Chennai Court November 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.
Appathurai Chettiar (Dead) Represented by Arumugam Chettiar and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad302; 137Ind.Cas.879; (1932)62MLJ236
1. These appeals arise out of suits brought by a defeated claimant under Order 21, Rule 63. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suits and plaintiff appeals.2. The sole point for determination is, whether the learned District Judge was correct in casting the burden of proving the validity of the alienation under which he claimed upon the plaintiff. It is not a point of much practical importance in this case or indeed in the generality of cases of this nature. Presumably an attaching defendant has been able to show good cause for impugning the alienation, else the claim would not have been defeated; then when the matter comes to a suit, it is largely a question of form whether the plaintiff begins by asserting the validity of his document, or the defendant by showing his proof of its invalidity. In the present case the defendant seems to be on strong ground, and if the Lower Appellate Court after finding that the transaction relied upon by the plaintiff was highly suspicious, tha...
Bhagavatulla Krishna Rao Vs. Mungara Sanyasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad298; (1932)62MLJ313
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff's suit for recovery from the 5 defendants of whom 2 to 5 are minor sons of the 1st defendant of a portion of a house alleged to have been let by plaintiff to the 1st defendant in 1909 and for which he alleges that that defendant paid rent to him till 1915 has been dismissed by both the Courts below without taking evidence on these allegations though they were denied by the defendants on the preliminary ground that the suit is not maintainable by reason of the decree for possession of the suit house obtained in O.S. No. 12 of 1915 against the plaintiff and the 1st defendant by the Putta family who established their title to the house but who allowed that decree to become time-barred. The Lower Courts took the view that the passing of that decree had the effect as between the parties to this suit of destroying whatever rights the plaintiff may have previously had and of automatically putting an end to the tenancy pleaded by the plaintiff and that eve...
The President, District Board Vs. Adam Ghanni Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ343
ORDER1. This petition has been filed by the President of the District Board, Tanjore, against a judgment acquitting the respondent of the offence of using a motor vehicle for hire without a licence. Such an act is prohibited by Section 166(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act (Madras Act XIV of 1920 as amended by Act XI of 1930), and is rendered punishable by Section 207 read with Schedule VIII. The Lower Court has found, indeed, that the respondent used his motor bus for hire without taking out a licence, but it considers that complaint was not made within the time prescribed by Section 223.2. The question turns upon the construction of that section. It provides that no person shall be tried for an offence under the Act unless complaint is made by the Police, or the President of a Local Board, or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the Local Board or its President within three months of the commission of the offence.3. To the section is added this proviso:Provided that fai...
President, District Board Vs. Adam Ghani Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad271
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This petition has been filed by the President of the District Board, Tanjore, against a judgment acquitting the respondent of the offence of using a motor vehicle for hire without a licence. Such an act is prohibited by Section 166(1), Madras-Local Boards Act, (Madras Act 14 of 1920 as amended by Act 11 of 1930), and is rendered punishable by Section 207 read with Schedule 8. The lower Court has found indeed that the respondent used his motor bus for hire without taking out a licence, but it considers that complaint was not made within the time prescribed by Section 223.2. The question turns upon the construction of that section. It provides that no person shall be tried for an offence under the Actunless a complaint is made by the police, or the President of a Local Board, or by a person expressly authorized in this behalf by the Local Board or its President within throe months of the commission of the offence.3. To the section is added this proviso:Provided that ...
Kandasami Pillai and ors. Vs. Munisami Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad589; 137Ind.Cas.707
1. These two appeals arise out of a suit by the plaint iff-respondent for a declaration that a mortgage decree in favour of the appellant in A.S. No. 195 is not binding on the Subject-matter of the mortgage, and to recover certain lands sold to the appellants in A.S, No. 269, on the ground that the respective mortgage and sales were of property belonging to a public charity and were made in breach of trust by the alienor, defendant 1. The lands in question were dedicated to charity by one Valliammai Anni. This appears from an authenticated copy of this lady's will which has been produced by a French notary. The lady resided in Karaikal; her will was made there and was executed and deposited in a notary's office in accordance with the French law. It was not disputed in argument by Mr. Patanjali Sastri, the learned Counsel for the appellant in A. S No. 195, that there is a charitable trust or that under the terms of the will the plaintiff would be entitled to the trusteeship if he had by...
Arulananda Nadar and ors. Vs. Janaki Bai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad525; 150Ind.Cas.649
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff, a zamindarini, sues the defendants, who are occupancy raiyats, for a declaration that only she is entitled, as landowner, to the stones and rocks on the defendants' holding, that they cannot remove them without her leave, also for a permanent injunction and damages for Rs. 150. The lower Courts have decreed that plaintiff is entitled to rocks, stones and minerals on the plaint land, that the defendants cannot remove the same without the plaintiff's consent, and have also decreed Rs. 24 by way of damages and costs. The defendant's appeal. There is no force in the plea that the lower Courts had no jurisdiction by virtue of the Estates Land Act. It is not a suit under Section 151 of that Act, or any other section. A Commissioner has reported in Ex. C-1, that the plaint land is a sandy tract covered with palmyras. A certain amount of rock had been roughly sized into slabs 3 x 1 x feet, and there were 25 cart loads of rough building stones. The Commissioner is n...
Paramal Bhatti and ors. Vs. Narayanan Nambudripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad701; 137Ind.Cas.450
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed for the recovery of Rupees 8,156-3-0 on a promissory note for Rs. 6,000 dated 11th August 1920, executed by defendant 1. Defendant 1 is the only adult male member of a Nambudri illom known as Paramal Bhatti alias Bhatti. The suit was originally filed against defendant 1. Defendants 2 to 8 wore afterwards added as supplemental defendants upon their application I.A. No. 1340 of 1923 dated 20th September 1923. Of these, defendants 2 and 3 are step-mothers of defendant 1. Defendant 7 is the wife of defendant 1. Defendant 8 is the wife of defendant 1's elder brother. These four, namely, defendants 2, 3, 7 and 8 are known as Anthar janams according to the Nambudiri usage. Defendant 4 is the minor son and defendants 5 and 6 are the minor daughters of defendant 1. The supplemental defendants complained that defendant 1 was mismanaging the affairs of the illom, that the suit debt was contracted for purposes not binding on the illom, and that ...
In Re: Ravanappa Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.779; (1932)62MLJ735
Jackson, J.1. The appellant has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment for abetting the forging of a promissory' note.2. On the facts there seems to be no doubt that the appellant is guilty under Sections 467, 109, Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the Christian schoolmaster P.W. 9 proves that the accused asked him to write the draft of the promissory note, Ex. C, after the death of its alleged maker Krishna Reddi, obviously for the purpose of a fraudulent execution.3. Section 467 has no necessary connection with any Court proceeding, and when the committal order came before me upon an application to have it cancelled, I declined to interfere as there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against. the accused. but now that the whole record is before us, the ' matter is not quite so simple. In the complaint Ex. J it is alleged that the accused fabricated a pro-note and induced one Vatta Goundan to file a suit against Krishna 'Reddi in the Panchayat Court...
The South Indian Railway Co. Ltd. by Its Agent Vs. V.M.S.P. Brothers b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad545; 137Ind.Cas.884; (1932)62MLJ573
Reilly, J.1. In this case the Plaintiffs are a firm of cloth merchants trading at Tinnevelly. The Defendants are the South Indian Railway Company and the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Company. The suit is for damages for the loss of a bale of cloth sent to the Plaintiffs by an Ahmeda-bad firm of merchants. It is admitted that this bale was despatched from Ahmedabad on the 9th of May, 1920, addressed to the Plaintiffs, and was entrusted to the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Company at Ahmedabad for that purpose but was never delivered to the Plaintiffs. The District Munsif found that this bale was sent at owner's risk under a railway receipt, Ex. B, which was endorsed by the Ahmedabad firm to the Plaintiffs, and that the Ahmedabad firm had executed a general risk-note, Ex. I, on 1st January, 1920, under which consignments sent by them by the railway were to be sent at owner's risk. The terms of Ex. I are:Whereas all consignments of goods or animals for which the Bomba...
Subbiah Kone Vs. Kandaswami Kone
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad362; 137Ind.Cas.754; (1932)62MLJ197
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner in these two cases has been convicted of causing hurt under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, and in respect of the same conduct of being guilty of disorderly behaviour under Section 3(12) of the Towns Nuisances Act. The point taken is that one or other of the convictions must be set aside because together they offend against Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code. I think that this is taking an incorrect view of the application of that section. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 403 a person can be tried for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him under Section 235, notwithstanding that he may have been convicted or acquitted of another offence committed in the same transaction. Here, although the act or series of pets constituting the two offences may have been the same, they obviously are capable of being viewed from two entirely different points of view. The offence of hurt was an offence against an individual....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »