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.
R. Gopalaswami Naidu Vs. K. Sakalaguna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad318; (1932)62MLJ346
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by one Gopala-swami Naidu who was the respondent in an application for ejectment filed against him in the Court of Small Causes, Madras, by one Sakalaguna Naidu who is the respondent before me. The facts are these: On the 4th March, 1916, the petitioner before me, i.e., Gopalaswami Naidu, executed a mortgage deed in favour of Sakalaguna Naidu. The document purports to be in some respects a combination of simple and usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagee was to have possession of the mortgage property, but there are certain stipulations therein regarding the interest to be paid on the principal amount. On the same date a deed of rental agreement was entered into between the mortgagor and the mortgagee under which the mortgagor was to remain in possession of the property on payment of a rent of Rs. 22-8-0 per mensem and the lease was to enure for a term of three years and there are also other conditions in the deed of rental agree...
Sinna Pillai and ors. Vs. Karuppatti Alla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad283
Curgenven, J.1. The appellant is the widow of one Musaku Rowthen, against whom the respondent obtained a money decree in 1919. The judgment-debtor died in 1920, and the appellant was brought on as his legal repesentative. In 1922 the decree-holder attached an othi or usufructuary mortgage interest which had been held by the judgment-debtor upon a property the equity of redemption of which had been sold by the mortgagor to the appellant in 1906; so that, at the time of the attachment, both the mortgage interest (if it still subsisted) and the equity of redemption vested in the appellant. The attachment, it is contended on the authority of Ramaswami Mooppun v. Srinivasa Iyengar [1916]39 Mad.389, should have been made, as of a debt, Under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil P.C., but in point of fact it was made, as of immovable property Under Rule 54 of that order. This error of procedure does not however, I think, affect the position. The othi interest was brought to sale and was purchased by the ...
R. Gopalasami Naidu Vs. K. Sakalaguna Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.509
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. This is a revision petition filed by one Gopalasami Naidu who was tbe respondent in an application for ejectment filed against him in the court of Small Cause, Madras, by one Sakalaguna Naidu who is the respondent before me. The facts are there. On the 4th March, 1916, the petitioner before me, i.e., Gopalasami Naidu executed a mortgage deed in favour of Sakalaguria Naidu. The document purports to be in some respects a combination of simple end usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagee was to have possession of the mortgage property, but there are certain stipulations therein regarding the interest to be paid on the principal amount. On the same date a deed of rental agreement was entered into between the mortgagor and the mortgagee under which the mortgagor was to remain in possession of the property on payment of a rent of Rs. 22-80 per mensem and the lease was to enure for a term of three years and there are also other conditions in the deed of rental agreement....
Sinna Pillai Alias Pir Kadir Ammal and ors. Vs. Karrupati Alla Pichai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.819
Ouruenven, J.1. The appellant is the widow of one Musaku Rowthan, against whom the respondent obtained a money decree in 1910. The judgment-debtor died in 1920, and the appellant was brought on as his legal representative. In 1922 the decree-holder attached an othi or usufructuary mortgage interest which had been held by the judgment debtor upon a property the equity of redempation of which had been sold by the mortgagor to the appellant in 1906 : so that, at the time of the attachment both the mortgage interest (if it still subsisted) and the equity of redemption vested in the appellant. The attachment, it is contended on the authority of Ramasami Mooppan v. Srinivsa Iyengar 28 Ind.Cas.284 : 89 M. 389 : 28 M.L. 338, should have been made, as of a debt, under. Order XXI, Rule 46 Civil Procedure Code, but in point of fact it was made, as of immovable property, under Rule 54 of that Order. This error of procedure doea not, however, I think, affect the position. The othi interest was brou...
V.T. Srinivasa Thathachariar Vs. P. Thiruvenkatachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad601; 137Ind.Cas.829
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff sues defendant for Rs. 500 for malicious prosecution. The District Munsif dismissed the suit and the Subordinate Judge decreed it for Rs. 200. Defendant appeals. It was argued for plaintiff that the Sub-Judge's judgment is final upon what is a bare question of fact and nothing remains for discussion on second appeal. Reliance is placed upon the rulings of a single Judge in a law magazine: Sita Bam v. Thakur Prasad : AIR1929All429 ; but the matter is concluded by the Privy Council in Pestonji M. Mody v. Queen Insurance Co. [1901] 25 Bom.332:It is for the Judge and not for the jury to determine what is reasonable and probable cause in an action for malicious prosecution. The jury finds the facts, the Judge draws the proper inference from the findings of the jury in that sense it is a question of law.2. The judgment then proceeds:But where the case is tried without a jury there is really nothing but a question of fact to be determined by one and the same person.3. ...
(Raja Srimathu) Muthuvijaya Raghunatha Doraisingam Vs. N.A. Swaminatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad212
Jackson, J.1. The short point in this second appeal is whether when the suit abates against one of several joint decree-holders it abates against all. The District Munsif decreedthat plaintiff and defendants 6 to 31 be put in possession of the Rajali Kaduvetti fields.2. The appeal abated against defendant 25, The appellant, defendant 1, wants it declared that the decree-holders have no right to the fields, or to disturb his occupation. Now defendant 25 under the decree gets the right and can oust defendant 1. Is it worthwhile considering whether the remaining defendants have or have not the right? The line of argument is that if these remaining defendants had brought a bona fide representative suit they could have litigated the right of defendant 25, and this appeal can go on in his absence on the same line of reasoning. This illustrates the danger of carrying principles applicable to one set of circumstances into another. In Sonachalam Pillai v. Kumaravelu Chettiar A.I.R.928 Mad.77 it...
Pichiguntla Katti Ramudu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad213
1. This case discloses a callousness and disregard for human life, which are absolutely horrifying. The appellant and his co-accused have been convicted of the murder of a little boy called Naganna. He was as usual, engaged in tending his father's goats. The accused were in need of money to spend at a fair and decided to steal some of the goats. They stole one, squeezed its throat and killed it. When they caught another, it bleated and Naganna ran up and threatened to tell his father. The appellant then knocked him down, held him fast and told the other accused to draw a knife from his waist and cut the boy's throat. This accused 2 proceeded to do with as little compunction as if he had been cutting the throat of a goat. They then hid the body till night when they dropped it into a well and made off with the living goat, which they left with P. W. 7. Naganna's father found in the evening that his son and two of his goats were missing. Learning from P. W. 4 that he had seen the accused ...
Raja Srimathu Muthuvijaya Raghunatha Doraisingam Vs. N.A. Swaminathan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.319
Jackson, J.1. The short point of this second appeal is whether when the suit abates against one of several joint decree-holders it abates against all.2. The District Munsif decreed 'that plaintiff and defendants Nos. 6 to 31 be put in possession of the Rajali Kaduvetti fields.' The appeal abated against 25th defendant.3. The appellant, 1st defendant, wants it declared that the decree-holders have no right to the fields, or to disturb his occupation. Now 25th defendant under the decree gets the right and can oust the 1st defendant. Is it worth while considering whether the remaining defendants have or have not the right?4. The line of argument is that if these remaining defendants had brought a bona fide representative suit they could have litigated the right of the 25th defendant, and this appeal can go on in his absence on the same line of reasoning. This illustrates the danger of carrying principles applicable to one set of circumstances into another.5. In Sonachalam Pillai v. Kumara...
In Re: Ponnuswami Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.317; (1932)62MLJ469
1. The petitioners are two out of five persons who have been charge-sheeted by the Police before the Sub-Magistrate of Perundurai for offences under Sections 419 and 467, Indian Penal Code and Section 82 of the Registration Act. A sale-deed had been presented for registration to the Sub-Registrar of Kunnathur on 12th January this year. It purported to have been executed by one Kanni Moopan and by his mother on behalf of his minor brother and was registered the next day. On 28th January Kanni Moopan complained to the Sub-Registrar that he had not executed the deed and that there had been false personation. The Sub-Registrar forwarded his complaint to the District Registrar, who, on 2nd February, directed the Sub-Registrar to advise Kanni Moopan to complain to a Magistrate. The next day, somewhat inconsistently, he sent a copy of the Sub-Registrar's letter and of the complaint to the Police Inspector at Erode, who on 4th or 5th ordered the case to be registered for investigation. In the ...
Muthukumaraswami Mudaliar Vs. Govinda Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad218; 137Ind.Cas.285
Jackson, J.1. Defendants 1 and 2 and two persons Kesavan and Mottayya Samban mortgaged to Ammani Mudali: (1) defendant 1's items 1 to 4; (2) defendant 2's item 5, and (3) the holding of Kesavan and Mottayya Samban.2. Plantiff has bought the Kesavan Mottayya Samban holding.3. Ammani Mudali's assignee filed O. S. No. 173 of 1929, and obtained the decree Ex. F. When it was executed, plaintiff paid off the whole mortgage debt. He now sues for contribution by virtue of Section 82, T. P. Act.4. Defendant 2 remains ex parte. Defendant 1 pleads that in the original mortgage by an oral agreement he was only a surety and it was agreed with the mortgagee that his property would not be liable to contribution.5. The lower appellate Court has upheld this plea and hence the appeal.6. When the terms of the mortgage contract were reduced as required by law to writing it is difficult to see how an oral agreement varying those terms can be admitted in evidence. No proviso to Section 92, Evidence Act, sav...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »