Chennai Court April 1932 Judgments
M. Kunju Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad252; 140Ind.Cas.838; (1933)65MLJ29
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 1498 of 1925, on the file of the District Munsif of Palghat, is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He started a kuri in which the defendant took one ticket. The defendant bid in auction and was paid the amount due. As per the kuriwari, Ex. B, and the receipt. Ex. C (executed by the defendant to the plaintiff when he was paid the amount of the auction), the defendant was bound to pay the future instalments regularly; but having made default, the plaintiff sued to recover the whole of the future instalments at once. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the future subscriptions in one lump sum. The main point for determination was whether the plaintiff was entitled to claim the amounts of the future instalments in one lump sum. There was no oral evidence in the case, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant having gone into the box nor adduced any oral evidence. The only exhibits file...
Tag this Judgment!Maharajah of Pittapuram Vs. Ravu Venkata Mahipati Gangadhararamarao an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad462
Curgenven, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the Maharaja of Pithapuram to recover possession of a piece of land measuring about 40 acres, which, with buildings upon it, formed part of a maintenance grant made by the late Raja of Pithapuram to his adopted son, Ramakrishna Rao, father of defendants 1 to 4. Particulars of the litigation which arose out of that grant have been summarized in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge and it is enough to say here that so far as the nature and legal effect of the grant are concerned it has been decided that it was for the maintenance only of Ramakrishna Rao, that it lapsed at his death and that the property is recoverable by the plaintiff as his father's heir. While adopting this position however the lower Court has given the plaintiff a decree only for the melwaram interest in the land, and it is against the decree so limited that the plaintiff appeals.2. The primary question arising depends upon the provisions o...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji and Moolji Brothers Vs. T. Shanmugam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad734; (1932)63MLJ587
Cronish, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. They were sued for damages for breach of a covenant to level plaintiff's land after removing earth and sand therefrom. The plaint alleged an agreement, dated 25th June, 1927. The defendants in their written statement denied this agreement. But they alleged an unregistered agreement in writing, dated 4th August, 1927, under which, and in consideration of a rent of Rs. 500, they took on lease the suit lands subject to the covenants contained in the agreement; and they further pleaded that 'all conditions and covenants binding on the part of the defendants were duly performed and that the lands were properly levelled'.2. The learned trial Judge has found that the written agreement, dated 4th August, 1927, contained the contract between the parties. Having so found, the learned Judge, rightly in our judgment, held that the agreement was for the transfer of an interest in immoveable property. The terms of the agreement were that in payment of...
Tag this Judgment!Mattapalli Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. Tota Varahaliah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad768; (1932)63MLJ310
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The plaintiffs (appellants) have filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen to recover possession of 51 acres and 20 cents of land in the village of Veeravaram, from the defendants, together with arrears of rent and mesne profits for the year 1925. Various contentions were set up by the defendants in their written statement. Issue 2 runs thus:Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to eject the defendants and obtain possession.2. The first part of issue 3 is:Whether the defendants are tenants of plaintiffs,3. These two points were found by the Subordinate Judge, against the plaintiffs, and, as a result of his findings, he has dismissed the plaintiffs' suit without going into the other issues framed in the suit.4. Plaintiffs' case is, that one Venkataraghaviah became the owner of the suhjjands, and that by virtue of the two registered deeds (Exs. A and B) executed by him in their favour, they must be deemed to be usufructuary mortgagees, entitled to collect the...
Tag this Judgment!Pitchai Vs. Muna Muna Chena Muhammad Atham Sammatti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ594
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is an application to this Court to vacate the order, dated 19th April, 1932, in Cr. M.P. No. 270 of 1932 by which the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Ramnad under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was suspended in its operation - the first ground taken is that this Court had no power to suspend the order. The argument adopted is that powers of revision are exercised under Section 435(1), Criminal Procedure Code, which only applies to suspension of execution of imprisonment or fine or under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Jayarama Aiyar has taken me through various sections of the Code mentioned in Section 439. Sections 423, 426, 427, 428 and 338 none of which he argues applies to this case, and I agree. Now there are certainly sections of the Code such as Section 188 under which execution of orders passed therein can be suspended, but they do not fall under any of the sections mentioned in Section 439, Criminal Procedure Co...
Tag this Judgment!B. Chenchuram Naidu Vs. Muhammad BahavuddIn Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad3; (1932)63MLJ446
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff, the appellant here, claimed to be the owner of the suit land and entitled to eject the defendant from the superstructure on it. The learned City Civil Judge dismissed the appellant's suit. A suit had been filed in 1924 in the same Court, O.S. No. 422 of 1924, by the appellant against another person as the 1st defendant and the respondent here as the 2nd defendant to eject them. The suit was withdrawn as against the respondent here by the appellant but at the time when he withdrew the suit he did not ask for liberty to file a fresh suit against the respondent. The learned City Civil Judge held that that was a statutory bar to the filing of the suit under appeal against the respondent. Upon that ground he dismissed the suit. He also went into the merits of the case and held that the appellant failed to prove his title and upon that ground also he dismissed the suit.2. The first thing we have got to cons...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kallam Narayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ88
Reilly, J.1. Accused 1 in this case, the Appellant before us, a boy of 16, has been convicted of murdering Ambama, a girl of 12--14, at Amaravathi, on 30th September, 1931. Accused 2 in the case, who was charged with the same offence, was acquitted.2. There is undisputed evidence that Ambama, who lived at Amaravathi with her mother, P.W. 1, was at her mother's house soon after dark on the evening of 30th September: she then went to the adjoining house, where P. W. 3 lives: about evening-mealtime she was missing: her mother and relations searched for her all night but did not find her: early the next morning her dead body was found in a ruined and deserted fort at Amaravathi: death had been due to strangulation, part of her sari having been tied tightly round her neck with four knots: there were three incised wounds, described by P, W. 10, the Sub-Assistant Surgeon, who examined the body, as 'muscle-deep,' one above the navel, one on the left side of her abdomen and one on the back of h...
Tag this Judgment!Jeevakore Bhai Vs. Krishnadoss Paramanandadoss and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad680; 139Ind.Cas.188; (1932)63MLJ242
Curgenven, J.1. The question which this case raises is as to the manner in which certain proceeds of land acquisition should be dealt with. The claimant is the widow of one Jamnadoss Govardhanadoss and the counter claimants are his reversioners. The question turns upon whether the widow gets an absolute estate or only a life estate under a will Jamnadoss Govardhanadoes executed on the 10th December, 1899. This will begins by reciting that being ill in body and wishing to make a will while he is in the enjoyment of his understanding he has written the will, and proceeds as follows:It is a long time since a division was made between me and my pangalis. They have no right whatever to my properties, namely, the house, ground, jewels, ready money and all immovable and movable properties and all the properties I have been enjoying. But they have only to observe pollution but have no other rights. Therefore my wife Jukore Bai has the right to my properties and all the properties which I have ...
Tag this Judgment!Pogaru Ramamurti Vs. Sri Rajah Mirja Sri Pushavati Alaka Narayana Gaja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ361
Wallace, J.1. This appeal has been referred to me because of a difference of opinion between the learned Judges of the Bench who heard it. The suit is one of ejectment', the plaintiff claiming to be the Government mirasi karnam of Laveru Village within the ambit of Vizianagram estate. This appeal is concerned with his plaint prayer to eject the defendants from a land Survey No. 339 on the ground that he is the mirasi Inamdar. The 1st defendant is the Zamindar and claims the melwaram right over the land, the other defendants claim to be the kudivaram tenants thereof.2. The village was surveyed by Government in 1904 in the course of the survey of the Vizianagram estate under Act IV of 1897 and the suit land was then demarcated by the Survey Officer as mirasi Inam. Against this decision the 1st defendant's representative presented under Section 12 an appeal that the land should have been classed as jeroyati. That appeal was thrown out. The estate did not file any suit under Section 13 to ...
Tag this Judgment!(Gedalu) Narayana Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad561
Walsh, J.1. The complaint in this case was to the effect that A-2 was the legally married wife of the complainant; that they had lived together as man and wife for some time after A-2 attained puberty; that A-2 owing to ill advice of her parents A-3 and A-4 left complainant and went to live with A-3 and A-4; that complainant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against A-2, A-3 and A-4 and got a decree; and that with a view to dofeat the execution of this decree A-1 married A-2 on 5th June 1931, aided and abetted by A-3 and A-4 knowing that A-2 continued to be the legally married wife of the complainant. A complaint Under Sections 494 and 114, I.P.C., was therefore laid against the four accused (presumably Under Section 494 against A-1 and A-2 and Under Section 494 and Section 114, I.P.C., against A-3 and A-4).2. The complaint was dismissed by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate on the ground that the second marriage did not come within the purview of Section 494, I.P.C. A ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »