Chennai Court March 1931 Judgments
Ramji Das Aiyar, Through His Authorised Agent P.V. Subramania Aiyar Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad743; (1931)61MLJ395
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner in both cases, who is a landholder under the Estates Land Act, was the defendant in two Small Cause suits brought by two ryots within his estate for recovery with interest of certain sums of money paid by them under protest to the Collector about 9 months before the institution of the suits under Section 131 of the Act to set aside sales under the Act of their respective holdings for alleged arrears of rent due by them. Two objections were taken by the defendant-petitioner (1) that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits by reason of Sections 189 and 213 of the Estates Land Act, and (2) that in any case the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction as the suits were excluded by item 35 (j) of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. These objections were overruled by the Small Cause Court. The first point in these petitions is whether that view is correct. The petitioner also complains that after hearing the ple...
Tag this Judgment!K. Dholliah Vs. Sub-inspector of Police, Wellington Station
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ770
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Coonoor, under Section 182, Indian Penal Code, imposing on him a fine of Rs. 25. The Sub-divisional Magistrate took cognizance of this case on a complaint filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police against the accused. In that complaint it is alleged that the accused gave false information to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Wellington, that three persons, namely, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5, had broken the seal and lock of a temple in Karteri and entered into the temple. After some investigation, the Police reported to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate that the case was false. Thereupon, the present accused pressed the same complaint before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Coonoor, requesting the Court to make a judicial investigation of the charge. Subsequently the Magistrate discharged the accused persons in that case under Section 253 (2), Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!(Mantrala) Yegnanarayana Vs. Vankamamidi Yagannadha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad1a
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The facts that need be stated for deciding the questions arising in this second appeal, are briefly these: Defendant 1 had agreed in 1920 to sell some lands which he had in Chinnatummidi Agraharam to his brother VenkataTamayya, who was cultivating them, for Rs. 1,800. In the same year he executed an agreement, Ex. B,to sell the same lands to the plaintiff; and afterwards executed in his favour a sale deed, Ex. A, for Rs. 3,500. After the sale deed was executed defendant 1's brother Venkataramayya brought a suit, O.S. No. 23 of 1921, in the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada for specific performance of the agreement to sell the lands in his favour to which defendant 1 and the plaintiff were made parties. Defendant 1 did not contest that litigation and it was carried on solely by the plaintiff. That suit was decreed in favour of Venkataramayya and the decree was confirmed in appeal also. In the suit, which has given rise to this s...
Tag this Judgment!Medavarapu Narasayya Vs. Vadlamudi Somayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad364; 150Ind.Cas.660
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant. Defendant 1 was a minor. On his behalf his guardian executed a contract of sale of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff on 19th May 1923. The appellant (defendant 2) obtained a sale-deed of the same lands from defendant 1 on 13th July 1925. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for the special performance of the contract of sale executed in his favour by the guardian of the minor, defendant 1, on his behalf. Defendant 2 contended that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit lands for proper consideration, without notice of the contract of sale in favour of the plaintiff and that the contract in plaintiff's favour is not binding on him.2. Both the Courts found that the contract in plaintiff's favour executed by defendant 1's guardian was supported by proper consideration and was for purposes binding on the minor. The lower Courts also found that the appellant had notice of the contract of s...
Tag this Judgment!G. Gurumurthi Aiyar Vs. Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad760; (1932)62MLJ199
Reilly, J.1. This appeal relates to the receivership of the property of one Nagappa Chetty, who died in February, 1926. On his death one of his two widows adopted plaintiff 1 in the suit and then with plaintiff 1 instituted a suit against the other widow and. the other widow's daughters for a declaration that the adoption of plaintiff 1 was valid and alternatively for a partition of Nagappa Chetty's properties between her and the other widow. Pending that suit, a Receiver of all Nagappa Chetty's estate was appointed. Eventually the suit was compromised in October, 1928, and the Receiver's appointment was terminated in April, 1929. After that plaintiff 1 made an, application to the Subordinate Judge alleging that the Receiver was responsible for great loss to the estate. The Subordinate Judge held an inquiry into the matter and found that the Receiver had caused loss to the estate to the extent of Rs. 500 by failing to execute in a proper way a decree for money, which Nagappa Chetty had...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sankunni Menon Vs. the Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ388
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. By a policy of insurance, dated the 14th of April, 1910, the defendants insured the life of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 3,000. The policy was what is generally known as an Endowment Policy. In return for the payment of Rs. 71-13-0 as a premium paid each half year on the 30th of March and the 30th of September for 21 years, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff's heirs the sum of Rs. 3,000 if death should take place before the expiration of the period, and the like sum of Rs. 3,000 to the plaintiff himself if he should survive it. The policy was inter alia subject to the following 'privileges and conditions':Condition No. 3.--Thirty days of grace are allowed for payment of yearly and half-yearly premiums, and fifteen days of grace for quarterly and monthly premiums. If payment is not made before expiration of the days of grace, the policy becomes void, and all premiums paid in respect of it will be forfeited. If any Life Assured should die within the day...
Tag this Judgment!Darbhamulla Subbamma Vs. Valivetti Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad15; 136Ind.Cas.203; (1931)61MLJ552
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Courts below have not paid the slightest attention to the sections of the Partition Act which they profess to apply. Section 3 of that Act has always been a source of trouble, but even that fact cannot excuse the total disregard by the Lower Courts of even the other provisions of the Act.2. The facts may be briefly stated. The joint family to which these appeals relate consists of six members, the father, the 1st defendant and the sons, defendants 2 to 6. The 2nd defendant conveyed his sixth share in some items to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 267 of 1922 for Rs. 200. He similarly sold his interest in certain other items to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 268 of 1922 for Rs. 800. Each alienee has filed a suit claiming his share in the items alienated. In their written statement, the defendants offered to buy the plaintiff's share at a valuation. In each case, the Lower Courts, purporting to apply the Partition Act, have fixed the price of the plaintiff's interest ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Sankuni Menon Vs. Empire of India Life Assurance Co., Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad241
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. By a policy of insurance, dated 14th April 1910, the defendants insured the life of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 3,000. The policy was what is generally known as an Endowment Policy. In return for the payment of Rs. 71-13-3 as a premium paid each half-year on 30th March and 30th September for 21 years, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiff's heirs the sum of Rupees 3,000 if death should take place before the expiration of the period, and the like sum of Rs. 3,000 to the plaintiff himself it ho should survive it. The policy was inter alia subject to the following 'privileges and conditions':Condition No. 3.--Thirty days of grace are allowed for payment of yearly and half-yearly premuims, and 15 days of grace for quarterly and monthly premiums. If payment is not made before expiration of the days of grace, the policy becomes void, and all premiums paid in respect of it will bo forfeited. If any life assured should die within the days of grace and before th...
Tag this Judgment!(Enuga) Raghava Reddi Vs. (Bezwada) Sundararama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad713
Stone, J. 1. This appeal, which was argued before us by appellant-plaintiff J, a vakil, in person is an appeal without any merits, but one which raises a point, of procedure of some importance.2. The appeal lies from the judgment of the District Judge, Nellore dismissing the plaintiffs' claim, which was instituted in 1921 and reaches this Court ten years later, for a declaration that certain sales of land are void with consequential relief.3. The sales in question were auction sales in execution of a decree made in O.S. 24 of 1911. That action was to recover Rs. 5,663 due on promissory notes and accounts and the defendants to that action admitted lis. 3,121 and contested the rest. In the result a decree for the amount claimed with interest at 9 per cent from 29th June 1911 to date of realization was given. This decree was passed on 2nd December 1912.4. Some time during March or April. 1913 the defendants in that action preferred an appeal and on 26th April 1913 prayed for a stay of exe...
Tag this Judgment!(Penubarti) Gurumurti Vs. Vemalapati Rangiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad165; 145Ind.Cas.690
Pandalai, J.1. Defendant 2 appeals. The suit was brought by the plaintiff-respondent 1 as tenant under a jeroyati patta for possession of the land in dispute from the appellant who was alleged to hold the land on a terminable lease from respondent 2, the zamindar. Two questions arose: (1) whether the appellant's holding was an ordinary terminable lease or gave him rights of occupancy; and (2) if the former, whether proper notice to quit had been given. But the Courts have found concurrently against the appellant on both those points. He now appeals and urges that the decision as to the nature of the holding cannot be supported. On that point nothing was said which induces me to think that the decision of the lower Courts was not right. The question really was whether the land was raiyat land or home-farm land. A number of documents were produced on behalf of the respondents to show that the property was what in this particular zamindari is known as Nageri Idwa which means 'home farm.' ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »