Chennai Court November 1930 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.
Yerramilli Satyanarayana Rao and ors. Vs. Kandukuri Purnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad260; (1931)61MLJ805
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur dismissing an application under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code, to amend a preliminary decree obtained by the petitioners as plaintiffs in a suit upon a mortgage executed by the ancestors of defendants 1 to 5. The only other person whom it is necessary to refer to is the 7th defendant, the only contesting respondent to this petition, who was added as defendant, because he had purchased some of the mortgaged properties subject to the mortgage sued upon. Defences were raised on the merits by defendants 1 to 5., The 7th defendant pleaded that the properties purchased by him should not be proceeded against until the other mortgaged properties had been sold. There was an issue arising from the plantiffs' allegations that the survey numbers of two of the properties, items 6 and 8 in the plaint schedule, were wrongly entered in the mortgage deed. All these contentions were disposed of by the...
Minor Nagammal and anr. Vs. Sankarappa Naidu Alias Muthalagiri Naidu a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad264; (1931)61MLJ19
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The dispute in the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, relates to the succession to the properties of one Muthukrishna Naidu who died a minor possessed of the suit properties. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sisters. The plaintiff claims to be the nearest heir to the deceased as he is the adopted son of Pappi Naidu who was the brother of the deceased's paternal grandfather. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Pappi Naidu and that the adoption is also legal and valid. If these findings are correct, there is no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the properties in question in preference to defendants 1 and 2.2. The only question argued in this second appeal relates to the validity of the plaintiff's adoption. The circumstances in which the plaintiff was taken in adoption have been set forth in the registered deed of adoption Ex. A, executed by Pappi Naidu. It is recited in that deed that the adoption was ...
Dara Lakshmi Narasimham Vs. Garine Satyanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad227
ORDERJackson, J.1. After reversing a conviction and sentence an appellate Court cannot order an innocent man to be retried without formulating a charge. In Emperor v. Mohan Singh [1920] 42 All. 522, the learned Judge was careful to formulate a particular charge of forging a receipt; leaving it open to the lower Court to expand that charge if so advised. But the Court cannot simply say: 'This man shall be charged,' which ordering retrial amounts to. An appellate Court must also be careful not to usurp the function of a Public Prosecutor, a matter I discussed in In Re: V.M. Rathnavelu Mudaliar A.I.R 1930 Mad. 189:The learned Sessions,Judge came to the same conclusion, observing quite correctly that upon the essential points of the case there is neither evidence nor finding, and he could not uphold the conviction. Ho considered however that the proper course was to order a retrial. Here it must he found that the learned Judge exceeded his proper function. In certain circumstances he can n...
Krishnaswami Pathar and ors. Vs. Ramachandra Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad601
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rupees 612 14-0 alleged to be due under two registered mortgage bonds assigned to him under Ex. 0 by the original mortgagee. The contesting defendants set up Ex. 1 to prove that the mortgagee agreed to receive only Rs. 425 in discharge of the mortgage bonds and a promissory note for Rs. 20. The District Munsif admitted Ex. 1 in evidence and gave a decree to the plaintiff for Rupees 156 only on the strength of this agreement. In appeal it was argued that Ex. 2 was inadmissible for want of registration under Clause (b), S. -17, Registration Act.2. This argument was accepted by the learned District Judge and the decree of the lower Court was accordingly modified with the result that the plaintiff was given a decree for Rs. 405-14-0 with costs and subsequent interest, a larger amount than what was awarded to him by the District Munsif.3. In s...
Nagammal, Minor and anr. Vs. Sankarappa Naidu Alias Muthalagiri Naidu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.9
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The dispute in the suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, relates to the succession to the properties of one Muthukrishna Naidu who died a minor possessed of the suit properties, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sisters. The plaintiff claims to be the nearest heir to the deceased as he is the adopted son of Pappi Naidu who was the brother of the deceased's paternal grandfather. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Pappi Naidu and that the adoption is also legal and valid. If these findings are correct, there is no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the properties in question in preference to defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. The only question argued in this second appeal relates to the validity of the plaintiff's adoption, the circumstances in which the plaintiff was taken in adoption have been set forth in the registered deed of adoption Ex. A, executed by Pappi Naidu. It is recited in that deed that the ado...
HussaIn Meah Sahib (Died) and ors. Vs. A.G. Abdul Rahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad326
Bhashyam Ayyangar, J. 1. Those appeals arise out of two 'passing off' actions: a suit and a cross suit, between the same parties. It will be convenient to refer to Abdul Rahim Sahib, the plaintiff in the one and the defendant in the other, as the plaintiff, and Hussain Mean Sahib, the defendant in the former and the plaintiff in the latter, as the defendant.2. Both plaintiff and defendant are beedi manufacturers and traders of Madras. Each of them appears to have alleged that the other came into that trade shortly before the dispute arose between them, but it was conceded at the hearing that they had both been in it for some considerable time. As between them the defendant was certainly the earlier in the field. In fact, the evidence is that it was he who introduced beedies in Madras about 40 years ago when he removed to it from somewhere near Bombay. He made and sold them loose at first and then in packets. His business, which must originally have been small, gradually grew and appear...
M.S. Gopalaswami Chettiar Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad525; (1931)61MLJ754
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These are connected appeals preferred by the plaintiff and arise out of three suits filed by him against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that the collection of certain amounts from him by the defendant under Section 27, Clause (2) of the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village-service Act II of 1894 was ultra vires of the Madras Legislature and for a refund of those amounts to him.2. The plaintiff is the owner of three mittahs in Salem District, namely, Karamanur, Pavitram and Avatwadi. His contention is that the levy of the village-service cess from him in respect of these mittahs tantamounts to a breach of the contract concluded between the proprietors of permanently settled estates and the East India Company and contravenes the statutory provisions in the Permanent Settlement Regulation XXV of 1802, because the imposition of this tax or cess amounts to an enhancement of the peishkush already fixed. Another contention put forward by him...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›