Chennai Court August 1931 Judgments
(Marneni) Kondapanaidu and ors. Vs. (Pamidimarri) Mahalakshmamma and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad194; 145Ind.Cas.588
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. These second appeals arise out of suits filed by the plaintiffs for the recovery of sums of money due for rent in respect of lands in the possession of the defendants. One of the contentions raised by the defendants was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, their contention being that the lands in respect of which the suits have been filed form an estate within the meaning of Clause (d), Sub-section 3, Madras Estates Land Act. Section 3(2)(d), Estates Land Act, defines an estateas a village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram, provided that the grant has been made, confirmed or recognized by the British Government or any separated part of such village2. The law is settled that where a grant in inam is a grant of both the landlord's and the tenant's right in the land or as they are called the melwaram and the kudivaram, the land is not an estate; bu...
Tag this Judgment!Duraiswami Chettiar Vs. Abdul Suban Sahib and Abdul Sukur Sahib Compan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad237; 137Ind.Cas.390; (1932)62MLJ234
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned District Judge of South Arcot refusing to adjudicate the appellant an insolvent. The appellant presented an application on the 9th February, 1924, for getting himself adjudicated an insolvent. That was dismissed by the Official Receiver for default. A second application filed by him was also dismissed as he and his pleader were absent. The present application was the third one. The petition disclosed no assets and the learned District Judge held 'that this is a case in which adjudication ought not to be made as the petition discloses no assets nor any reasonable prospect of future assets. To pass an adjudication order on a petition like this would be useless and oppressive (see 1 Q.B. 50). The Insolvency Act would appear to proceed on the assumption that there would be at least some assets.' On these grounds he dismissed the application.2. It appears to us that the possession of assets does not seem to be a condition...
Tag this Judgment!Alapati Venkataramayya and ors. Vs. Alapati Nagamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad272; 136Ind.Cas.343
Curgenven, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was to recover possession of a house under a gift-deed executed by the mother (defendant 2) of the plaintiff's late husband, Subbayya, jointly to Subbayya and herself. The claim was resisted upon various grounds, the first with which I propose to deal being the question of attestation of the deed. It purports to have been attested by five persons, two being signatories and three marksmen. If the plaintiff fails to establish two valid attestations amongst these, there are the further contentions that the writer of the document and the Sub-Registrar who registered it may be held to rank as attestors.2. Of the two signatories one has not been traced and there is no evidence which would allow the Court to conclude that he validly attested the document. The other has been examined as P.W. 7 and although he himself has stated in evidence that he did not see the executant sign, the learned District Judge has accepted the evidence...
Tag this Judgment!(Konchada) Nilakanta Subudhi Vs. Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Deo (Minor)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad250
1. Appeal Against Order No. 212 of 1926 is from an order of the District Judge of Ganjam dismissing a petition, E.P. No. 16 of 1924, by the appellant as holder of a power-of-attorney from one Durga Mahadeva Deo to execute the decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1887 obtained by Durga Mahadeva Deo against the Zamindar of Bhodokimidi, the appellant in A.A.O. No. 374 of 1926, whereby the decree-holder became entitled to a family allowance of Rs. 173 per month from the zamindar. The decree-holder became heavily indebted to several persons of whom the appellant in A.A.O. No. 212 is one and the Vuna family was a previous creditor. To pay off the appellant's debt he executed to the appellant on 22nd July 1920 a transfer of the arrears of the allowance till then due and also a power-of-attorney of even date empowering the appellant to execute the decree and retain one-half of the sums realized towards his debt and pay over the balance to the transferor. The Vuna lender had obtained a somewhat similar righ...
Tag this Judgment!V.E.R. Subbaraya Chettiar and ors. Vs. Sellamuthu Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad184
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal is taken upon three points. The first is whether the room A (2) is the exclusive property of the plaintiff or is common to him and the defendants. The lower Courts have relied upon an admission by defendant 1 in O.S. No. 877 of 1924. That was a suit brought by the plaintiff for an injunction to include amongst other things the use of this room. It is true that the admission is not to be found in the written statement filed in that suit but it is recorded in the judgment, and the only inference which I can draw is that the record is based upon an oral admission made by the defendant in, the course of the trial. It is objected that this record of an admission contained in a judgment is not admissible as evidence of it. I am unable to agree. The case cited to me as authority for this position, Saradamba v. Pattabhiramayya A.I.R. 1931 Mad 207, to which I was a party, only decided that where a deposition of a witness had been recorded in the ordinary way t...
Tag this Judgment!Konchada Nilakanta Subudhi Vs. Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Deo and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.394
1. Appeal against Order No. 212 of 1926 is from an order of the District Judge of Ganjam dismissing a petition E.P. No. 16 of 1924 by the appellant as holder of a power-of-attorney from one Durga Madhava Deo to execute the decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1887 obtained by Durga Madhava Deo against the zemindar of Bhodokimidi, the appellant in A.A.O. No. 374 of 1926 whereby the decree-holder became entitled to a family allowance of Rs. 173 per month from the zemindar. The decree-holder became heavily indebted to several persons of whom the appellant in A.A.O. No. 212 is one and the Vuna family was a previous creditor. To pay off the appellant's debt he executed to the appellant on 22nd July, 1920, a transfer of the arrears of the allowance till then due and also a power-of-attorney of even date empowering the appellant to execute the decree and retain one-half of the sums realised towards his debt and pay over the balance to the transferor. The Vuna lender had obtained a somewhat similar right u...
Tag this Judgment!S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan, Chettiar Vs. the Hon'ble Rajah Sir Annamalai Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad825; (1931)61MLJ704
Curgenven, J.1. These five Civil Revision Petitions are preferred against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah passed under Order 11, Rule 18 (1), Civil Procedure Code and allowing the respondents, who are defendants in O.S. No. 109 of 1930 on his file, inspection of the documents contained in a list attached to the plaint. The substantial questions which I have to decide are, firstly, whether the Court could pass such an order in respect of these documents and, secondly, whether it was justified in allowing inspection before the defendants had filed their written statements.2. A plaintiff's documents are of two kinds, differentiated by Order 7, Rule 14 into (1) those which he sues upon, and (2) those which he relies upon as evidence in support of his claim. The order requires him to produce class (1) with his plaint and to enter class (2) in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. Under Rule 15 of Order 11 a party may at any time give notice to any other party in whose...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganatha Ayyangar Vs. R. Rajagopala Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad181
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant. Defendant 1 purchased the suit property from one Saranadha Ayyangar under Ex. A dated 5th October 1915 for a sum of Rs. 400. Towards payment of part of the consideration namely, Rs. 200, he executed a 'debt-bond,' Ex. B, dated 13th October 1915, in favour of the vendor. This bond was assigned by the vendor to the plaintiffs' father by Ex. B-l dated 20th October 1915. The suit property is admittedly worth more than Rs. 100 and the assignment deed, Ex. B, has not been registered. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover by sale of the suit land and from defendant 1 personally, the sum of Rs. 351-12-3 due on the 'debt-bond' executed by defendant 1 to Saranatha Ayyangar. The contesting defendant is defendant 2. He purchased the suit property from defendant 1 under Ex. 1 dated 3rd November 1921. Reversing the decree of the District Munsif which dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, the Subordinate...
Tag this Judgment!K. Tulasiram Vs. the Chairman, Municipal Council, R.S. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ77
1. The appellant in this case was Chairman of the Madura Municipality from 11th June, 1921 till 25th June, 1923. He was succeeded by Hajee B. Syed Shamsuddin Bahadur, whose term of office lasted till 1st July, 1923, when he, in his turn, was. succeeded by the defendant in the suit, Mr. R.S. Naidu. The rules framed under the District Municipalities Act provide for periodical auditing of Municipal accounts and the Government have prescribed that there shall be an audit every half-year. During the appellant's term of office such audits were regularly made. In 1924, when Mr. R.S. Naidu was Chairman, it was discovered that extensive frauds had been going on in the street-lighting department of the Municipality and a supplemental audit was made of the accounts of the period from 1st April, 1921 till 18th January, 1924. It was ascertained that, owing to the negligence of successive Chairmen, a large sum of money had been misappropriated and the auditor surcharged the appellant, his immediate ...
Tag this Judgment!V.K. Kunju Kombi Achan and anr. Vs. Ammu Alias Parvathi Neithiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad31; (1931)61MLJ549
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The appellant (1st defendant) in Second Appeal No. 521 of 1930 is the karnavan of a Malabar tarwad. I have to dispose of two applications by junior members of the tarwad to be impleaded in the second appeal as supplemental 2nd and 3rd appellants. A prayer is added that the present appellant, the karnavan, should be removed or converted into a respondent. That prayer is, however, superfluous, because the karnavan himself has applied to withdraw his second appeal. The question is whether the two applications to add the junior members as parties should be granted in view of this latter circumstance. It is no doubt true that, when an appellant desires to withdraw his appeal or a plaintiff his suit, the opposing party cannot resist such an application; nor would the Court be justified in disallowing it. This has been held in Ram Churn Bysack v. Ripsimah Harmi (1867) 10 W.R. 373 and Mahant Biharidasji v. Parshotamdas I.L.R. (1908) 32 B. 345. The former case is also autho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »