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.
Dwarampudi Basivireddi (Minor) by Mother and Guardian Manikyam Vs. Gad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad241; (1933)64MLJ86
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The point for determination in this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is whether the decree-holder in O.S. No. 296 of 1924 is entitled to take the amount in deposit in preference to the decree-holder in O.S. No. 410 of 1918.2. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 410 is the appellant before this Court. In O.S. No. 296, the 1st respondent obtained a mortgage decree. The subject-matter of the mortgage was immoveable property and the crops that may grow on it. The decree stated generally that the decree-holder may realise his decree by sale of the mortgage property. To that decree the present appellant was a party as he also held a mortgage over the same property. He was the 3rd defendant in the suit. Before the execution of the mortgage decree the present appellant obtained a money decree and brought the standing crops on the property to sale. The mortgagee decree-holder then put in an application stating that the amount brought into Court should be utilised towards the disc...
Dumpala Venkanna Vs. Vutla Subbayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad300; (1933)64MLJ241
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant against whom a decree has been given on a promissory note for Rs. 60-10-0, dated 14th October, 1925, executed by him to one Ankamma, deceased/from whose widow, Seshamma (3rd Defendant), the Plaintiff took an endorsement on 17th December, 1927, after her husband's death which took place in March, 1926. The defence was that the note had been discharged by execution of a fresh note to the payee. It appears that Ankamma, the payee, and his wife, 3rd Defendant, Seshamma, who had no male issue, were bringing up two nephews, that Seshamma, with the assistance of one of the nephews who was siding with her, got possession of the suit note and other documents from her husband, that though the latter complained to the authorities he could get no assistance from them as the matter was declared to be a family quarrel, that thereupon Ankamma took a fresh note, Ex. I, from the Defendant on 5th March, 1926, in substitution and discharge of the su...
Karingali thendambalath Karnavan and ors. Vs. Karlingali thendambalath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad265
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff as a member of a Makkathayam family, of which defendant 1 is the karnavan, for the recovery of a lump sum of money as arrears of maintenance due for six years eight months at the rate of Rs. 20 per mensem. The claim was hotly contested by defendant 1 and the first Court decreed the plaintiffs suit by awarding arrears of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 16 a month. The lower appellate Court modified the first Court's decree by reducing the rate of maintenance to Rs. 12 per mensem. In this second appeal preferred by defendant 1, the main contention urged is that the lower Courts should have inferred waiver or abandonment of the right to arrears of maintenance on the part of the plaintiff from all the circumstances of this case. The claim for maintenance relates to a period of six years eight months commencing from June 1920 and the registered notice of demand was sent by the plaintiff only in January 192...
Perumal Konan and ors. Vs. Tirumalai Machi Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad245; 140Ind.Cas.900
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioners put in a petition under Sections 145 and 147, Criminal P. C, asking that it might be declared that they and their pangalies alone have been in and are entitled to possession of certain temples, and asking that the counter-petitioners may be prohibited from interfering with the exclusive rights of the petitioners and their pangalies to do puja in the said temples. The petition has been dismissed, and the petitioners have come in revision.2. There seems to be no reason whatever for interfering with the order under Section 145. The oral evidence on either side is found not to be very satisfactory, but the documentary evidence clearly indicates that the petitioners occupied a subordinate position to C.P. 1 who held the post of trustee. Possession has been found to be with C.P. 1, while such possession as the petitioners had was on his behalf as subordinate to him a such trustee. The learned advocate for the petitioners on this petition has called to my ...
M.V. Sundaresa Aiyar for Himself and as Official Receiver of the Estat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad258; (1933)65MLJ193
1. The Subordinate Judge has restored an application to restore a suit after that application was itself time-barred. He seems to have thought that when the defendant had acquired the right by operation of the law of limitation to claim that the litigation against him should cease, the Court has an inherent power to deprive the defendant of that right, and to order the litigation to proceed.2. Obviously Section 151 never confers any such power upon a Court - a power for the ends of injustice and to promote abuse of the process of the Court. The defendant after the plaintiff has exhausted his statutory limit of time clearly has justice on his side and the Court has no right to interfere in order to override a lawful bar of limitation.3. The petition is allowed with costs throughout and the Lower Court's order is cancelled.4. This disposes of the appeal....
Thadapalli Pedda Subba Rao Vs. Lavu Ankamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad110; 140Ind.Cas.591; (1932)63MLJ788
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. Venkatachari for the appellant contends that the execution petition should not have been treated by the Lower Court as one that satisfied the requirements of the law. The petition was filed by the assignee-decree-holder. It was in the form prescribed by the Code and prayed first, that the petitioner should be recognised as the assignee decree-holder; secondly, that the fact of his being so recognised should be communicated to the Kistna District Court and the Bapatla Sub-Court where the execution of the decree was being carried on; and thirdly, that concurrent execution, which had already been ordered, should be allowed to be proceeded with.2. Mr. Venkatachari's contention is that, when once a decree is transmitted under Section 39 of the Code to another Court for texecution, no execution application can be made to the Court which passed the decree, until the certificate prescribed by Section 41 has been received by that Court. I am unable to follow this argu...
In Re: Bogi Reddi Ankamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad247; (1933)65MLJ6
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The five petitioners come in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge of Guntur, directing that they stand their trial at the Sessions on a charge of murder in addition to a charge under Section 201, I.P. Code, already framed by the Committing Magistrate. They ask on various points of law that the commitment on the charge of murder may be quashed.2. A charge sheet was put in against them and sixteen others by the Station House Officer, Bapatla, the offences stated being those punishable under Sections 302 and 201, I.P. Code. In the charge sheet the petitioners figured as accused 3, 4, 5, 8 and 16. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Guntur, who held the preliminary enquiry, discharged sixteen of the accused, including all the petitioners, in respect of both offences and, while discharging the first accused (Ankamma) before him in respect of the offence of murder, framed a charge against him under Section 201 and committed him to the Sessions to stand his trial o...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Nellore Audinarayana Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad278
ORDERBardswell, J.1. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court have found that the Respondent-accused escaped from custody and their findings are warranted by the evidence. The appellate Court however has found that the respondent was not in lawful custody, because there was no order in writing for him to be detained in the custody of the two process peons (P. Ws. 2 and 3). Order 21, Rule 40, Criminal P.C. 1908, however says nothing about the order having to be in writing. The proviso added by the High Court to Order 21, Rule 40(5), Criminal P.C. says that in order to allow the judgment-debtor an opportunity of satisfying the decree, the Court before making the order of committal may leave the judgment-debtor in the custody of an officer of the Court for a period not exceeding ten days. This is what the District Munsif did in this case and his order, noted on the warrant, as to the judgment-debtor's paying detention batta limited the period of such custody to two days. Emperor v. Ma...
K. Ramaswami Naicker and anr. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad105; 140Ind.Cas.458
Pandalai, J.1. This is a petition by the defendants in a suit brought by the Secretary of State in the Court of the District Munsif of Madura in which the petitioners took the preliminary objection that they were public officers within the meaning of Section 80, Civil P.C., and were entitled to notice under that section of the suit but that they had received no such notice and so the suit was incompetent. The District Munsif rejected this contention holding that though the defendants are public officers, the notices marked Exs. A and B were sufficient compliance with the section and also, though rather hesitatingly, that the suit did not embrace official acts and therefore might be maintained even though no notice was sent. It is not necessary to deal with the second half of the above opinion if the Munsif's order can be supported on the first. The defendants are respectively the zamindar of Ammayanaickanur (defendant l) who was himself appointed a receiver to collect the rents and oth...
Rami Reddi Chinna Vobula Reddi Vs. Kethepalli Gurumurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad219
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises in connexion with the execution of a decree against a surety. The surety is the appellant. The question in this second appeal is whether the execution application is barred by limitation. The first Court held that it was barred and in appeal this decision was set aside. The facts briefly are as follows:2. In the course of a suit prior to its termination an order for attachment before judgment of the judgment-debtor's properties was made by the Court. His moveables were attached by the Amin and were by him entrusted to the custody of the appellant who executed a surety bond. After stating that the bond is executed by the surety, the document ends as follows:.The said Amin put me in possession of the said items of property of the value of rupees two hundred and fourteen. I shall therefore produce the said items of property whenever called upon by the Court. If I fail to so produce, I and my heirs shall be bound by such ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›