami v. Nagayya : AIR1925Mad1142 . The District Munsiff set aside the sale and the District Judge confirmed the order of the M...
Davular Pitchayya and anr. Vs. Divi Venkatakrishnamacharlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad129; 124Ind.Cas.220
1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code by two plaintiffs who obtained the sanction of the Collector. The Collector's sanction which is filed as Ex. A in the case runs as follows:Permission under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code is granted to the three persons named below to bring a scheme suit in respect of the affairs of the temple of Sree Varadarajarajaswami Varu of Pedapullivaru Village Repalle Taluk, which are reported to be mismanaged by the present trustee.1. Kavata Venkata Subramanyan.2. Davuluri Pitchayya.3. Kosaraju Reddayya.Time six months.2. The Tahsildar, Repalle, will please report the result at the end of the period.2. This sanction was obtained without notice to the defendants' but this makes no difference as regards the validity of the sanction. Having got the sanction, two out of the three persons, namely, Pitchayya and Reddayya filed the suit. Though the sanction was only given to bring a scheme suit, the prayers in the ...
N. Venkadu and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad188
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The six petitioners have presented this petition against their convictions under Sections 147 and 328, I. P. C., and sentences of two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine each of Rs. 25. The ground taken is with reference to the terms of the charges and a certain finding of fact of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal. The charge alleges that the petitioners :Were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., in wreaking vengeance for the social dishonour done to you at the social functions of the day, proceeded to the house of P. W. I at Kowali, arming yourselves with sticks, challenged P. W. 1 to come out, committed the offence of rioting and caused injuries on three of the prosecution witnesses.2. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate found that the evidence established the various components of the charge, including the fact of social dishonour caused to the petitioners on the day previous to the occurren...
(Thazhekkat Manayil Karnavar) Narayanan Thirumumpu and anr. Vs. Poonth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Mad295; 122Ind.Cas.460
1. This appeal arises out of Original Suit No. 18 of 1925 on the tile of the Sub-Court of Tellichery, which was a suit for an account of the management of the Payyanur Devaswam by defendants 1 to 6 in their capacity as uralers from 1909, for the recovery of the sum that might be found due as a result of the accounts from the defendants personally and from their family property and for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the devaswam by plaintiff 11 who was appointed samudayi by plaintiffs 1 to 10. The claim in respect of plaintiff 11 was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, but the relief in respect of the account was decreed. Defendant 1 filed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal he died and his successor, the present karnavan of the Thazhekkat mana, has been added as his legal representative, appellant 2.2. The suit devaswam is known, as 'Grama Kshetram' i.e. village temple, and is a famous temple of North Malabar. It was originally managed ...
In Re: N. Venkadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1929
Reported in: 121Ind.Cas.862
Curgenven, JJ.1. The six petitioners have presented this petition against their convictions under Sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and sentences of two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine each of Rs. 25, The ground taken is with reference to the terms of the charge and a certain finding of fact of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal. The charge alleges that the petitioners 'were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., in wreaking vengeance for the social dishonour done to you at the social functions of the day, proceeded to the house of P.W. No. 1 at Kowali, arming yourselves with sticks, challenged P.W. No. 1 to come out, committed the offence of rioting and caused injuries on three of the prosecution witnesses.' The Stationary Sub-Magistrate found that the evidence established the various components of the charge, including the fact of social dishonour caused to the petitioners on the day previous to the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »