Chennai Court September 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.
Alapati Achutaramanna Vs. Vasireddi Jagannadham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad117; 140Ind.Cas.833; (1933)64MLJ79
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner's suit for Rs. 400 and interest thereon was dismissed by the learned District Judge of West Godavari on the ground that the promissory note sued on was inadmissible in evidence as it bore only one anna stamp instead of two annas stamp and that the plaintiff's case which he attempted to make by amendment of the plaint that the loan was given some eight days before the note was not in fact true. Consequently, according to the learned Judge, the loan and the note being contemporaneous, the suit for the loan was not maintainable because the note was inadmissible, vide Muthu Sastrigal v. Viswanatha Pandara Sannadhi I.L.R. (1913) 38 Mad. 660 : 26 M.L.J. 192. In this Court, it is contended for the petitioner that the learned Judge failed to see that both the note and the loan were admitted by the respondent-defendant in his written statement and that consequently by Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act it was not necessary for the plaintiff-petitioner t...
Sri Sri Rathnamala Pattamahadevi Vs. Raiyats of the Mandasa Zamindari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Mad231
Ramesam, J.1. These are two applications for the issue of writs of certiorari in respect of certain proceedings of the Board of Revenue under Ch. 11, Madras Estates Land Act. In C.M.P. No. 645 the petitioner is the zamindarni of Mandasa in the Ganjam District. In C.M.P. No. 5155 the petitioner is the zamindar of Seitur in the Bamnad District. Connected with the latter petition are C.M.Ps. Nos. 2310 of 1931 and 2074 of 1932 in which the petitioners are different sets of tenants in the zamindari of Seitur. In all the petitions the first important point that arises for decision is whether a writ can be issued in respect of proceedings passed by the Board of Revenue under Ch. 11, Madras Estates Land Act.2. The zamindarni of Mandasa had previously filed C.R.P. No. 192 of 1926 to the High Court in connexion with the same matter. At the time when, the revision petition was filed, that is, on 17th December 1925, there was a decision of Devadoas and Waller, JJ., which held in V. Narasimha Rao v...
M. Shanmuga Mudaliar Vs. S. Subbaraya Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.540; (1932)63MLJ932
ORDERBardswell, J.1. In each of these petitions the issue of a writ of certiorari is prayed for in order to quash an order of the Election Commissioner of Vellore, dated 19th August, 1932, in O.Ps. Nos. 34 and 35 of 1931. The Election Commissioner is in his ordinary official capacity the Subordinate Judge of Vellore. As Election Commissioner he is persona designata. For the purposes of this order the petitioner and respondent No. 1 in C. M. P. No. 4040 will be styled respectively the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. The petitioner and the 1st respondent in the other petition will be styted respectively the 2nd petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in both the petitions is the, Election Commissioner, who is only a party pro forma.2. On the 8th October, 1931, an election was held for Ward No. 14 of the Tiruvannamalai Municipal Council. The result declared next day was as follows:Votes1st petitioner .. 2152nd ' .. 1602nd respondent .. 641st ' .. 83. There were two ot...
Thillaikannu Achi Vs. Sheik Abdul Kadir Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad126; 140Ind.Cas.805; (1933)64MLJ336
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff's (petitioner's) suit brought for damages for breach of the implied covenant of title contained in a sale to her by the defendant (Ex. A), dated 8th December, 1916, has been dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground of limitation. There is no question that if this opinion is not correct the petitioner is entitled to a decree. By the sale (Ex. A) the defendant purported to sell to the petitioner (plaintiff) 4 1/2 cents of land of which from the previous litigation it appears that he gave possession of If cents. For the other 3 cents there were disputes between herself and her vendor on the one hand and one Subbiah Pillai, the holder of an adjacent land, who claimed it under another title, on the other. In 1920 two suits were brought, one by Subbiah Pillai against the petitioner's sons (since tried as O.S. No. 29 of 1921 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruvarur) in which Subbiah Pillai sued to remove the petitioner's sons from their admitted...
Vadlamannati Bala Tripura Sundaramma Alias Suiadaramma Vs. Abdul Khada ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad418; (1933)64MLJ664
Jackson, J.1. In E.P. No. 12 of 1928 the appellant, the mortgagee decree-holder in O.S. No. 29 of 1918, Masulipatam, applied to. sell the mortgage security. He cited a previous application, dated 2nd October, 1922, and claimed to be in time because 'the plaintiff was restrained by an injunction from executing the mortgage decree, and the injunction was dissolved only on 16th August, 1927'.2. The Count accordingly ordered sale on 5th April, 1928, but stayed it upon the respondent judgment-debtor's objection that the execution application was time barred, and finally by its order, dated 14th August, 1928, dismissed the application as barred by limitation. Hence the appeals.3. We do not find that the Court had debarred itself from going into the question of limitation by ordering sale. If it had been misled by the appellant into thinking that there was no question of limitation it did right to go into the matter before the execution was concluded. This disposes of C. M. A. No. 52.4. The a...
Vancheswara Sastri Vs. Narayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad251a
Pandalai, J.1. This case is fully covered by the decision in Rakkapan v. Suppiah : AIR1930Mad485 . Here as in that case the promissory note dated 14th May 1924 consists of two parts and is as follows:Rupees 500-I, Narayana Iyer, son of Vanchi Patter of Kavaseeri Ottupura Gramam, hereby promise to pay Vancheswara Sastri, son of Gopalkrishna Pattar of Kavasseri Ottupura Gramam, or order, the above sum, Rs. 500, with interest at 7 per cent per annum; I have received full consideration by adjustment of the sums which I owe you, namely, Rs. 800, due to you by me on the occasion of your marriage with Laxmi my granddaughter for her jewels; Rs. 200 due for cloths, silks and vessels for the sixth month ceremony and nuptials.2. The former part of the instrument which is the promissory note is inadmissible as it is insufficiently stamped. But the latter part contains an express acknowledgment of a prior liability and is admissible as such to save limitation. It is found that on 2nd May 1926 the d...
In Re: Narayana Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad99
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 5, Sub-section 1(b) and (d) and Section 20(d), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act 3 of 1918 and fined Rs. 50. There is no dispute about the facts. The petitioner is the proprietor of a Coffee Club in Coimbatore. On 23rd October 1931, the Sanitary Inspector, P.W. 1, bought from him one measure of milk. On analysis the milk was found to contain 40 per cent, of added water. The Bench held that this was a sale of food not of the nature, substance or quality which it purported to be [Section 5(1)(b) 7]. By rules framed under Section 20(e) of the Act the Local Government prescribed a standard of purity for milk. The milk sold by the petitioner was certainly not up to the standard of purity fixed by the Government and hence the Bench held that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. By rules framed under Section 20(d) of the Act the Local Government prescribed the manner in which...
A. Ghulam MuhiuddIn Rowther Vs. Sulaiman Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad263
1. This is a question under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. The short point is whether an amount which has been deposited in Court can be said to have been received within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 89(1)(b). It is argued for the respondents that 'received' means 'virtually received' or constructively received and that actual receipt is not necessary. We cannot accede to this argument. Received' means what it says, that is, received free from qualifying adverbs. We agree with the view taken in Trimbak Narayan v. Ramchandra Narsingrao (1899) 23 Bom. 723 and Husenuddin Nuruddin v. Dulakshidas AIR 1923 Bom 299, which are cases in point, and accordingly allow this appeal with costs throughout....
Venkatadri Apparao Bahadur Vs. Adivicolany Chakrapani Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad521
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. In this second appeal, the main point for consideration is whether the application under Section 45, Madras Estates Land Act, put in by the appellant is not barred by limitation under Article 7, Part B, Sch. B to that Act. That article provides for an application for determining the sum payable by a person occupying land otherwise than by inheritance or legal transfer, one year's time from the date of the occupation. Section 45 itself states thata person who without the consent of the land-holder occupies for agricultural purposes raiyati land which he has not acquired by inheritance or legal transfer shall be liable to pay for each revenue year or portion thereofa sum fixed as damages for such unauthorized occupation. The first Court held that this application was barred by limitation, inasmuch as it was not filed within one year from the data of the occupation of the land by the respondents. It is perfectly clear that if the date on which the occupation itself c...
Gurusami Goundan Vs. Sivanmalai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1932
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ22
Jackson, J.1. Three persons, Sivanmalai, Chidambara and Amarapathi Goundan, obtained a mortgage decree against one -Ammani Animal. She sold lands to Palayakottai Pattakkarar, and part of the purchase price was paid by him in satisfaction of the decree. Sivanmalai and Chidambara were satisfied, and state in their affidavit that nothing more was due. The third decree-holder Amarapathi however assigned his right to one Gurusami Goundan and he applied to execute the decree by sale of the hypotheca after recognising his assignment.2. The Subordinate Judge has found these facts to be true, and we see no reason not to accept his finding. As he says, Amarapathi Goundan got a final decree fraudulently behind the back of the judgment-debtor and other decree-holders. Accordingly he dismissed the petition and Gurusami Goundan appeals.3. The appellant contends that Ammani Ammal has no right to plead against his application an uncertified adjustment. We entirely agree. It makes no difference that Gu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »