Chennai Court April 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.
Dasari Venkatacharyulu Vs. Manchala Yesobu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.42; (1931)61MLJ477
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These revision petitions raise a somewhat novel point for determination. The petitioner is the 3rd defendant in the suit. It appears that the plaintiffs applied for the appointment of a Receiver in respect of some standing crops in the suit land. In connection with that application the Court passed an order directing the 3rd defendant to furnish security for Rs. 100. On his furnishing such security he could appropriate the crops. No Receiver was actually appointed. That being so, it was the duty of the 3rd defendant to furnish the required security which alone would entitle him to cut and carry away the crops. In pursuance of the order of the Court he put in a security bond into Court. The Court passed an order on 6th December, 1929, to have the sufficiency of the security tested. Usually a warrant will be issued to an Amin of the Court to make an investigation as to the adequacy of the security offered. For this purpose batta had to be paid for the issue of a pro...
Vellayan Chetty and ors. Vs. A.P. Balakrishna Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad495
ORDERJackson, J.1. Petitioners seek to review the order of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Ramnad in regard to rights of thoroughfare claimed by the Nadars of Aruppukottai and denied by the Chettis of that place. The rights claimed are set forth in sub-paras, (a) to (f) of para. 3 of the lower Court judgment. About (b) and (e) there is no longer any dispute; the lower Court order stands.2. As regards (a) and (c) as sot forth in para. 12 of the lower Court order the Nadars were restrained from exercising these rights by magisterial order in 1928 and 1929, and therefore cannot be said to have exercised them during the last occasions before the institution of the inquiry in January 1931. This brings them within the mischief of the proviso to Sub-clause 2, Section 147, Criminal P.C. The learned Magistrate has sought to get over the difficulty by importing into the proviso a gloss, and adding to 'unless the right has been exercised on the last of such occasions,' or its exercise on such occas...
T.S. Sitarama Ayyar Vs. G. Ramanuja Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad203
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The question involved in this petition is whether the defendant-petitioner has to pay the court-fee under Article 1, Sch. 1, Court-fees Act, on the amount of Rs. 2,000, which he has claimed as against the plaintiff in his written statement by way of damages in a suit brought by the plaintiff' on a promissory note. The learned District Munsif has disposed of this question, which is not after all free from difficulty, in a single sentence, namely:I think the defendant must pay the court-fee due on the set off claimed by him as damages against the plaintiff.2. It is amazing that he has not chosen to give his reasons for the conclusion arrived at by him. It is therefore difficult to know what reasons were operating on the mind of the learned District Munsif when he passed this order that the court-fee must be paid. This sort of deciding a contested petition should, to say the least, be deprecated. However I had the advantage of the arguments of the learned Counsel on ...
Vasamsetti Swami Vs. (Gundalattulla) Tatayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad179; 145Ind.Cas.394
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. As against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram refusing to set aside a court-sale and confirming the sale, this civil revision petition and also the civil miscellaneous second appeal have been filed. The petitioners are the two minor sons of the deceased Rama Jogi who was one of the sons of the judgment-debtor Vasamsetti Swami. In the course of the execution proceedings against the four sons of the judgment-debtor, one of them, viz. Rama Jogi, died. The other three sons continued to be on record. In the place of the deceased Rama Jogi, his minor son was sought to be added as his legal representative and a petition for the appointment of his mother as his guardian was also put in. In respect of that petition, notices were taken out thrice to the proposed guardian, but as she could not be served personally, the Court seems to have dismissed that petition and the decree-holder thereupon filed another petition for the appointment of a Court officer ...
Mayandi Asari (Dead) and ors. Vs. Sami Asari Alias Muthusami Asari Bei ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad44; (1931)61MLJ874
Wallace, J.1. This appeal is against the decision of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of property. The plaintiff sued for the property of one Karuppannan Asari, deceased, whose son he claimed to be. The contesting defendants denied his paternity, and the main issue in the case was that question. The Lower Court held that the plaintiff's mother, 11th defendant, had been living apart from Karuppannan, her husband, for some years before his death and for some years before the plaintiff's birth, that she was unfaithful to her husband, but that, as the plaintiff was born during the period of continuance of the valid marriage between his mother and Karuppannan Asari, and as the defendants had not succeeded in proving non-access at or about the time when the plaintiff might have been conceived, the plaintiff was entitled under Section 112 of the Evidence Act to be declared the son of Karuppannan. It therefore gave h...
Puttagunta Ramakotayya Vs. Puttagunta Sundararamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad707; (1931)61MLJ430
1. The plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit on the ground of limitation. The suit was filed to reopen a partition which was made between his father Nagayya and his uncle Venkataratnam, father of the defendants in 1901. That partition comprised not only the property that belonged to the family of these two brothers but also certain property which had belonged to their maternal grandfather Chinna Naganna and was at the time in the possession of his widow Akkamma. The plaintiff's father Nagayya received a larger share in that property than Venkataratnam and correspondingly smaller share in the ancestral property. Unfortunately Akkamma survived her grandsons and the property of Chinna Naganna instead of descending to them passed away to certain agnatic reversioners. These persons sued the plaintiff and obtained a decree and eventually possession of the maternal grandfather's property in his hands on 14th December, 1916. The plaintiff accordingly brought this suit in order to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›