Chennai Court August 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.
Emperor Vs. Varadarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.314
1. It was not open to the Magistrate to refuse to examine the complainant and the witnesses produced by her and the acquittal of the accused under Section 245, Criminal Procedure Code, without recording any evidence is clearly illegal. It cannot therefore be upheld and the recommendation of the Sessions Judge who has referred the case to this Court on the application of the complainant is accepted. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the complaint should be inquired into by such other Magistrate as the District Magistrate of Tanjore may direct....
(Peria) Syed Levvai Rowther and anr. Vs. Syed Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad200
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 2 and 4 are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the estate of one Syed Kalai Syed Levvai now deceased. He died leaving him surviving his widow, two daughters and his brother and sister. The widow is the plaintiff. The daughters are defendants 6 and 7 and the brother's heirs are defendants 1 to 5. The sister Bathammal is not a party to the suit. Syed Levvai died in February 1909. His brother Peria Narain Levvai died in October 1911. It has been found by the lower Courts that after that time defendant 4 has been in management of the estate. The plaintiff was given her share in the immovable properties. A decree was also given to her against defendant 4, her brother's son, to account for her share of the collections and income from the estate commencing from October 1911. She was also given a decree with respect to the mortgage amount in Ex. 21-a and in respect of Rs. 500 under Exs. D and D-1. Defendant 2 was made liable ...
Sri Raja Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur Vs. Sri Raja Parthasarathi Appa R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad583; (1932)62MLJ154
Venkatusubba Rao, J.1. The suit was dismissed by the Lower Court on the ground that the plaintiff was not competent to maintain the action in the absence of his brother as a party on the record and that when, on this defect having been pointed out, he applied to have his brother impleaded, the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff attacks the correctness of this decree, The suit was filed on the 14th of February, 1920, and its nature may be thus shortly described. The defendants sold to the plaintiff and his brother, by a conveyance, dated 17th February, 1917, certain villages including Penjendra, the suit village. The price of the village in question was fixed at 29 times its net income, which was stated at the time of the contract to be a certain amount. The plaintiff, however, discovered later, that the amount of the income had been overstated and that certain other fraudulent representations had been made. He goes on to allege, that in a partition entered into subsequently b...
The Secretary of Sate for India in Council Represented by the Collecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad55; (1932)63MLJ962
Vepa Ramesam, Kt., Offg., C.J.1. These are appeals against the award of the District Judge of Salem made in certain land acquisition proceedings which vvere taken pursuant to the Town Planning Act (VII of 1^20). The scheme was generally known as Maravaneri Extension and was intended to enlarge the accommodation of Salem Town. The facts of the case may now be stated.2. On 1st February, 1921, the Madras Government invited the Municipal Council of Salem by a notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette to submit for their sanction within three months from the date of the publication of the notification a scheme in respect of the area now in question (Ex. A). This was under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act. That section authorises the Government to fix a date within which the Municipal Council should submit the scheme and the Government fixed three 'months as the period. The Salem Municipal Council did not submit their scheme within three months. The draft scheme was submitted ...
Muthuswami Aiyar Vs. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad146; (1931)61MLJ638
Curgenven, J.1. The parties to the Small Cause suit out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises were co-defendants in a previous suit. A Joint decree for costs was passed against them, the amount was recovered wholly from the plaintiff, and he claimed and obtained a decree for contribution from the four defendants. The question is whether any such claim can be supported, and, if so, whether the Lower Court was right in awarding a moiety of the costs paid.2. There is a quantity of case-law, not entirely reconcilable, upon this topic. A number of earlier cases, such as Suput Singh v. Imrit Tewari I.L.R. (1880) 5 C. 720, Manja v. Kadugochen Nayar I.L.R. (1883) 7 M. 89 and Thang-ammal v. Thyyamuthu I.L.R. (1887) 10 M. 518, apply the test adopted in the English case, Merryweather v. Nixan (1799) 8 Term Rep. 186 : 101 E.R. 1337 whether and to what extent the parties were tort-feasors in the prior action. Upon this principle, too, a claim was rejected by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in Koppan...
Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. Somasundara Vandayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad224a
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the lower Courts that the sale is void as against all the defendants is erroneous, and as pointed out in Shrish Chandra Nandi v. Rahatannessa Bibi : AIR1931Cal555 the sale will be invalid only to the extent of the share of the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor who was not served with the requisite notice under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil P.C. There is, on principle also, no reason for holding that the sale is void in its entirety; and just as a decree may be had proportionate to the shares of those who have been impleaded, a sale too can be upheld to the extent of the shares of those who were duly served. Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., is not applicable in so far as the petition is based on the absence of notice under Order 21, Rule 22, and the sale will be invalid only to the extent of the interest, if any, of the deceased, defendant 7. It is however urged that the sale was impugned on other grounds as well under Order 21, Rule 90, and t...
Adhikari Lakshmamma, Minor, by Father and Next Friend Bobbadi Ramaswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ761
Curgenven, J.1. This was a suit referred to arbitration and the finding of fact is that out of five arbitrators one was absent during the examination of one of the witnesses. The learned District Munsif is of opinion that the terms of reference provided for such a contingency inasmuch as the parties agreed that the opinion of the majority should be accepted. But it is one thing to say that and quite another thing to say that the parties agreed that the arbitration might be conducted by a majority, or by less than the full number of arbitrators. This view of the Lower Court has not been supported here and it must be found on the authority of Thanimiraju v. Bapiraju I.L.R. (1888) 12 M. 113-that it was incumbent on each of the arbitrators to be present at each of the meetings and that accordingly, if the matter stood there, the award would be liable to be set aside as illegal. The learned District Munsif has, however, also found that, if there was any irregularity from this cause, the pla...
(Ardhikai) Lakshmamma Vs. Gorle Appadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad157
Curgenven, J.1. This was a suit to arbitration and the finding of fact is that out of five arbitrators one was absent during the examination of one of the witnesses. The learned District Munsif is of opinion that the terms of reference provided for such a contingency inasmuch as the parties agreed that the opinion of the majority should be accepted. But it is one thing to say that and quite another thing to say that the parties agreed that the arbitration might be conducted by a majority, or by less than the full number of arbitrators. This view of the lower Court has not been supported here and it must be found on the authority of Thammiraju v. Bapiraju [1889]12Mad.113, that it was incumbent on each of the arbitrators to bo present at each of the meetings and that accordingly, if the mtster stood there, the award would be liable to be set aside as illegal. The learned District Munsif has however also found that, if there was any irregularity from this cause, the plaintiff has waived i...
Adhikari Lakshmamma Vs. Goole Appadu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.207
Curgenven, J.1. This was a suit referred to arbitration and the finding of fact is that out of five arbitrators one was absent during the examination of one of the witnesses. The learned District Munsif is of opinion that the terms of reference provided for such a contingency inasmuch as the parties agreed that the opinion of the majority should be accepted. But it is one thing to say that and quite another thing to say that the parties agreed that the arbitration might be conducted by a majority, or by less than the full number of arbitrators. This view of the lower Court has not been supported here and it must be found on the authority of Thammiraju v. Bapiraju 12 M. 113. that it was incumbent on each of the arbitrators to be present at each of the meetings and that accordingly, if the matter stood there, the award would be liable to be set aside as illegal. The learned District Munsif has, however, also found that, if there was any irregularity from this case, the plaintiff has waiv...
B. Thavasimuthu Nadar and anr. Vs. R. Thavasimuthu Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad824
Ramesam, Offg. C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Beasley, C. J., dated 14th November 1929 dismissing an appeal from the order of the Master dated 15th October 1929 refusing the appellant leave to file a written statement in O.S. No. 655 of 1921. The facts of the case are as follows. The suit was filed in July 1921. There was a preliminary decree on 18th January 1924. Th(c)-present appellant was born on 2nd February 1924. Defendant 1, the appellant's-father, became a lunatic some time in. 1929 and on the application of the appellant he was allowed to be impleaded in the case as a defendant by Kumaraswami Sastri, J. This was on 19th February 1929. But in that order Kumaraswami Sastri, J., said: 'He must take. matters as they stood when the preliminary decree was passed.' This practically precluded him from filing any fresh; written statement. Defendant 1 died oft 5th July 1929. The respondents filed an application to record the fact that the appellant would be the legal represen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »