Chennai Court March 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.
Anganna Reddi and ors. Vs. Subbaroya Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad787; (1930)59MLJ225
1. This appeal raises a question relating to the construction of Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code. In O.S. No. 1 of 1924 on the file of the District Court of South Arcot, Periathambi Dorai obtained a decree against Subbaroya Chetty for money. Subbaroya Chetty had preferred an appeal to the High Court against that decree. Pending appeal the appellant before us, Anganna Reddi, who had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1923 on the file of the Salem Court against Periathambi Dorai, had his decree transferred to the South Arcot Court and he attached the decree which Periathambi Dorai had obtained against Subbaroya Chetty in O.S. No. 1 of 1924. In execution of the attached decree the appellant, namely,' the decree-holder in O.S. No. 11 of 1923, was able to realise a sum of Rs. 3,000. The result of Subbaroya Chetty's appeal to the High Court against the decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1924 was, that the High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the suit for fresh dispo...
Unnaithanakath Puthan Veettil Kummakutty Alias Kunhutti and anr. Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad921; (1930)59MLJ893
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question in regard to Order 21, Rule 89, Schedule I, Civil Procedure Code. If a person other than a judgment-debtor pays money into Court under that section, can he insist that the decree-holder shall not draw the sum out without furnishing security?2. The facts of the case take us so far back as 1905. One Sri Devi of Mudathode Illam conveyed in jenm to Thuppan Nambudri, the brother of the plaintiff, her entire property (consisting of 140 items). The sale-deed (Ex. I) is dated 16th October, 1905 and mentions the consideration as Rs. 16,000. The purchaser by that deed is directed to pay certain specified debts of the vendor and it then provides that he shall also be bound to pay up all other lawful debts due by her. Eramutti, the brother of the 1st defendant, filed against Sri Devi, O.S. No. 561 of 1905, claiming a certain amount as due. It was to Thuppan's interteist, having regard to Ex. I, to get the suit' dis missed. He accordingly fought ...
(Bobbili) Poladari Gadu and ors. Vs. Rajah of Vizianagaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad43
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of one of several suits (L.S. 223 of 1924) instituted by the Rajah of Vizianagaram for the recovery of arrears of rent with interest due by the defendants on certain 'kattukaluva service' inam lands resumed by the proprietor for faslis 1331, 1332 and 1333. The defendants had executed relinquishment deeds and kadapas at the time of resumption with respect to these lands in favour of the zamindar. Their main contentions are two fold : (1) that the kadapas and relinquishment deeds are not valid and binding as they are vitiated by misrepresentation, coercion, etc.; (2) that the services to be rendered by the ryots with respect to these lands are of a public nature and the lands are therefore not resumable by the zamindar and therefore resumption is invalid. On the first point both the Courts held that the relinquishment deeds and kadapas are not vitiated by misrepresentation, coercion, fraud, etc; But the learned District Judge in discussin...
Veeraragava Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Chairman, Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad861
ORDERPandalai, J.1. The petitioners, the Mittadar of Devasthanam Mitta and his son, seek to revise the conviction recorded against them under Section 313 read with Section 362, District Municipalities Act, by the Sub-Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, which was confirmed by the Joint Magistrate, Tirupattur.2. They were fined Re. 1 each. The offence charged against them was that they had cut and removed trees from four town survey numbers, namely 1166, 1227, 1225 and 1228. The Municipal Council claimed those properties as vested in it. Therefore the petitioners were charged with having violated Section 362, District Municipalities Act, by cutting and removing trees therefrom. Both the Magistrates found that the four survey numbers above mentioned were properties which vested in the Municipal Council of Vaniyambadi. The argument of the learned advocate for the petitioners in this Court is twofold: (1) that the acts charged do not amount to an offence under Section 362 (2); that the properties from...
Vellapalli Sekhara Menon Vs. Karanath Kalathi Manakkal Narayanan Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad881; (1930)59MLJ714
ORDER1. This is a petition for review of judgment in a Letters Patent Appeal based on an alleged defect of procedure which occurred during the pendency of the appeal, which, it is said, invalidates the judgment.2. The suit was brought in 1919 to redeem a kanom on behalf of a Malabar devaswom by one out of the four Uralans, the other three being joined as 24th to 26th defendants. The other defendants were members of the tenant's tarwad of which the 1st defendant was the karnavan. The District Munsif gave a decree as prayed. The District Judge on appeal and Phillips, J., on second appeal held that the suit was barred by Order 9, Rule 9, by reason of the dismissal of a former suit brought for the same relief and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause (15) of the Letters Patent and on 7th December, 1928, a Bench of this Court consisting of Devadoss and Waller, JJ., set aside the judgments of the first and second Appellate Courts and remanded the ap...
P. Varada Pillai Vs. P.V. Thillai Govindaraja Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad8; 129Ind.Cas.254; (1930)59MLJ953
Ramesam, J.1. C.R.P. No. 1771 of 1928 - The facts out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises may be stated as follows. The suit was filed in the District Munsif's Court of Poonamallee. An objection was taken by the defendant that the suit as framed did not lie in the District Munsif's Court. The District Munsif decided against the objection. On a revision petition filed in the High Court, my brother, Jackson, J., held in C.R.P. No. 1263 of 1927, that the objection was well founded and the suit as framed did not lie before the District Munsif. He observed in the course of his judgment that the plaintiff might try his chance at amendment in the Lower Court. When the case went back to the District Munsif the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint, he undertaking to amend the plaint in such a way as to make it cognizable by the District Munsif. The District Munsif rejected this application. He passed an order on the plaint returning it to be presented to the proper Court, and ...
Vellapalli Sekhara Menon Vs. Karanath Kalati Manakkal Narayanan Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1930
Reported in: 128Ind.Cas.451
ORDER1. This is a petition for review of judgment in a Letters Patent Appeal based on an alleged defect of procedure which occurred during the pendency of the appeal which it is said invalidates the judgment.2. The suit was brought in 1919 to redeem a kanom on behalf of a Malabar Devaswom by one out of the 4 uralans, the other three being joined as 24th to 26th defendants. The other defendants were members of the tenant's tarwad of which the 1st. defendant was the Karnavan. The District Munsif gave a decree as prayed. The District Judge on appeal and Phillips, J., on second appeal held that the suit was barred by Order IX, Rule 9, by reason of the dismissal of a former suit brought for the same relief and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and on 7th December, 1928, a Bench of this Court consisting of Devadoss and Waller, JJ., set aside the judgment of the first and second Appellate Courts and remanded the appeal to...
K.R. Ramaswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India Thr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad213; 129Ind.Cas.630; (1930)59MLJ844
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an important question regarding customary rights. The plaintiffs are inhabitants of a village known as Melagaram in the district of Tinnevelly. They have filed the suit under Order 1, Rule 8, Schedule I, Civil Procedure Code, as representing the whole body of the villagers. They claim the suit land of the extent of 1 acre and 95 cents to be communal land and allege that it has been, so far as living memory goes, used for certain communal purposes. In the plaint, the purposes are thus set out:1. for herding cattle,2. for grazing of cattle,3. as a cart track,4. as a thrashing floor,5. as a burial ground for Brahmin children, and6. as a seat of the guardian deity.2. The plaintiffs strongly rely upon the fact that at the Settlement of 1875 and again at the Re-settlement of 1911, the land was classed as Mandai (cattle-stand) poramboke. In 1918, the land was transferred by the Government from the category of Mandai poramboke to Natham poramboke. The ...
(K. Syed) Muhammad Levvai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad247
ORDERPandalai, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad refusing to interfere with an order of discharge under Section 203, Criminal P.C., passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Ramnad. The complainant styles himself as the hereditary Katheef Levvai for the Ramnad big Mahalla Muslim Jamath and of the Sankarankobtai Muslims. He preferred a complaint against five persons. Accused 1 was the bridegroom at a marriage. Accused 2 was the bride. Accused 3 was the father of the bride. Accused 4 is described as a teacher in Thinaikulam village, where the marriage took place, and accused 5 is the elder brother of the bridegroom. The charge in substance was that on 8th December 1929 accused 4, teacher, being only a layman, purporting to act as the Levvai, celebrated in Thinaikulam mosque a marriage between accused 1 and 2; that accused 1, bridegroom, being the grand-uncle in the maternal line of the bride, marriage between them is prohibited according...
Papathi Ammal Vs. Karuppiah Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad418
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioner asked for permission to institute the suit as a pauper in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ramnad and that petition was allowed and the petitioner was treated as a pauper. Later on it was found that the valuation of the suit made it triable by the District Munsif of Ramnad. A memorandum was submitted by both the parties and it was agreed that the said suit should be tried by the District Munsif's Court, Ramnad. The plaint was accordingly returned for presentation to the proper Court under Order 7, Rule 10 Civil P.C. The petitioner then presented the plaint to the District Munsif's Court of Ramnad and filed an application under Order 33, Rules 1, 2 and 3 and under Section 151, Civil P.C., to declare the petitioner as pauper and to allow the petitioner to continue the suit O.S. 437 of 1927 on the file of that Court in forma pauperis.2. Objection was taken by the respondents that the petition would not lie and that no such permission should be given. It ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »