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.
Appasami Ayyangar Vs. Krishnaswami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad225
Curgenven, J.1. The defendant leased some property to the plaintiff for a period of seven years, to run from 1st July 1920 to 30th June 1927. The lessee gave the lessor an advance of Rs. 200 which under the terms of the lease was to be adjusted towards the last year's rent, that of 1926-27. The plaintiff in point of fact was not given possession of the property and he accordingly sued for the return of the advance and for damages. We are only concerned with the advance, in respect of which the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has given the plaintiffs a decree. The plea of limitation was raised and was decided in his favour, though upon what grounds is not clear, as the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has merely given his decision to that effect without reasons. In this revision petition the point is taken that the claim was barred by limitation, it being urged that there was a breach of the covenant to lease as soon as failure occurred to let the plaintiff into the land, a...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Mayandi Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad230; 145Ind.Cas.371
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. It is an accepted maxim that the right of appeal against an acquittal vested in the Crown should be used sparingly and with circumspection. In the present case, if the Sessions Judge, instead of acquitting the accused, had imposed upon him a nominal fine the requirements of the law would have been satisfied. But on this purely technical ground this appeal should not have been filed. The observations of the learned Judge are no doubt strong but by no means stronger than the facts warrant. I say nothing regarding the conviction of the thief himself, but this prosecution, there can be no doubt, was ill conceived. Suppose a man is being tried on a capital charge and his wife is forced into the witness box by the Crown, is she to take her trial for perjury on the score that, in screening her husband she has given false evidence? Perjury is a concomitant of a Court of law, the question always being one of degree. Every act of perjury is, in strict law, an offence but i...
Appasami Ayyangar Vs. Krishnasami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.119
Curgenven, J.1. The defendant leased some property to the plaintiff of a period of 7 years, to ran from 1st July, 1920 to 30th June, 1927. The lessee gave the lesson an advance of Ra. 200 which under the terms of the lease was to be adjusted towards the last year's rent that of 1926 1927. The plaintiff in point of fact was not given possession of the property and he accordingly sued for the return of the advance and for damages. We are only concerned with the advance, in respect of which the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has given the plaintiff a decree. The plea of limitation was raised and was decided in his favour, though upon what grounds is not clear, as the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court has merely given his decision to the effect without reasons. In this revision petition the point is taken that the claim was barred by limitation, it being urged that there was a breach of the covenant to lease as soon as failure occurred to let the plaintiff into the land, and a...
(Pulikeezha Variyath) Gopal Menon Vs. Raman Menon and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad217
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Judge, Calicut, in C.M.A. No. 47 of 1930 in the matter of court fees, Plaintiff sued in redemption of a kanom with the added prayer for Rs. 1,100 by way of damages. The question for determination is whether the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is the kanom amount plus this Rs. 1,100 or the kanam amount alone. Upon the answer will depend whether the suit is triable by Sub-Judge or Munsif.2. It has been held in Zamorin of Calicut v. Narayana [1882] 5 Mad. 284 (F.B.) that in a suit for redemption of a kanom the value of the improvements is not to be calculated in as certaining the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. In Konna Panikkar v. Karunakara [1893] 16 Mad. 328 it is held that if there are two distinct causes of action, namely, the claim for redemption, and for arroars of rent, the value of the suit is the aggregate value of those two heads of relief. In Jallaldeen Marakkayar v. Vijay...
Pulikeezha Variyath Gopala Menon Vs. Vengalil Vilakamatathil Raman Men ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1931
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.136
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Judge Calicut in C.M.A. No. 47 of 1930 in the matter of court-fees.2. Plaintiff sued in redemption of a kanom with the added prayer for Rs. 1,100 by way of damages.3. The question for determination ig v.whether the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction is the kanom amount plus this R3, 1,1X0 or the kanom amount slone. Upon the answer will depend whether the suit is triable by the Sub-Judge or the Munsif.4. It has been held in Zamorin of Calient v. Narayana 5 M. 284 that in a suit for redemption of a kanom the value of the imporvements is not to be calculated in ascertaining the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction.5. In Konna Panikar v. Karunakara 16 M. 328 it is held that if there are two distinct causes of action, namely, the claim for redemption, and for arrears of rent, the value of the suit is the aggregate value of these two heads of relief.6. In Jallaldeen Marakayar v. Vijayaswami 16 M....
Zamindar of Khallikote Vs. Sivaram Bevarta Patnaik and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad231; 145Ind.Cas.380
Jackson, J.1. The learned District Judge has held that the question whether rent is payable in cash or kind is res judicata since the Collector acting under Section 75, Madras Estates Land Act, decided in a previous proceeding that the rent was payable in cash. Probably in the light of Talagapu Tavudu v. Zamindar of Tarla (19(SIC)6 32 IC 706, this is not res judicata; but the question still remains whether this Court can interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C. It is one of those hard cases which raise the question whether a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly, which undoubtedly it has, and that it can decide wrongly over a point of res judicata is held in Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh (1885)11Cal 6 and Amritrav Krishna v. Balakrishna Ganesh (18(SIC)7) 11 Bom. 488. The petitioner relies upon The Midnapore Zamindary Co., Ltd. v. Muthappudayan AIR 1921 Mad 195, but there it was held that this Court would interfere where an applicant had been denied locus standi. In this case t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›