Chennai Court October 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.
Panyam Alias Naravajjula Seetharamayya and anr. Vs. Avadhanam Ramalaks ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ187
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an important question relating to the law of adoption not covered by any direct authority. The plaintiffs are the reversioners to the estate of one Bhaskarayya. He died leaving him surviving his widow, Chidambaramma, and his only daughter Ramalakshmamma, the 1st defendant. After the death of his widow, Bhaskarayya's properties devolved on the 1st defendant. It is stated in the plaint that, soon after the latter's marriage, more than 40 years ago, she became a widow, while still under age. In the year 1922 the 2nd defendant, a distant agnatic relation of her father, was taken by her in adoption. The plaintiffs attack the adoption as being invalid and pray for a declaration that their reversionary right is not affected by it.2. For understanding the objection taken to the adoption, we must turn to the pedigree, which sets forth her husband's relations, although the last full owner of the estate in question was her father and not her husband. The ...
Rakkiyappa thevan Vs. Nataraja thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad219
Curgenven, J.1. The point taken is that a recital in a mortgage bond executed by the mother of defendant 1 amounted to a promise within the definition of that term in the Contract Act and which was accordingly binding upon defendant 1 and sufficient to make him liable for the amount of the promissory note. It must no doubt be accepted that an acknowledgment even when it is not made to the creditor may, if unconditional, amount to a promise. That has been held by the Privy Council in Maniram Seth v. Seth Rupchand [1906]33 Cal.1047 and it has been followed in such a case as Hannu Ram v. Jhanda Singh A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 591. But in adopting that very extended meaning of the term 'promise' I think it is highly necessary to examine the circumstances of each case to see that there is nothing in it in conflict with such an inference. In this case, defendant 1's guardian executed a mortgage bond, one of the terms of which was that the mortgagee should retain a portion of the consideration in orde...
Panyam and anr. Vs. Avadhanam Rama Lakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad227
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an important question relating to the law of adoption not covered by any direct authority. The plaintiffs are the reversioners to the estate of one Bhaskarayya. He died leaving him surviving his widow, Chidambaramma, and his only daughter, Ramalakshmamma defendant 1. After the death of his widow, Bhaskarayya's properties devolved on defendant 1. It is stated in the plaint that soon after the latter's marriage, more than 40 years ago, she became a widow, while still under age. In the year 1922, defendant 2, a distant agnatic relation of her father, was taken by her in adoption. The plaintiffs attack the adoption as being invalid and pray for a declaration that their reversionary right is not affected by it.2. For understanding the objection taken to the adoption, we must turn to the pedigree, which sets forth her husband's relations, although the last full owner of the estate in question was her father and not her husband.3. The pedigree is as f...
(Gadamchetty) Subramanyam Vs. (Dronadthula) Veeraraghavulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad216
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner complained against the counter-petitioner for forgery; the counter-petitioner then filed a civil suit in regard to the same matter. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused, and the Sessions Judge when moved under Sections 436 and 437, Criminal P.C., was apparently disposed to order further inquiry but did not do so because the prosecution of the complaint would be embarrassing to the civil Court' without being 'conclusive or even useful.' The matter 'had bettor be left to the civil Courts in the first instance' with a strong precept that if the civil Court thinks the criminal charge substantiated, it will have 'no compunction' in taking criminal action.2. This order has little merit. If the Judge thinks further inquiry necessary, he should proceed Under Section 436 or Section 437; and if he does not he should dismiss the application. As he says himself, he has a full discretion in the matter. But to such a matter the comparison between civil and crim...
(Taiyyati) Vasudevan Nambiyar and ors. Vs. (Unnikatungi) Nedungathirip ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad316; 137Ind.Cas.842
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam dismissing the plaintiff's suit for his failure to comply with the terms of a previous order calling upon him to supply certain information in response to interrrogatories filed by the defendants. Two preliminary objections have been taken to the maintainability of the appeal. It is said in the first place that the appellant should have appealed not against the order but against the decree and judgment which were passed simultaneously with that order. It is true that in the ordinary course the dismissal of the suit was embodied in a judgment and a decree, but Order 43, Rule 1(f), Civil. P.C., provides for an appeal against an order Under Rule 21, Order 11; and supposing for the purpose of this point that the order under reference fell within that provision, I think that an appeal is contemplated not only against the decree itself but against an order that the suit should be dismissed; or to put it ...
Sri Raja Bommadevara Chayadevamma Bahadur Zamindarini Garu Vs. Sana Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad343; (1932)62MLJ511
Reilly, J.1. This batch of appeals relates to suits for the acceptance of puttahs in a village to which the Madras Estates Land Act applies. The plaintiff, the proprietrix,. tendered certain puttahs to the ryots of the village. They objected to some of the terms, and she then launched these suits. The Deputy Collector, who tried the suits, found that the terms of the puttahs tendered were correct except in one respect, the exception being that a term was introduced in accordance with which the ryot would pay on dry land, if he grew cocoanuts on it, not the ordinary dry rate but a much enhanced rate, namely, Rs. 125 a khathi, which is an area equal to about 17 acres. The Deputy Collector found that that term was not a proper one and struck it out of the draft puttahs, confirming the puttahs in other respects. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and the learned District Judge dismissed her appeals. She then came to this Court on second appeal, and Devadoss, J., again dismissed ...
N. Govindarajulu Nayudu Vs. Imperial Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad180; 136Ind.Cas.346
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This application was filed for the stay of further proceedings in pursuance of an ex parte decree passed in O. S. No. 84 of 1930 on the file of the Sub-Court of Vellore pending disposal of an appeal against an order refusing to set that ex parte decree aside. When the stay application came up for the issue of ex parte orders, I understand that it was held by the learned Judge who disposed of it, following Bhagwat Rajkoer v. Sheo Golam Sahu [1904]31Cal.1081 and some cases of this Court, that this Court has no power in proceedings of this nature to stay execution of a decree Under Order 41, Rule 5. Accordingly the application was converted into one for an injunction to restrain the respondent from executing the decree, and the question has been raised before me whether an application of this kind will lie. So far as a Court which is restricted to the terms of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it has been held by Phillips, J., in Varadacharyulu v. Narasimhacha...
Sethurama Ayyar Vs. T.B. Varadaraja Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad185; 136Ind.Cas.773
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal is against an order bringing the appellant on record in O. S. No. 313 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Mannargudi as the legal representative of the judgment debtor, a woman named Vedathammal The respondent is the decree-holder and he obtained a money decree against Vedathammal and attached a house in which she enjoyed a limited estate. While it was under attachment she and her father as next reversioner joined in selling it under Ex. D to the appellant. The latter filed a claim petition during the pendency of which the judgment-debtor died. Subsequently the appellant obtained another sale-deed from the same reversioner. The question is whether as purchaser of the property he can be brought on as her legal representative.2. The learned District Munsif considers that the decree in O. S. No. 343 of 1923 may be construed as against Vedathammal in her representative capacity and not merely against her personally. The lower-appellate Court ha...
S.P.R.M. Ramasami Chettiar Vs. (Raja Sreemathu) Muthu Vijaya Ragunatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad224; 137Ind.Cas.564
Curgenven, J.1. The suit was for poruppu and cesses, and the only question here is whether it was cognizable by a Small Cause Court. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried it as a small cause has answered the question in the affirmative and I can find no reason to differ from his conclusion. He is obviously right in saying that the so-called cesses were not collected by the zamindar as cesses but it was really money with which he reimbursed himself for payment of cesses on behalf of the defendants. I do not think that poruppu is a class of allowance or foe contemplated by Article 13, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. There is very little doubt that its equivalent in other parts of the Presidency is jodi or kattubadi, being a favourable quit rent charged upon lands granted for various reasons [see Sundararaja Ayyangar's Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency, Edn. 2, p. 206], and there is direct authority in Venkatagiri Rajah v. Venkat Rau [1898]21 Mad 243, that a suit for...
Nimmagadda Ramiah Vs. Nimmagadda Mahalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.205
1. With the lower Court's finding, that the plaintiff was adopted by Subbiah, during his life-time and not by his widow, after his death, we must agree. The adoption was made the on llth of February, 1811, and Subbiah died on the 9th of March, 1911. Subbiah, by his Will, executed in August, 1910, made certain dispositions in favour of his daughter, the 2nd defendant. One of the points argued is---was the plaintiff's natural father aware of this Will before the adoption in question and did he assent to its provision? The lower Court has, in effect, found, that he acquiesced in them and that, but for such acquiescense, Subbiah would not have taken the plaintiff in adoption. In other words, the finding is, that there was an ante-adoption arrangement between Subbiah and the plaintiff's natural father. The plaintiff attained majority in 1921 and brought the suit in 1923. The lower Court, holding that the arrangement was fair and reasonable, dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaint refer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »