Chennai Court January 1931 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.
Sudra Nadan Vs. Annamalai (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1931
Reported in: (1931)60MLJ695
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for partition and possession of the plaint property. The property belonged to the plaintiff and her sister, and during the minority of the plaintiff it was sold by one Sanjeevi Nadan, the husband of another sister of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case is that the sale is not binding on her as Sanjeevi Nadan was not her guardian in law and that she is therefore entitled to recover possession of the property. The defendant, the purchaser of the property, contended that the sale is binding, that it was for a necessary and proper purpose that the property was sold and that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The Lower Court found that Sanjeevi Nadan, though a de facto guardian, was not the proper guardian of the plaintiff, that it was not proved that the plaintiff was benefited in any way by the sale of the property and that the suit was not barred by limitatio...
Kootoorlingam Pillai and ors. Vs. Sennappa Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad724; (1931)61MLJ203
1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be stated as follows: Plaintiffs' father, Bogi Reddi, and the father of defendants 1 and 2, Valavanda Reddi, were brothers. They were the owners of the suit properties. Valavanda Reddi died in 1890. His widow Unnamalai asserting that the two brothers were divided claimed the suit lands and got into possession. Bogi Reddi questioned her right but ultimately entered into a compromise by which Unnamalai was to enjoy the properties till her death and after her death Bogi Reddi or his heirs should be entitled to the properties. Unnamalai died in 1913. Meanwhile Bogi Reddi died in 1903. Under the terms of the compromise the plaintiffs became entitled to the suit properties. Out of the properties subject of the suit we are now Concerned in second appeal only with the properties in Schedule I which consists of ryoti interest in certain lands in Uthumalai Zemindari. As to these, after the death of Unnamalai the plaintiffs applied to the Za...
Kesava Chetti Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad420
1. The appellant was charged in the lower Court with murdering one Chinnaswami Chetty by striking him on the head with a heavy stick by reason of which blow Chinnaswami Chetty's skull was fractured in consequence of which he died. He was convicted in' the lower Court of the offence of murder and received the death sentence. His case here has been strenuously argued by Mr. Rama Rao who has endeavoured to convince us that the offence committed by his client was not that of murder but only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the alternative his contention is that if his offence does amount to that of murder, the lesser sentence of transportation for life is the appropriate one.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is the brother of a man named Chinna Pillai. Chinna Pillai was not at all on good terms with his wife and was habitually quarrelling with her. In consequence of those quarrels his wife had to leave him on several occasions previously. On the date in qu...
(Gunnam) Gangaraju Vs. (Arimilli) Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad674
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of this second appeal may be stated as follows:The plaintiff's father Subbarayudu died before 1911 leaving three sons and a widow. The eldest son, defendant 1, was adopted by him. After adoption he had natural-born sons, the plaintiff and defendant 2. His widow is defendant 3. After the father's death, the two elder sons, namely, defendants 1 and 2, were managing the property, and in the course of their management they had incurred considerable debts. In connexion with such debts suits had been filed against them and defendant 3 and decrees obtained. It is now necessary to mention only two such suits. One is Small Cause Suit No. 1055 of 1919 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Cocanada. The decree in it is Ex. 4. It was obtained on three promissory notes, Exs. 4-C and 4-D of 1917 and Ex. 4-E of 1918. The other papers in connexion with that suit are filed as Exs. 4 series and D series. Another such decree was obtained in S.C.S. No. 1292 of 1919 on the file of...
In Re: Eddula Venkatasubba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ608
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Accused 1 to 7 have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Cuddappah for the murder of Eddula Sivamma at Chinnadandlur village on 20th February, 1930, and all of them except Accused 4 were sentenced to death, and Accused 4 to transportation for life. Accused 5 to 7 are alleged to be the hired assassins who committed the murder, whereas Accused 1 to 4 are said to have abetted it.2. The facts of the prosecution case are briefly as follows: Sivamma was a widow aged about 60, in affluent circumstances, without any issue. She was a charitable lady, and many and various were her religious and charitable dispositions. Accused 1 had an elder brother, who' was brought up by Sivamma, but he died some years ago, leaving his widow Subbamma (P.W.. 7) who is now aged about 23. Accused 1 has two younger brothers, Venkatasiva Reddi aged about 18 (C.W. 2) and a minor aged 12. Sivamma was protecting Subbamma (P.W. 7) in her own house, and treating Accused 1 and his younger brother...
In Re: First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad422; (1931)60MLJ393
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This matter comes before us under Section 13 (b) and (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act. The charge against the legal practitioner here is that on three different occasions he applied for adjournment in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate at Polur on the ground that the High Court would be moved for a transfer of the case and that he took no steps at all on those occasions either himself or by means of his client to move the High Court. It is charged against him that he applied for those adjournments with the deliberate intention of delaying the course of justice; I am quite satisfied that if it is proved against a legal practitioner that he deliberately for the purpose of impeding the course of justice makes a statement to a Court which he knows or believes to be untrue and thereby gains an advantage for his client, he is guilty of grossly improper conduct and as such renders himself liable to be dealt with by the High Court. In this case of course...
C. Vaidyanatha Rao Vs. Kandappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad636; (1931)61MLJ556
1. This appeal arises out of an award in a land acquisition case. The immediate point before the Lower Court was what proportion of the amount awarded should go to certain mortgagees of the appellant in discharge of their mortgage for Rs. 10,000, dated 11th July, 1912. The mortgage bore interest at 7 1/2 per cent. per annum, but on default of payment of principal or interest, the rate of interest was to be increased to 9 per cent. It is admitted that there was default. In dealing with the point the Lower Court has shut out evidence of an agreement alleged by the appellant whereby his mortgagees agreed 'to waive the default in the payment of interest and to waive their right in future also to claim enhanced rate of interest at 9 per cent. per annum and to receive payment of interest throughout only at 7 1/2 per cent. per annum'. It was further alleged that in pursuance of this agreement certain renderings of account, Exs. I and II in C.M.P. No. 5514 of 1929, had been submitted by the mo...
In Re: A. a 1st Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.145
Beasley, C.J.1. This matter comes before us under Section 13 (b) and (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act. The charge against the legal practitioner here is that on three different occasions he applied for adjournment in the Court of the Sub-Magistrate at Polur on the ground that the High Court would be moved for a transfer of the case and that he took no steps at all on those occasions either himself or by means of his client to move the High Court. It is charged against him that he applied for those adjournments with the deliberate intention of delaying the course of justice. I am quite satisfied that if that is proved against a legal practitioner that he deliberately for tne purpose of impending the course of justice makes a statement to a Court which he knows or believes to be untrue and thereby gains an advantage for his client, he is guilty for grossly improper conduct and as such renders himself liable to be dealt with by the High Court. In this case, of course, it is not suggeste...
Suna Pana Chena Voona Sevugan Chetty and ors. Vs. Koovanna Kana Nana K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad282; (1931)60MLJ430
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 18 are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of the suit property and for demolition, of a wall built by defendants 1 and 2 on the plaint site. The plaintiffs' case is, that the suit property belongs to them by purchase, that they have been in effective possession of the property for a considerable number of years and that while they were in possession, on or about the 25th of February, 1924, the defendants trespassed upon it and began to construct the wall referred to in the plaint. The District Munsif found both title and possession in favour of the plaintiffs and gave them a decree. The learned Subordinate Judge found on appeal that the plaintiffs' title was proved but that they failed to prove possession within 12 years and accordingly dismissed the suit.2. The only point argued in second appeal relates to the decision of the Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation. ...
R.N. Samuvier and anr. Vs. R.N. Ramasubbier
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad580; (1931)60MLJ527
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who appeals, brought this suit against his brother for a sum of Rs. 18,800-3-1. The learned Subordinate Judge has narrated in full the circumstances leading up to the claim. To understand how it arose, it is only necessary to explain that there were two firms in which both parties were partners. One of these firms worked under the Vilasam V.S.R.S., and in it one Sankaranarayana Ayyar had a half share while the two brothers had the other half share. It was a money-lending business, and it also ran a chit fund. The other firm was known to the R. S. Firm; it was also engaged in money-lending, and the plaintiff and defendant were the partners. The two firms had dealings each with the other. In 1923 disagreements arose between the brothers, and they decided to dissever their interests. By an agreement Ex. K, dated the 4th June of that year, the plaintiff purported to take over all the defendant's interests in the V. S. R. S. Firm, while those of the plaintiff ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »