Chennai Court February 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.
Chintakayala Thammayya Naidu Vs. Chintakayala Venkataramanamma and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1932
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ541
ORDER1. This is a petition by the appellant in Appeal Suit No. 277 of 1929 on the file of this Court for refund of the excess court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal. The appeal was in a land acquisition matter. On a reference by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act the District Judge held the third claimant, who is a widow, entitled to a life-interest in the compensation money awarded for the melwaram, but on account of the limited interest held by this widow he, under Section 32 of the Act, ordered the money to be invested in the Imperial Bank and that was so done in April, 1929. The present petitioner, who was the second claimant, appealed, claiming that the compensation was payable to him alone. He paid a court-fee ad valorem of Rs. 2,332-7-0 on the amount of the award, but he now claims that the proper court-fee was as for a mere declaration, and that Rs. 500 would have been sufficient, and he claims refund of the difference. Notice was give...
Gura Sahu Vs. Tangi Krishnamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad687
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application for the amendment of plaint (I.A. No. 71 of 1928) made by the petitioner in S.C. No. 1055 of 1927. The suit is upon a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the father of defendants 3 and 4. The petitioner obtained transfer of the promissory note by endorsement and instituted the suit. The suit note was insufficiently stamped. The petitioner therefore filed this application requesting that the plaint may be amended so as to make the suit one on the original consideration for the note and not on the note itself. Two objections were taken to the amendment. The first objection was that the amendment, if allowed, would deprive the petitioner of his plea of limitation and so it should not be allowed. The decision of this objection would depend upon the question whether the endorsement of payment on the back of the promissory note dated 26th May 1927 is true or not. If true the suit would ...
Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad470; 137Ind.Cas.758; (1932)62MLJ594
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The claim in the suit under appeal is similar to the claims in the other suits but the facts are somewhat different. The learned Trial Judge dismissed those other suits because in his opinion Section 7 of the Madras Act II of 1927 was validly enacted by the local legislature and Section 84 gave power to the Board to decide whether a mutt or temple was a public or a private one when a dispute arose with regard to that. In this case, however, he held that the Board had no jurisdiction to control the property of the respondents and granted an injunction restraining the Board from exercising any of the powers conferred on it by the Act or interfering with the respondents' management of the properties. The Board has appealed against that decision.2. The facts, quite shortly, are that the temple in question ceased to exist many years ago and that all that now remains of it are its ruins. About this there is no dispute. It is no doubt true that some of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›