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.
S.G. Somasundaram Chettiar and ors. Vs. (Mahibala) Muthirulappa Pillai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad432; 147Ind.Cas.464
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff (the appellant) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 430 alleged to be due on the plaint-mentioned mortgage deed executed by defendant 1 on 23rd October 1912 in favour of one Sevugan Chetty. The plaintiff is an assignee of the mortgage bond under a deed of assignment executed by Sevugan Chetty's son, Ramana than Chetty, on 15th March 1924. The original mortgage deed' is styled as a usufructuary mortgage containing a covenant to pay. The plea of defendant 1 is that Sevugan Chetty remitted the whole of this amount by passing a letter on 26th February 1918, whereby the mortgage debt became extinguished. That letter has been filed as Ex. 1. On the basis of this letter, both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In this second appeal, the main question argued is whether the document Ex. 1 is admissible in evidence without registration. The terms of that letter are as follows:I am very glad to s...
Annadana Jadaya Goundar Vs. Konammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad309; (1933)64MLJ386
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal against the order refusing to make the surety, the respondent (Anganna Reddi) liable in execution. The facts may be briefly stated. A lady by name Konammal obtained a decree against one Annadana Jadaya Goundar for possession of a jaghir, and an appeal was preferred by the latter to the High Court. Konammal was allowed to execute the decree pending the appeal on her furnishing security. A security bond was thereupon executed by four sureties, including, the respondent Anganna Reddi. The material portion of that bond runs thus:We hereby undertake that the 1st plaintiff (Konammal) will restore the jaghir which she had taken delivery of in execution, that she will act according to the decree of the Appellate Court, that she will pay whatever amount she is liable to pay in accordance with the appellate decree in connection with the said jaghir, that if she commits default in so paying, the amount that she is liable to pay may be realised from the pro...
Kannusami Chetti Vs. M. Rahimat Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad806; 147Ind.Cas.83; (1933)65MLJ548
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. C.M.P. No. 2553 of 1930 - This second appeal was filed by the 7th defendant impleading the plaintiff alone as the respondent. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a certain amount by the sale of the hypothecated properties, and if, for any reason, the Court should hold that the plaintiff cannot proceed against the hypotheca, she prays that defendants 8 to 10 should be held liable to pay the suit amount jointly and severally.2. The facts of the case are briefly these. The plaintiff's father Mahomed Rowther became entitled at a family partition to the mortgage debt due under the original of Ex. B, dated 17th December, 1902 and executed by one Section N. Mahomed Rowther. The plaintiff was a young girl of 2 years when her father died. In 1911 the 8th defendant, who is the plaintiff's mother, thought of remarriage and fraudulently assigned the aforesaid mortgage bond on behalf of herself and the minor plaintiff in favour of the 9th defendant under Ex...
P. Rajagopala Gramani Vs. Baggiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad242; (1933)64MLJ235
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of our brother Stone, J., dated the 8th August, 1932, in Application No. 1879 of 1932 in C. S. No. 137 of 1932. The defendant is the appellant before us. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be briefly stated. One Raju Gramani executed a deed of trust on 1st September, 1919, under which he settled his properties upon trust appointing the defendant, who is his son-in-law by his second wife, as trustee. At the time of his death, he had three houses and had a fixed deposit for a sum of Rs. 50,000 in the Imperial Bank. He provided that one of the houses shall be utilised for the residence of the members of his family, that is, his wife and his daughters, until their marriage. The income of the other houses which is said to be Rs. 80 per month was to be utilised by the trustee for paying taxes in respect of the estate, for repairs and for the expenses of his first wife Baggiammal, who is the plaintiff in this suit. After her death, th...
A. Bakthavathsalu Naidu Vs. P.N.K. Ramanuja Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad326
ORDERBurn, J.1. The propriety of the conviction of the petitioner under Section 208, Madras, Local Boards Act depends upon the validity of the meeting of the Panchayat held on 8th June 1931 at which a majority of ten members out of fifteen passed a resolution of no-confidence. If that meeting was validly called and held, then the petitioner must be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith, Section 44(4)(a), and as he admittedly failed to hand over the documents etc. to his successor he must be held guilty of an offence under Section 208(3) of the Act. I cannot accept the argument of Mr. Ethiraj that even if he had ceased to be the President, he nevertheless purported to continue to act as the President, and therefore could not be prosecuted without the sanction of the Local Government. Its seems to me self vident that a person who has ceased to be President can thenceforth neither act, non purport to act, though he may pretend to act as President.2. The validity of the meeting held ...
In Re: Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad321
Walsh, J.1. This is a petition filed on behalf of the Government to revise the court-fee levied by the District Judge, Coimbatore, on a memorandum of objections in A.S. No. 277/30. The appeal has been admittedly disposed of and the initial question is whether, assuming the stamp-fee is insufficient, there is any power under the Court-fees Act or otherwise to levy the deficit court-fee. It is obviously a mere academic exercise to argue the petition if there is not. The learned Government Pleader with great diligence and fairness has collected all the cases and they are practically unanimous against him as he admits. In Mahadei v. Ram Kishen Das (1885) 7 All. 528 the two learned Judges Mahmood and Oldfield differed. A single Judge of the same Court held in a later decision Mohammad Ismail v. Liyaquat Husani : AIR1932All316 that recovery of deficient court-fees could not be made once the appeal was dismissed and he quotes there a recent decision of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of that Co...
In Re: Nukala Venkatanandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad330; (1933)64MLJ122
ORDERRamesam, J.1. The question arising for decision in the above Civil Miscellaneous Petition relates to Court-fees in a partnership suit. The facts of the case are as follows:--A suit was filed in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Cocanada for dissolution of partnership, for settlement of accounts and for recovery of such amounts as may be due to the plaintiffs. Under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff tentatively valued his plaint at Rs. 7,500. A decree was passed on 22nd December, 1931, under which defendants 3 to 5 were directed to pay certain sums of money with interest at 6 per cent, from 1st April, 1924. The defendants 3 to 5 filed the present appeal on 26th April, 1932. In the memorandum of appeal the valuation is stated to be Rs. 12,770-6-0 and the Court-fee thereon as Rs. 847-7-0, but the Court-fee actually paid was only Rs. 447-7-0. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants it is stated that the valuation was calculated according to the old practi...
Sri Rajah Satrucherla Sivaskandaraju Bahadur Garu and ors. Vs. Sri Nar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad225; (1933)64MLJ439
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The first question with which' I propose to deal is, whether the judgment-debtors have sustained substantial injury within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90. If this point is answered in the negative, the consideration of the other questions raised becomes unnecessary. In. regard to the injury alleged, there is one puzzling feature in the case, to which I shall presently refer. But, apart from that, we have to decide whether the Lower Court's finding that no damage has been sustained is correct or not. The sale commenced by order of Court on the 27th June, 1928: leave to bid was granted to the decree-holders on the 12th July and on the last mentioned date an order was made directing that the sale was to proceed from day to day to the end of July. On the 17th July the Zamindar of Andhra bid Rs. 2,50,000 for each of the two lots. It may be mentioned that the Zamindar is a near relation of one of the judgment-debtors. On the 31st July there was no further bid made un...
(Pichu Patter's son) Sivaramakrishna Patter and Ors. Vs. Mannathil Kri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad390
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction restraining defendant 1 from interfering with their customary right as villagers of Parali to graze cattle on a paramba belonging to defendant 3's sthanam, to walk across it, to perform certain ceremonies at the foot of an arasa or pipal tree on it, to perform pradakshanam round the tree and to use the tank for bathing purposes. Defendant 1 who obtained a melcharth in 1911 obstructed the plaintiffs from exercising these alleged customary rights. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit; the Court of first appeal allowed it and granted an injunction gainst defendant 1. In second appeal the suit was dismissed and against this decree the present Letters Patent appeal is preferred. Before us the right to grazing has been given up by the appellants; so the only matters in question are the right of way across the paramba, the right to bathe in the tank and the right to perform certain ceremonies round the pipal tree. The first ...
Eastern Distiliries and Sugar Factories Ltd. Vs. the Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad496
Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner, a limited company, the Eastern Distilleries and Sugar Factories, Ltd., brought this suit to recover Rs. 350, being the excess of assessment to Companies tax for the half years ending 30th September 1925 and 31st March 1926 which, it alleged, the respondent, the Municipal Council of Negapatam had illegally levied on it and which it paid under protest. The ground of suit was that the company should have been assessed on the gross income under the proviso to Rule 16, Sch. 4, District Municipalities Act of 1920, whereas it was in fact assessed on its paid-up capital under the main part of that rule. The respondent maintained that the assessment was proper. The question turned upon the point whether the petitioner had or had not an office, that is, head office or principal office or branch office within the municipal limits. If it had, the assessment was right. If not, it was illegal.2. The District Munsif has stated the facts correctly and both parties have a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »