Chennai Court October 1932 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.
Rajah Sir S.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar by His Authorised Agent T. Dhanapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad257; (1933)64MLJ18
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. These are connected second appeals arising out of two suits filed by two ryots against the landholder for grant of patta under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act for fasli 1336.2. The main point argued is, whether the plaintiffs have effected any improvements at their sole expense within the meaning of Section 13, Clause (3) of the said Act in some of the dry lands in question, and whether the landholder can charge rent according to crop-war rates and second crop rates prevailing in the village, although crops of a superior nature, such as garden and wet crops raised on such dry lands, were the result of those improvements. According to the findings of the Lower Courts, it is clear that these lands are classified as dry, that though they were originally poramboke, they have become patta lands of the plaintiffs, that the improvements effected by the ryots (plaintiffs) consist of wells sunk in their patta lands at their own cost, subsequent to the passing of ...
Karuppayya Nadar Through His Authorised Agent Ratnasami Nadar Vs. Ponn ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad500; (1933)64MLJ112
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1931 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura. A decree was passed against the petitioner ex parte. He then applied for the setting aside of that decree and it was ordered that it should be set aside if he gave security for the suit amount and costs within three weeks. The order as to this was passed on 12th March, 1932, and a draft security bond was filed on 15th March, 1932. The report of the Amin as to the sufficiency of the security was not received within the three weeks' time allowed for furnishing security, and so an application (I. A. No. 170 of 1932) was made for extending the time but, after notice had been given to the other side, the learned Subordinate Judge held, on 8th July, 1932, that the security had not been furnished within the time allowed and that it was not competent for him to extend the time, and dismissed the application. In the meantime, according to the petitioner...
V.E.A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Koothappudayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Mad485
Pandalai, J.1. These appeals and revision petitions arise from a partition suit which was filed as O.S. No. 19 of 1920 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Ramnad and subsequently became O.S. No. 21 of 1923 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Devakottah. The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge contains so full and clear a statement of the facts that it is quite unnecessary to say more about them in this judgment than is sufficient to make it intelligible with reference to that judgment. After a lapse of eight years the suit arrived at the stage when the issues having been framed, the trial ought to commence. There was only one plaintiff, who has since died pending these appeals and whose widow is respondent 25. Of the defendants there were four groups, defendants 1 to 6, defendants 7, 8 and 9, defendants 10 to 14 and defendants 15 to 26. Of the casualties among the defendants it is now material only to note that defendants 7 and 8 died and that defendant 9 the only other represent...
S. Ayyaswami Aiyar Vs. Sivakki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1932
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ407
ORDER1. Mr. Seshagiri Sastri for the respondent takes an objection in limine that the present appeal is incompetent. The point to be decided is, whether an appeal lies against the order in question. The facts may be briefly stated. One Chellammal executed a deed of mortgage in favour of Sivakki Ammal, the respondent. In a suit (O.S No. 13 of 1919 on the file of the Mayavaram Sub-Court) subsequently brought by Chellammal's husband Ramachandra Aiyar against Ayyaswami Aiyar, the appellant, Ramachandra Aiyar was appointed Receiver. He was directed to furnish security, and Chellammal executed on 24th July, 1917, a security bond in favour of the Court, creating a charge over the property already mortgaged to Sivakki. Some time later Chellammal executed another mortgage in favour of one Ramaswami Aiyangar. Sivakki then filed a suit on the foot of her mortgage (O.S. No. 239 of 1922 on the file of the Munsif's Court, Madura). At that time she alleges she was not aware of the security bond execu...
Arumuga Mudaliar Vs. Venkatachala Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad439; (1933)64MLJ568
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This petition affords a good example of the regrettable delays to which litigation has now become subject owing to questions of Court-fee and jurisdiction having become a common feature in the Subordinate Courts which take years for their determination. In this case the suit was of a common enough kind and was brought in 1928. At the end of 1932 it remains still to be decided which is the proper Court to try it. The plaintiff had bought some property from the 2nd defendant and his mother for Rs. 3,700. The 1st defendant obtained a decree for Rs. 1,170 in 1927 against the 2nd defendant alone and attached that property. The plaintiff preferred a claim in execution which was dismissed. Within the year allowed for a suit he brought this suit impleading the decree-holder, the 1st defendant and the judgment-debtor, the 2nd defendant. In the plaint he set out these facts as affording the cause of action and prayed (here the trouble begins) (1) to cancel the order, date...
S. Ayyaswami Ayyar Vs. Sivakki Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad780; 145Ind.Cas.871
1. Mr. Seshagiri Sastri for the respondent takes an objection in limine that the present appeal is incompetent. The point to be decided is, whether an appeal lies against the order in question. The facts may be briefly stated.2. One Chellammal executed a deed of mortgage in favour of Sivakkiammal, the respondent. In a suit (O.S. No. 13 of 1919 on the file of the Mayavaram Sub-Court). subsequently brought by Chellammal's husband Ramachandra Ayyar against Ayyasami Ayyar the appellant, Ramachandra Ayyar was appointed Receiver. He was directed to furnish security and, Chellammal executed on July 24, 1917, a. security bond in favour of the court, creating a charge over the property already mortgaged to Sivakki. Sometime later Chellammal executed another mortgage in; favour of one Ramaswami Ayyangar. Sivakki then filed a suit on the foot of her mortgage (O. S. No. 239 of 1922 on the file of the Munsif's Court, Madura). At that time she alleges she was not aware of the security bond executed ...
M.N. Schamnad and anr. Vs. M.N. Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad268
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioners are an Inspector and a Sub-Inspector of Police against whom a complaint has been laid in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Mangalore. The substance of the complaint is that on 11th April 1932, while the complainant and another were peacefully picketing a certain shop, a lorry full of reserve constables numbering in all about a dozen, armed with canes, came led by the accused; and accused 1 Inspector of Police, after warning the complainant and his companion to move, ordered the constables to beat them. In consequence of this order the complainant alleged that he and his companion were severely beaten, and the complainant said he believed that the 12 constables at the instance of the accused had fractured his ankle joint.. A sworn statement was recorded on 19th April in which the complainant said that it was the Inspector who directed the beating and that the Sub-Inspector was present with him. The Subdivisional Magistrate took the case on the ...
Municipal Council Vs. Thazhel Puthan Purayil Kunhipathumma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad454
Pandalai, J.1. The Municipal Council of Calicut brought a suit on 10th March 1928, against the original defendant, Kunhimussa, for recovery of property tax for the year ending 31st March 1925. When the summons was taken out it appeared that Kunhimussa had died on 22nd March 1928. On 21st April the plaintiff applied under Order 1, Rule 10, to have the legal representatives of Kunhimussa impleaded, and that application was allowed on 6th June 1928. The widow and son of Kunhimussa who are now on record pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation against them under Section 22, Limitation Act. The plaintiff replied that he was entitled, in computing the period of limitation, to a deduction of the period between 10th March 1928 and 6th June 1928 when his suit against Kunhimussa which was infructuous as he had died before suit must be held to have been pending. The District Munsif did not accept this plea and held that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed it. That is the only qu...
The Calicut Municipal Council by Chairman, E. Narayanan Nair Vs. Thazh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1932
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.596
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The Municipal Council of Calicut brought a suit on the 10th March, 1928 against the original defendant, Kunhimussa, for recovery of property tax for the year ending the 31st March, 1925. When the summons was taken out it appeared that Kunhimussa had died on the 2nd March, 1928. On the 21st April the plaintiff applied under Order I, Rule 10 to have the legal representatives of Kunhimussa impleaded, and that application was allowed on the 6th June, 1928. The widow and son of Kunhimussa who are now on record pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation against them under Section 22 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff replied that he was entitled in computing the period of limitation, to a deduction of the period between the 10th March, 1928, and 6th June, 1928, when his suit against Kunhimussa which was infructuous as he had died before suit must be held to have been pending. The District Munsif did not accept this plea and held that the suit was barred by limit...
In Re: Bhogole China Somayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad251
ORDERBurn, J.1. The case was finished on 17th March 1932, and adjourned on that date to 22nd March 1932, for judgment. The judgment was signed and dated by the Magistrate on 22nd March 1932, but was not pronounced by him because some of the accused were absent. On 31st March 1932 the Magistrate who wrote the judgment handed it over to his successor, who pronounced the judgment on 4th April. I respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Reilly, J., in Public Prosecutor, Madras v. Chookalingam Ambalam AIR 1929 Mad 201. The trial was over before the petitioners made their application, on 4th April, for a de novo trial. In whatever sense the word 'trial' is used [In re Savrimuthu Pillai (1916) 40 Mad 103, Venkatachinnayya v. Emperor AIR 1920 Mad 337 and In the matter of Ramasamy Chetty (1904) 27 Mad. 510] it is clear that the trial of a criminal case is over as soon as the Magistrate has determined the issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The mere pronouncing of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »