Chennai Court March 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 Pillai Vs. Ramu Tevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad267; 136Ind.Cas.340; (1931)61MLJ887
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by one Ramu Tevar to recover certain properties of which he had been appointed trustee by their owner Nilambal Achi, who endowed them for puja and other purposes of Sri Sundaramurthi Swami. Nilambal Achi died on the 28th of May, 1923. The plaintiff alleges that he was managing the properties on behalf of Nilambal Achi during her life-time and continued to be in possession after her death. He leased them to the 3rd defendant on the 9th of June, 1923. Defendants 1 and 2 prevented the 3rd defendant from obtaining possession. They claimed to be reversioners to the estate of Nilambal Achi's father Appa Pillai, after Nilambal Achi's death. But the 2nd defendant sold his share of the property to the 1st defendant and has no further interest in this suit. The 1st defendant contended that on Appa Pillai's death his two widows, Thayyamuthu Achi and Kamalathachi, succeeded to his estate, that after their death the estate devolved upon their da...
Govindan Nadar Vs. Natesa Pillai (Lunatic) Represented by His Wife and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad7; (1931)61MLJ520
Jackson, J.1. The respondent applied to the District Munsif of Negapatam to exercise his inherent power under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and stop a sale in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1928.2. The District Munsif found that the application was neither bona fide nor founded upon fact and dismissed it.3. The District Judge, East Tanjore, has ordered further inquiry into the question whether 1st defendant was a lunatic and underrepresented at the time of the passing of the decree.4. The auction-purchaser appeals on the ground that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree, and is not concerned with discovering whether in passing the decree the Trial Court acted according to law.5. It is an accepted principle that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. To employ other words but the same metaphor, it must take the decree at its face value. It can, inquire whether the Court as evidenced on the face of the decree by seal and signature was a properly constit...
Kotla Satyam Vs. Thammana Perraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad753
Pandalai, J.1. I have already explained in the judgment just now delivered that the unsuccessful claimant in addition to bringing a claim suit paid the decree amount and 5 per cent under protest into Court under Order 21, Rule 89, and got the sale of the property sot aside and that his petition in execution for restitution of the money so paid was unsuccessful on the ground that the petition did not lie in execution and the remedy, if any, was by separate suit. This civil revision petition arises from the judgment in the small cause suit brought by the claimant as plaintiff (respondent 1) for the recovery of the money which he had paid for setting aside the sale. The defence was that the plaintiff-respondent 1, was not; legally entitled to recover back the money paid under '0. 21, Rule 89. The Small Cause Court has given respondent 1 a decree. The petitioner is the legal representative of the decree-holder in C.S. No. 279 of 1921. The question involved in this petition is an important ...
Narayana Naick and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ125
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioners were complained against by a private person and charged under Section 166, Indian Penal Code, a non-cognizable non-compoundable offence.2. The complainant then died.3. The Magistrate was moved to acquit the accused under Section 259, because the complainant was absent, and he ordered the case to proceed. This petition is to revise that order.4. The Magistrate's action is within the four corners of Section 259, because after the charge is framed the Magistrate has no discretion in the matter.5. But Gulam Mohideen Quarishi Sahib v. Akamadulla Begum Sahiba I.L.R. (1922) 46 M. 88, the ruling apparently which the Magistrate says does not apply (he should give the reference to any ruling which he mentions), lays down as a general principle on page 89 that criminal proceedings instituted by a private complainant abate on such person's death. I have been able to find no such principle in the Code. 6. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that death is unlike othe...
Vellathusseri Chakkala Kumpil Pankunni Menon Vs. Vellathusseri Chakkal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad650; (1931)61MLJ596
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is:Whether where a decree of Court which awards mesne profits under Rule 12 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is silent as to interest, it is open to the executing Court to fix the rate of interest and to execute the decree allowing interest.2. In a suit for the recovery of possession of immovable properties and for mesne profits, the Court, if it finds the plaintiff's case to be proved, may pass a decree (a) for the possession of the property; (b) for mesne profits which have accrued on the property during a period prior to the institution of the suit or directing an inquiry as to the mesne profits; and (c) directing an inquiry as to the mesne profits from the institution of the suit until the delivery of possession to the decree-holder, etc.; under Rule 12(2), where an inquiry is directed under Clause (b) or Clause (c), a final decree in respect of the mesne profits-shall be passed in accordan...
(Penumetsa) China Venkataraju and anr. Vs. Pulavarthi Lakshmanaswami a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad729
Reilly, J. 1. The appellants in this case, who are father and son, were adjudged insolvent on their own petition in 1919. Eventually, when their estate was realized, it was found to leave a large surplus after all the creditors who had proved their debts had been paid off under Section 61 (5), Provincial Insolvency Act. The respondent here, who was one of the creditors, applied to the District Judge for a further amount out of the surplus representing the balance due to him if interest on his claims, which were two, was calculated at the contract rate from the date of adjudication. The District Judge did not allow this subsequent claim in full. There were two debts due to the respondent, on one of which the contract rate was 48 per cent and on the other 19 per cent. The learned District Judge allowed 18 per cent on each debt from the date of the contract to the date of payment. The insolvents appeal against that order.2. The answer to the question to what amount is the creditor entitle...
In Re: an Advocate of the High Court.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ148
Waller, J.1. The facts have been set out at length in the finding of the Tribunal and it is not necessary for me to recapitulate them. Briefly, the questions for decision are whether-(1) the two payments relied on by the respondent were made on the dates alleged,(2) the receipts produced by him in support of them were given to him by the complainant on those dates, and(3) his letters of June and November, 1924, and the connected certificates of posting are genuine.2. That the burden of proof is on the complainant is clear. That he is a witness, whose evidence needs corroboration, is equally clear. Parts of his story, so far as it relates to the last promissory note (Ex. XXII) are not credible and have been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It is impossible to believe that this note represented an advance for the proposed purchase by him of some ground from the Wesleyan Mission or that he lent the respondent money to buy stamps for that purpose. In these respects he has shown himself to...
In Re: S. Venkatachari, an Advocate of the High Court
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad131
Waller, J.1. The facts have been set out at length in the finding of the tribunal and it is not necessary for me to recapitulate them. Briefly, the questions for decision are whether:(1) The two payments relied on by the respondent were made on the dates alleged; (2) the receipts produced by him in support of them were given to him by the complainant on those dates, and (3) his letters of June and November 1924, and the connected certificates of posting are genuine.2. That the burden of proof is on the complainant is clear. That he is a witness, whose evidence needs corroboration, is equally clear. Parts of his story, so far as it relates to the last promissory note (Ex. 22) are not credible and have been rightly rejected by the tribunal. It is impossible to believe that this note represented an advance for the proposed purchase by him of some ground from the Wesleyan Mission or that he lent the respondent money to buy stamps for that purpose. In these respects he has shown himself to ...
Arunachalam, Minor, by Mother and Guardian Periammai Vs. P.K.A.C.T. Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad656; (1931)61MLJ348
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree for money against the 6th defendant. The 6th defendant died and his minor son was brought on record as his legal representative as 8th defendant. The decree-holder applied by E. A. No. 17 of 1929 for attachment of certain immoveable properties in the hands of the 8th defendant and notice was ordered on him. When the petition came on for hearing on the 29th January, 1929, in the absence of the 8th defendant who did not appear, the learned Subordinate Judge ordered attachment of the immoveable properties as prayed for by the decree-holder. Subsequently the 8th' defendant applied on the 2nd February, 1929, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside that order on the ground that his non-appearance on the 29th January was due to the late appearance of his vakil. He alleged that his vakil had only been a minute late in appearing before the Court and that orders were passed by the learned Subordin...
In Re: Marudamuthu Padayachi Alias Mottayya Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad820; (1931)61MLJ358
ORDERHorace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant with another accused was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kum-bakonam, of theft of money and jewels from a closed receptacle under Sections 461 and 380, Indian Penal Code. The case was forwarded by him to the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam for sentence because the 1st accused in the case was a juvenile. The Joint Magistrate upheld the conviction of both the accused and sentenced the 1st accused to be detailed in the Borstal School, Palamcottah, for a period of two years and the 2nd accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each of the Sections 461 and 380, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. An appeal was taken from that judgment by the 2nd accused to the Sessions Court of West Tanjore. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the 2nd accused, the appellant. The case was then taken up to the High Court in revision because in al...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »