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.
In Re: Mr. P.C.V. Pantult, Advocate, High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ229
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This case arises on a complaint filed by one P. Kumaraswami Rao. The Tribunal of the Bar Council to whom this complaint was referred for enquiry framed the following charge:That between 1921 and 1923 you, P. C. Venkataramanayya Pantulu, now an Advocate of the High Court, Madras, and formerly a Vakil of the said Court, taking advantage of a remittance in January, 1921, by you through one Piratla Subba Rao of a sum of rupees thirteen hundred to P. Kumaraswami Rao in Madras on some other account and not by way of loan conspired with the said Subba Rao and one L. V. N. Sastry to prefer a false claim against the said Kumaraswami Rao through and in the name of the said L. V. N. Sastry by filing a suit O.S. No. 282 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Cocanada as upon a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the said Kumaraswami Rao in favour of the said Subba Rao and to have been endorsed by the said Subba Rao in favour of t...
P. Alagiri Subba Naick and ors. Vs. the Official Receiver of Tinnevell ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ820
Reilly, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and I entirely agree with his conclusions.2. I find myself in some embarrassment in dealing with this appeal. It is an appeal under the Letters Patent against Curgenven, J.'s dismissal of a second appeal against an order made by a District Munsif annulling a sale under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Judge held clearly that no second appeal lay in such a case. It is true that he used the words 'I am inclined to think that . . . the decision of the District Court is final.' But in spite of that language he appears to have thought the answer to the question so clear that he did not think it necessary to discuss it, and he went on to deal with the case in revision, to which different considerations would apply, and eventually dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants with their appeal before him. Nevertheless he afterwards granted leave to them...
Napu Vs. San Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad632
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be thus stated. One Ali Saheb died on 20th February 1912 leaving him surviving his widow Kathi Bibi and three daughters, Rahimat Bibi, Asmath Bibi (defendant 1) and San Bibi (the plaintiff). The record does not show when Rahimat Bibi died, but it is immaterial. Her son is defendant 5. The plaintiff brought this suit for partition and recovery of her share of her father's properties alleging that defendant 2, husband of her sister Rahimat Bibi, trespassed upon the properties in 1917. The suit was originally filed in the District Munsif's Court of Udumalpet on 24th July 1918. On 20th October 1919 the Munsif returned the; plaint for amendment on the ground that it was bad for partial partition. The plaint was re-presented in the same Munsif's Court on 20th February 1924, with the old court-fees plus some additional court-fees and with some amendments. The District Munsif again returned the plaint on 28th October 1924 for p...
Napu Alias Rahman Khan Saheb Vs. San Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.461a
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be thus stated. One Ali Saheb died on 20th February, 1912, leaving him surviving his widow Kathu Bibi and three daughters, Rahimat Bibi, Asmath Bibi (1st defendant) and San Bibi (the plaintiff). The record does not show when Rahimat Bibi died but it is immaterial. Her son is the 5th defendant. The plaintiff brought this suit for partition and recovery of her share of her father's properties alleging that the 2nd defendant, husband of her sister Rahimat Bibi, trespassed upon the properties in 1917. The suit was originally filed in the District Munsif's Court of Udumalpet on the 24th July, 1918. On 20th October, 1919, the Mansif returned the plaint for amendment on the ground that it was bad for partial partition. The plaint was represented in the same Munsif's Court on 20th February, 1924, with the old Court fees plus some additional Court-fees and with some amendments. The District Munsif again returned the plaint ...
In Re: P.C. Venkataramanayya Pantulu Advocate, High Court, Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad441; 131Ind.Cas.817
Beasley, C.J.1. This case arises on a complaint filed by one P. Kumaraswami Rao. The Tribunal of the Bar Council to whom this complaint was referred for enquiry framed the following charge:That between 1921 and 1923, you, P. C Venkataramanayya Pantulu now an Advocate of the High Court, Madras, and formerly a Vakil of the said Court taking advantage of a remittance in January, 1921, by you through one Piratla Subba Rao of a sum of Rs. 1,300 to P. Kumaraswami Rao in Madras on some other account and not by way of loan conspired with the eaid Subba Rao and one L, V.N. Sastry to prefer a false claim against the said Kumaraswami Rao through and in the name of the said L.V.N. Sastry by filing a suit O S. No. 282 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Cocanada as upon a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the said Kumaraswami Rao in favour of the said Subba Rao and to have been endorsed by the said Subba Rao in favour of the said L.V.N. Sastry and alleged subsequent...
Srimath Jagathguru Sringeri Sri Satchithanantha Chandrasekhara Bharati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad659; (1931)61MLJ648
Reilly, J.1. In this case the plaintiff has sued to recover from the defendant about six acres of land in' the village of Chinnamapet with damages. The plaintiff granted a lease of the whole village of Chinnamapet to the defendant as an inamdar for eight years in 1911. After the expiry of that term the defendant surrendered the whole village to the plaintiff with the exception of the six acres with which we are now concerned. On these six acres during the period of his lease the defendant had himself planted casuarina trees, and he claimed the right to remain in possession of that area as an occupancy ryot. The District Munsif of Sholinghur, who heard the suit, found that the defendant was not a ryot but a trespasser and made a decree for the plaintiff for the recovery of possession with Rs. 20 as damages and subsequent mesne profits to be fixed later. Against that decree both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed to the District Judge, the plaintiff claiming that the damages awarde...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›