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.
(Unde, Rajaha, Raje Captain, Sri Rajah Velugoti) Govinda Krishna Yache ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad384
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for an injunction against defendant 1, the Maharajah of Venkatagiri, from seeking to recover cist on the basis of an extent of 277 acres in the holding comprised in patta No.108 of the Kanur village. In the first Court the plaintiff succeeded in getting a decree for an injunction restraining defendant 1 from taking any proceedings for the recovery of cist on anything more than 182 acres and 50 cents. That decree was confirmed by the learned District Judge.2. In this second 'appeal it is contended that a suit of this kind was not maintainable in a civil Court. The plaintiff is a purchaser of a major portion of the plaint-mentioned land from defendant 2 in 1917. The arrear of cist in respect of which defendant 1 is alleged to have taken proceedings under Section 112, Estates Land Act, for the sale of the holding is due for fasli 1333. The principle governing a case of this kind seems to be, th...
Kolipakam Penchelu Varadappa Rao Vs. Chitoor Mahadeviah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad94; 140Ind.Cas.325
Pandalai, J.1. In this case a decree for money has been passed against the petitioner on account of the deficiency left out of a sum borrowed by him on a pledge of jewels after a portion of the debt was paid out of the sale proceeds of the pledge. The defence was that the petitioner was at the time of the pledge a minor and that he is not liable on the contract of pledge. It has been found as a fact that the petitioner was a minor and also that he had entered into a number of other transactions with other persons who all like the respondent apparently believed either from the petitioner's words or conduct that he was a major. The lower appellate Court was so strongly impressed with this aspect of the case that it says that it agrees with the District Munsif's opinion that the petitioner learnt nothing else but to cheat the world at large as soon as he attained years of discretion. Although thus it may be taken that the petitioner made the respondents and others believe that he was a ma...
Sattamuthu Chettiar Vs. Abdul Kareem Maracayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ880
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff. His suit was brought on a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 and endorsed by the father to the plaintiff as one of the family assets allotted to the plaintiff on the latter's releasing his rights in the family properties. The only point now arising for consideration is whether the Lower Court was right in dismissing the suit as against defendants 2 to 4 or whether it should have given a decree against them also on the ground alleged by the plaintiff that the father having indorsed the note to the plaintiff and the maker having defaulted payment, the father was himself personally responsible as the indorser and defendants 2 to 4 are liable as his legal representatives to the extent of his assets in their hands. The ground on which, while giving a decree against the maker of the note, the 1st defendant, the learned Judge in the Court below refused to give a d...
Abdul Razak Saib Vs. Zainab Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad86; (1932)63MLJ887
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, his mother, for the possession of a house on the ground that she was driven out of it by him and that the gift-deed executed by her in respect of it in his favour is not valid and binding. The subject-matter of the gift is a dwelling-house which the plaintiff, the donor, got from her second husband. The appellant, the donee, is her son by her first husband. Some time after the death of the appellant's father, the respondent was married by her second husband. He also died. The appellant lived with his mother in the suit house before the date of the gift. At the time of the gift and subsequently also they lived in the same house. On account of differences between her and her daughter-in-law, the plaintiff was forced to leave the house. In the pleadings and as shown by the issues, her case was that the suit document was brought about by fraud and undue influence, but it...
Sattamuthu Chettiar Vs. Abdul Kareem Maracayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad61
Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff. His suit was brought on a promissory note executed by defendant 1 in favour of the father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 and endorsed by the father to the plaintiff as one of the family assets allotted to the plaintiff on the latter's releasing his rights in the family properties. The only point now arising for consideration is whether the lower Court was right in dismissing the suit as against defendants 2 to 4, or whether it should have given a decree against them also on the ground alleged by the plaintiff that the father having indorsed the note to the plaintiff and the maker having defaulted payment, the father was himself personally responsible as the indorser and defendants 2 to 4 are liable as his legal representatives to the extent of his assets in their hands. The ground on which, while giving a decree against the maker of the note, defendant 1, the learned Judge in the Court below refused to give a decree against the as...
Govindaraja Pillai and ors. Vs. Mangalam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad80; (1932)63MLJ911
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiffs 1 and 2 to recover possession of the plaint mentioned properties, alleging that they became entitled to the same on the death of their sister Madurambal in 1924 without any issue. The 1st defendant is the husband of Madurambal. When he married her, he was a man of advanced age, and at the instance of the parents of the girl he executed a registered settlement deed, Ex. A, on 2nd June, 1916, in favour of the girl. The material portion of Ex. A runs thus:I have accordingly given you the undermentioned properties valued at Rs. 1,000 and you shall yourself from this day hold and enjoy the same with all rights. Should any issue be born to us, that issue shall get the properties after our death. If there is no issue, after your death, your brothers (plaintiffs 1 and 2) should take the properties.2. The plaintiffs' case is that their sister Madurambal having died without any issue the properties covered by Ex....
N.K.N. Ramier and Brothers Vs. S.S. Ramudu Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad176; (1933)64MLJ199
Jackson, J.1. The appellants-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants are Madura cotton brokers who on 21st August, 1918, Ex. VIII, engaged with others in what is known there as a chain contract.2. The Mills of Messrs. Harvey were to produce 60 bales of certain counts, and, as they passed down the chain, these were to be received by Messrs. Ramudu Ayyar, the defendants, and sold by them to Messrs. Ramier & Bros., the plaintiffs, who will be described henceforth as the sellers and the buyers, because in a previous litigation their position was reversed and the terms plaintiffs and defendants will only lead to confusion.3. 28 bales were tendered by the sellers, and taken delivery of by the buyers.4. 9 bales were tendered (as will be shown below) by the sellers and rejected by the buyers. 23 bales have never been tendered at all.5. The buyers now sue for a return of the advance made by them to the sellers on the date of the contract with interest thereon in respect of the 32 bales of which t...
(Boggavarapu) Bullayya and ors. Vs. (Garlapati) Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad130; 140Ind.Cas.779
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In these Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeals the defendants in O.S. Nos. 620 and 621 of 1921 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla are the appellants. The decree-holders, who are the same in both the suits, are the respondents. They obtained preliminary decrees against the respondents as the defendants in the two suits on a mortgage given by them in respect of a specific undivided share in a certain land alleged to be the service inam belonging to the defendants. A decree for the sale of the properties was passed. As it was found that the proceeds of the sale were insufficient to meet the decree, a personal decree was passed and in execution of that personal decree the remaining portion of the property which had not been mortgaged was attached. This attached portion of the property and the portion already sold form undivided parts of the same survey number.2. When this property was attached the appellants judgment-debtors intervened with a petition under Se...
Pulikonda Venkatasubbayya Vs. Maddi Venkata Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad65
ORDERBardswell, J.1. This is an application by the accused in C.C. No. 50 of 1931, on the file of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Ongole, for quashing the first head of the charge that has been framed against him, of an offence punishable under Section 409, I.P.C. The complaint in this case was one of offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 477, I.P.C. The Magistrate who first heard the case framed a charge of an offence punishable Section 204, I.P.C. He did not formally discharge the accused in respect of the other offences, but it is well established that his procedure in framing a charge only as to an offence under Section 204, I.P.C. amounted to a discharge of the accused in regard to them. In the end the Magistrate acquitted the accused, but on revision this Court set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial.2. It is contended for the accused-petitioner that the Magistrate who is now hearing the case could not legally frame a charge under Section 409, I.P.C. On the other si...
Shankaranaraina Vs. Official Receiver of South Kanara
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad73
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of a petition filed by five minor sons of an insolvent to direct the Official Receiver of South Kanara to deliver possession of the immovable property mentioned in the schedule attached to the petition together with mesne profits from 26th April 1928 until re-delivery of possession to the petitioners. In this second appeal the question as to the delivery of possession of the property does not arise inasmuch as subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings it is admitted that the Official Receiver sold the property to pay off the insolvent's debts and that the Official Receiver was legally justified in so selling the property. The property in question was the share of the family property belonging to the minors. It is the minor's father that became insolvent. The law is well settled that when the father of a joint Hindu family becomes an insolvent the Official Receiver can discharge the father's debt to the credit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›