Chennai Court March 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.
The Universal Mutual Aid and Poor Houses Association, Ltd. Vs. A.D. Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad16; (1932)63MLJ554
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Stone, J., ordering the winding-up of the appellant company. The learned trial Judge has found that the company was formed for an illegal purpose, the purpose being an offence under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, conducting a lottery or keeping an office for the purpose of drawing a lottery, or publishing proposals relating to the drawing in such lottery. No exception can be taken to the Memorandum of Association of the company where the objects of the company are quite unobjectionable. Had the affairs of the appellant company been conducted strictly in accordance with those objects, no complaint whatever could have been made against it. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the Articles of Association disclose purposes far beyond those appearing in the Memorandum of Association. It is contended that the Articles disclose that the object of the company was to conduct a lotter...
Obla Subbier and ors. Vs. Ramaswami Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad541
Waller, J.1. This litigation has been going on since 1918 and has passed through many stages and Courts. Briefly the facts are these: The plaintiff sued on a mortgage and got a decree against the mortgagor and his minor son, then defendant 2 and present respondent. The latter in his turn brought a suit, O.S. No. 50 of 1920, for a declaration that the decree was not binding on him as he had not been properly represented in the suit. He pleaded further that the mortgage debt was not binding on him. The parties went to trial on those issues and the Court found on the one that the plaintiff had not been properly represented in the suit, and on the other that the debt was binding on him. The result of course, was that his suit was decreed and, if he had appealed, he would certainly have been told that there was nothing against which he could appeal. The next development was that the mortgagee was granted a review of the decree in his first suit and allowed to implead the minor again, this t...
Srila Sri Subramaniya Desika Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi Vs. R. An ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad688
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The suit which was filed . in 1927 is based on a registered lease deed executed by the defendant, and is in ejectment, The defendant has by a supplemental written statement filed by him set up the right of the Government to the land in dispute. On an application made by the defendant the learned District Munsif has ordered that the Secretary of State should be made a supplemental defendant to the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is against that order of the learned District Munsif, The District Munsif observed as follows, in his order:There is no force in the plaintiff's objections. As the Government is a necessary party, it shall be added subject to the condition that the petitioner (defendant) shall not be liable but only the plaintiff shall be liable for costs of the Government in case of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.2. No reasons have been given why the Government is a necessary party' to a suit in ejectment by a landlord of his tenant on the basis o...
C.R. Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. B.S. Krishnaswami Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad133
Jackson, J.1. The question for our determination is whether a promissory note can be transferred otherwise than by endorsement. There is considerable clash of judicial opinion, the older case law inclining to the view that as provided by the Negotiable Instruments Act endorsement is necessary and the later case law to the view that a promissory note can be transferred like any other chose in action: c.f. : AIR1930Mad197 . We see no reason to differ from the later course of decisions. It is strenuously argued that Section 137 T.P. Act, which exempts certain mercantile documents from the provisions of Section 130, T.P. Act, also denies to such documents the method of Section 130, T.P. Act. We see no reason to accept such an interpretation. Section 137 gives an extended privilege to mercantile documents, and in no way is restrictive. We agree with the lower appellate Court that the transfer in this case is effectively made by the deed. The suit must accordingly be decreed with costs throu...
In Re: Marina Narasanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1932
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.548
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order of the Joint Magistrate of Rajahmundry in the matter of a claim put forward to certain properties seised under Section 386, Criminal Procedure Code. The accused's family originally consisted of seven brothers one of whom is dead leaving children. One out of the six surviving brothers the accused was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000. The Police seized and carried away certain moveable properties. The brothers put in a claim. They alleged that the properties in C and D schedules were the separate properties of two of the brothers, that those in E schedule were the separate properties of the mother and that those in B schedule were joint family properties. As regards the E schedule properties the lowgr Court found that the mother was no party to the proceedings and as none of the petitioners held a power-of-attorney for her they had no locus standi to complain of the proceedings as regards the said prope...
Karol Pulikkottukandi Govindan Nair (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kiliyanamk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad491; (1932)62MLJ712
1. The question raised in the present Revision Petition is as to the valuation of the plaint in accordance with the Court Fees Act and of the exact Court-fee payable thereon. A subsidiary question is raised whether the District Munsif has jurisdiction to entertain the plaint. This question of jurisdiction would depend upon the decision of the question of valuation and Court-fee payable in respect of the plaint.2. The plaintiffs, who were minors when a, partition arrangement was entered into in 1921 among all the members of the: tarwad, being dissatisfied with that arrangement, filed the original suit in question (1) to recover possession of the immovable properties mentioned in the partition deed, and (2) as an alternative prayer, they asked for their shares of the properties. This very case came before us on a former occasion in CM.A. No. 206 of 1928 when Cornish, J. and I decided that the plaintiffs ceuld not ignore the partition deed in question but that the plaintiffs should pray f...
R.M.M.S.T. Vyravan Chettiar Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad39; (1932)63MLJ615
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be stated as follows. Two Chetties, R.M.M.S.T. Vyravan Chettiar who is the appellant before us and M.A.R.N. Ramanadhan Chettiar carrying on business under the vilasam of M.A.R.N., were in the habit of borrowing from the banks in Madras on joint promissory notes and utilising the amounts in equal shares. There were two such promissory notes with which we are concerned. On each occasion the amount borrowed was Rs. 50,000. The total amount borrowed being one lakh, each debtor took Rs. 50,000 for his own purpose. The dates of the two notes are 8th July, 1924 and 22nd April, 1925. On the 3rd August, 1925, M.A.R.N. was declared insolvent. It is admitted that the insolvent paid interest on his share of the debt on the 8th July, 1924, 8th October, 1924 and 8th January, 1925. He had certain shares in the Indian Bank from whom those debts were borrowed, and under Article 19 of the Articles of Association of the Indian Bank, the bank had...
Pillutla Venkatasubbamma and anr. Vs. Gollapudi Ramanadhayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad722; (1932)63MLJ845
Ramesam, J.1. These are two cross-appeals against the decree in O.S. No. 2 of 1925 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court of Bapatla. The plaintiff in the suit was one Gollapudi Ramanadhayya, a retired Pleader of the District Court of Guntur. The suit is filed for partition of certain properties into two equal shares and for recovery of possession of one share with profits. There were four items of property which were the subject of the suit. They originally belonged to one P. Subramaniam, who was the adoptive father of Mangayya, the deceased husband of the 2nd defendant. Subramaniam executed a deed of usufructuary mortgage, dated 21st September, 1878, in favour of one Chimpiri for 50 years. Chimpiri assigned the mortgage bond by a document, dated 27th July, 1885, Ex. A, to one Krishnayya who assigned his interest by sale deed, dated 19th July, 1908, Ex. G, in favour of the plaintiff and Mangayya, the son of the original mortgagor. The plaintiff's case was that Mangayy...
Kumaraswami Mudali, Minor, by Next Friend Ganapathi Mudali Vs. Munirat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad529; (1932)63MLJ282
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari: There is also a Civil Revision Petition. Both arise out of an order made by the Board of Revenue in a second appeal to it under Section 23 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act. The petitioner in a suit before the Revenue Divisional Officer got himself registered as a village officer. An appeal under the Act was taken to the District Collector who confirmed the Revenue Divisional Officer's order and there was a second appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal. The petitioner argues that he is entitled to a writ of certiorari or to have the order of the Revenue Board revised here on a Civil Revision Petition, A preliminary objection is taken both to the petition for a writ of certiorari and the Civil Revision Petition. With regard to the issue of a writ of certiorari, it has been laid down by this Court, following the decisions of the English Courts...
(Gunturu) Pullayya and anr. Vs. Official Receiver of Kistna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad271
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out which this C.M. Appeal arises may be stated as follows: The properties which are the subject of dispute originally belonged to one Mantravadi Suryanarayana Sastri. He had no children and he adopted his brother's son Kutumba Rao. This Kutumba Rao, soon after he attained majority, seems to have entered on a career of extravagance A deed of partition was then brought about between the adoptive father and the son. This is Ex. C, dated 23rd July 1914. We then have got a sale deed, Ex. 1(a), dated 26th July 1914, of the whole of the son's share of the properties in favour of one Nallanchakrvartulu Venkatacharyulu. It appears from the evidence that this Venkatacharyulu was a student of Suryanarayana Sastri for two or three years and studied Maha Bhashyam (Patanjali's great work in Sanskrit grammar) under him: vide R.W. 1. The partition deed and the sale deed were registered on the same day, namely, 28th July. The inference is irresistible that they are parts of the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »