Chennai Court August 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. Srinivasa Aiyar and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal Alias Yogambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ843
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Lower Court has made an order allowing execution and the defendants contend that that order is wrong, on the ground that the plaintiff is bound to proceed in the first instance against the properties charged under the decree. The decree sought to be executed is one for maintenance obtained by the plaintiff against her husband's coparceners. Paragraph 2 directs the defendants to pay the plaintiff maintenance at, a certain rate out of the assets of their joint family and under paragraph 4 some specific items of property are charged with the maintenance awarded.2. The plaintiff applied in the Lower Court by way of execution, for attachment of the defendants' family house - an asset of their joint family but not an item over which the charge was created. The appellants' contention is, that the plaintiff should not be permitted, before exhausting her remedies against the security, to attach their other properties. The appeal raises the question whether in the case...
Karuveeppil Veera Vunni's younger brother Ahammad Kutty and Ors. Vs. K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad315; (1933)64MLJ251
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 2 and the L. Rs. of Defendant 9 are the appellants. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an application for execution made by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 105 of 1914 (Parappanangadi District Munsif's Court) to execute a partition decree. The question for decision is whether the application is barred by limitation or not.2. The facts are briefly these: In O.S. No. 105 of 1914 the plaintiff-respondent obtained a preliminary decree for partition on the 18th of April, 1918. The decree was confirmed in appeal on 31st March, 1919, by the first appellate Court and on the 20th of, March, 1923, by the High Court. On the 18th of April, 1918, the plaintiff applied for a final decree and on the 30th of September, 1919, a final judgment was pronounced. As the requisite stamp papers were not supplied in time, the final decree was drawn up only on the 14th of December, 1924. As the decree must bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced the decr...
Koraga Gowda and anr. Vs. Somappa Gowda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad93; 140Ind.Cas.585
Pandalai, J.1. In this suit which was filed early in 1926, 14 issues were framed, but no question of jurisdiction was raised. On 29th March 1927(two days before the end of the quarter) the case came on and then a new issue (issue 15) was raised: 'Whether the suit is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.' It does not appear on whose initiative this question arose. The District Munsif decided it at once by an order dated the same day in which he held that for purposes of jurisdiction the prayers in the plaint which was one for re-partition of family property and (1) to declare the former partition Exs. 1 and (2) to declare certain alienations, including Exs. 25 and 34 made by other members of the family not binding on the plaintiffs so far as their shares are concerned, must be valued on some footing not mentioned by him. He held without referring to any provision of law on which he acted that the suit was beyond his jurisdiction and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiffs t...
(Bukkapatnam) Triumala Narasimhacharyulu Vs. (Sree Rajah) Sabhnadri Ap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad197
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by him to set aside on the ground of fraud and gross negligence of his former guardian, the decree in O.S. No. 188 of 1906 in which he was impleaded as defendant 5. The preliminary question that was taken up for consideration by both the Courts below is one of limitation. One of the grounds urged by the plaintiff to save the suit from the bar of limitation is, that the fraud alleged in the plaint became known to him only on 19th September 1920, when his properties were attached in execution of the decree in the former suit. On that footing he seeks to have the period from 19th September 1920 to 14th September 1926 excluded under Section 14, Lim. Act, from computation of the period of limitation for this suit, as he was prosecuting the proceedings in I.A. No. 1328 of 1920 (Ex. B) in good faith. The Courts below held that the aforesaid period of time could not be excluded under Section 14, Lim....
S. Srinivasa Ayyar and anr. Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.408
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The lower Court has made an order allowing execution and the defendants contend that that order is wrong, on the ground that the plaintiff is bound to proceed in the Arsis instance against the properties charged under the decree. The decree sought to be executed is one for maintenance obtained by the plaintiff against her husband's co-parceners. Paragraph 2 directs the defendants to pay the plaintiff maintenance at a certain rate; out of the assets of their joint family and under para. 4 some specific items of property are charged with the maintenance awarded. The plaintiff applied in the lower Court by way of execution, for attachment of the defendant's family houseman asset of their joint family but not an item over, which the charge was created. The appellants' contention is, that the plaintiff staid, not be permitted before exhausting her remedies against the security, to attach their other properties. The appeal raises, the question whether in the case of ma...
Bukkapatnam Tirumala Narasimha Charyulu Vs. Sree Rajah Sabhnadri Appa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.270
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. It is appeal arises cut of a suit brought by him to set aside on the ground of fraud and gross negligence of his former guardian, the decree in O.S. No. 188 of 1906 in which he was impleaded as the 5th defendant. The preliminary question that was taken up for consideration by both the courts below is one of limitation. One of the grounds urged by the plaintiff to save the suit from the bar of limitation i.e., that the fraud alleged in the plaint became known to him only on the 19th September, 1920, when his properties were attached in execution of the decree in the former suit. On that footing, he seeks to have the period from 19th September, 1920 to 14th September, 1926 excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act from computation of the period of limitation for this suit, as he was prosecuting the proceedings in I.A. No. 1328 of 1920 (Ex. B) in good faith. The courts below held that the aforesaid period of time could not be exc...
R. Shanmuga Rajeswara Sethupathi Alias Naganatha Sethupati Avl., Rajah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad101; (1932)63MLJ884
Mockett, J.1. These appeals arise out of decrees in a number of suits brought by the Rajah of Ramnad (the appellant) anu the tenants (the respondents) against each other under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act.2. The Advocate-General for the appellant has argued that the findings of the District Court are erroneous under broadly speaking two headings:1. That the rates awarded in respect of various crops are inadequate.2. That the learned District Judge has put the burden of proving that waste lands, were uncultivated through no fault of the tenant on the landlord whereas it was for the tenant to adduce this evidence.3. We. have after hearing the Advocate-General on point 1 indicated that in our view questions of the adequacy or inadequacy of rates (matters which have been most thoroughly investigated on evidence in the Courts below) do not call for an interference in second appeal being largely questions of fact and so far as this topic is concerned we dismiss the relevant appeals.4....
Chendrasekaran Pillai and anr. Vs. Srinivasa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad71; 140Ind.Cas.193
Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff's suit brought for the return of Rs. 300 borrowed on a promissory note which not being properly stamped was inadmissible in evidence was dismissed on the ground that the suit cannot be maintained in view of the decision of this Court in Muthu Sastrigal v. Viswanatha Pandara Sannadhi AIR 1914 Mad 657.. The only question is whether that decision must be treated as settled law or in view of the opinions that have been expressed in later cases, whether the matter requires further consideration. The remarks which are supposed to cast doubt upon Muthu Sastrigal v. Viswanatha Pandara Sannadhi AIR 1914 Mad 657 are those of Srinivasa Ayyangar, J. in Chockalingam Chetty v. Annamalai Chetty (1916) 34 IC 417, of Wallace, J. in Gopala Padayachi v. Rajagopala Naidu : AIR1926Mad1148 and of Abdur Rahim, J., in Shanmuganatha Chettiar v. Srinivasa Ayyar (1917) 40 Mad 727. The remarks of the two former learned Judges are to the effect that a note or bill given for considerati...
V.S.R.M. Chockalingam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Taluk Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad22; 140Ind.Cas.273
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed a suit against the Taluk Board of Devakotta for a refund of Rs. 254-9-9 being the profession-tax illegally collected for the year 1923-24, by the defendant, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from assessing them to profession-tax on similar grounds for the succeeding years, 1924-25 and 1925-26. A decree for the refund of the money was passed by the first Court in plaintiff's favour, but the lower appellate Court set aside that decree, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit: Hence this second appeal.2. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Rajah Ayyar for the respondent, that no second appeal lies in this case. If this is a suit cognizable by a Small Cause Court, no second appeal will lie, as the amount or value of the-subject-matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 500 (Section 102, Civil P. C). It is also clear that a suit to obtain an injunction is exempted from the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court. The pre...
Tolladagu Musalayya and ors. Vs. Mateli Ranga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad98; 140Ind.Cas.322
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The six petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 206 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Polavaram. The complaint against them has been brought by a private party who is the respondent to this petition, as to offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 341, I.P.C.2. A charge sheet has previously been filed by the police against the petitioners on the same facts of offences punishable under Sections 147 and 323, I.P.C. The Sub-Magistrate took the case on file but, before any evidence was taken, the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector withdrew from the prosecution under Section 494, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate then signed an order on a printed form by which the accused were declared to be acquitted. The form used was No. 80 which is intended for withdrawals and acquittals under Section 248, Criminal P.C., the 248 being altered to 494. The petitioners have taken the point before him that the respondent's complaint could not be inquired into under the principle of a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »