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.
Raman Chetti and ors. Vs. the Taluk Board of Sivaganga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad226
Jackson, J.1. Suit for Rs. 125 (and interest), the sum alleged to have been unlawfully collected by the defendant, the Taluk Board of Sivaganga, from the plaintiff by way of profession-tax. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit and plaintiff appeals.2. Defendant takes a preliminary objection that this suit being of a small cause nature no second appeal lies.3. I think that the objection must be upheld. The amount sued for brings the suit within the small cause category, and the decree that is sought is not a mere declaratory decree. Mr. T. M. Krishnaswamy Ayyar argues for appellant that the decree for money cannot be obtained until the order of the Taluk Board is cleared away by way of declaration. But that is not the governing factor. A party who sues for money has usually to establish or to clear away something, and his money decree does not become a declaratory decree because the judgment in his favour is prefaced by some sort of declaration. In Rajammal v. Narayanaswamy Naic...
(Mallampudi) Narayya and ors. Vs. (Mittapalli) Sarayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad245
1. Defendant 1 in 1908 gave a mortgage to one Jagamma, who assigned it to plaintiff 1's natural father. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 1,000 and it was repayable in ten annual instalments of Rs. 100 each, together with interest at 12 per cent. There was however a clause in the deed, which provided that, if two successive instalments remained unpaid, the mortgagor shouldwithout having regard to the future instalments, pay all the amount of principal and interest duo in one instalment.2. It is over the effect of this clause that controversy has arisen. Two successive instalments fell into arrear and the assignee mortgagee sued and obtained a decree for their recovery. This was in the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Masulipatam. In 1923 on 24th June his successor-in-title the present plaintiff 1, brought a suit to recover the whole balance due from the mortgagor and his sons. He was met with the plea that his suit was barred by Rule 2, Order 2, Civil P.C. The cause of...
Raman Chetty and ors. Vs. the Taluk Board of Sivaganga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1931
Reported in: 139Ind.Cas.620
Jackson, J.S.A. No. 508 of 1929.1. Suit for Rs. 125 (and interest, the sum alleged to have been unlawfully collected by the defendant, the Taluk Board of Sivaganga, from the plaintiff by way of profession tax. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit and the plaintiff appeals.2. Defendant takes a preliminary objection that this suit being of a small cause nature, no second appeal lies.3. I think that the objection must be upheld. The amount sued for brings the suit within the small cause category, and the decree that is sought is not a mere declaratory decree. Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Ayyar argues for the appellant (that the decree for money cannot be obtained until the order of the Taluk Board is cleared away by way of declaration. But that is not the governing factor. A party who sues for money has usually to establish, or to clear away something, and his money decree does not become a declaratory decree because the judgment in his favour is prefaced by some eort of declaration. In ...
Mallampudi Narayya and ors. Vs. Mittapalli Sarayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.340
1. Defendant No. 1 in 1908 gave a mortgage to one Jagamma, who assigned it to plaintiff No. 1's natural father. The amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 1,000 and it was repayable in ten annual instalments of Rs. 110 each, together with interest at 12 per cent. There was however a clause in the deed, which provided that, if two successive instalments remained unpaid, the mortgagor shouldwithout having regard to the future instalments, pay all the amount of principal and interest due in one instalment.2. It is over the effect of this clause that controversy has arisen. Two successive its almente fell into arrear and the assignee mortgagee sued and obtained a decree for their recovery. This was in the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Masulipatam. In 1923 on 24th June his successor is title the present plaintiff No. 1, brought a suit to recover the whole balance due from the mortgagor and his sons. He was met with the plea that his suit was barred by Rule 2, Order II, Civil Proc...
Gogineni Venkatappayya Vs. Yerramneni Ramakrishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ107
Venkatasubba Rao, J. 1. In this suit, the plaintiff claims damages for malicious prosecution. His case is, that all the 10 defendants ;long with one T.K. Prasada Rao, a Police Sub-Inspector D.W. 5), comprised to bring against him a false charge of robbery, that he was thereupon prosecuted but discharged, that the proceedings against him were instituted maliciously and that he is therefore entitled to damages. The Lower Court has found that the 1st defendant was actively assisted by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9 as well as Prasada Rao. In the plaint, it is stated, that owing to certain technical reasons, Prasada Rao was not made a party. Although the Judge finds that the first defendant was aided by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9, it is only against the 1st that he has awarded damages. The plaintiff has filed this appeal complaining that the sum of Rs. 500 granted to him as damages against the 1st defendant is inadequate and that, on the finding of the Lower Court, the other defendants mentioned a...
Valjee Kanjee and Co. Vs. Harsookdas Balakrishnadoss, a Firm of Banker ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.838; (1932)62MLJ239
1. The defendants are the appellants. They were sued by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of Rs. 12,000 paid to them in respect of three hundis aggregating in value Rs. 14,948. The plaintiffs based their claim on three grounds--misrepresentation, failure of consideration, and breach of contract. We think they were entitled to succeed on the first of these grounds.2. The hundis in question were drawn by a man named Venkatasubba Rao on one Ohara of Kobe in Japan against a shipment of fibre. Subba Rao negotiated the bills with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs negotiated the bills with defendants for Rs. 11,800 odd. Defendants in their turn transferred the bills to Itoh and Co., a firm in Japan, together with the bills of lading relative to the shipment. The drawee dishonoured the bills and they were duly protested. Notice of dishonour was given by defendants to plaintiffs by letter, dated 9th September, 1920, galling upon them to pay to the defendants the full amount of the hundis with int...
(Goginoni) Venkatappayya Vs. (Yerramneni) Ramakristnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad53
Venkatasubba Rao, J. 1. In this suit, the plaintiff claims damages for malicious prosecution. His case is, that all the ten defendants along with one T. K. Prasada Rao, a Police Sub-Inspector (D. W. 5), conspired to bring against him a false charge of robbery, that he was thereupon prosecuted but discharged, that the proceedings against him were instituted maliciously and that he is therefore entitled to damages. The lower Court has found that defendant 1 was actively assisted by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9 as well as Prasada Rao. In the plaint, it is stated, that owing to certain technical reasons, Prasada Rao was not made a party. Although the Judge finds that defendant 1 was aided by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9, it is only against the first that he has awarded damages. The plaintiff has filed this appeal complaining that the sum of Rs. 500 granted to him as damages against defendant 1 is inadequate and that, on the finding of the lower Court, the other defendants mentioned above, should a...
M.C. Rajagopalachari Vs. P.K. Subramaniam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad472
Curgenven, J.1. This petition raises the question of the efficacy of substituted service in relation to Article 164, Limitation Act. The plaintiff twice took out summons to the defendant and failed to secure service. An application for substituted service was then granted, there was no appearance, and an ex parte decree was passed. The petition is to revise an order dismissing an application by the defendant to set that decree aside. It is argued (a) that, even where substituted service has been validly effected, the summons has not been 'duly served' within the meaning of Article 164, and (b) that in the present case, such service was not validly effected.2. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has negatived the former proposition on the authority of three reported cases of this Court, Doraiswami Iyer v. Balasundaram Iyer A.I.R.1927Mad.507, Narasimha Chettiar v. Balakrishna Chetty A.I.R.1927Mad.487 and Shariba Beeby v. Abdul Salam A.I.R.1928 Mad.815, the last of which, at least,...
(Sri Mirja Raja Sri Pushavati) Alakh Narayan Gajapathiraj Vs. Konda Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad221
Ramesam, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the judgment and decree of this Court in Appeal No. 311 of 1923. We are under the disadvantage of not being the Judges who disposed of the case. The petition happens to be posted before us as the learned Judges who disposed of the appeal have now ceased to be Judges of this Court. On this ground we have had a fuller argument than usual on the facts of the case, but this was only for the purpose of making up our minds as to whether there is a substantial question of law The value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance is Rs. 12,000 and the value of the subject-matter in the appeal to His Majesty in Council would also be the same amount unless we can come to the conclusion that there is no substantial question of law in respect of a portion of the appeal. As the judgment of this Court is a confirming judgment, the main point for our decision is whether there is a substanti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›