Chennai Court January 1933 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.
Pedda Venkatapathi Vs. Ganagunta Balappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad429; (1933)65MLJ146
Curgenven, J.1. The 1st plaintiff appeals against the dismissal of his suit filed for damages for malicious prosecution against the 1st defendant, now respondent, and two others. The case arose out of a disturbance which took place on the 12th September, 1922, at Malayavantham village, Dharmavaram Taluk, Anantapur Distinct. Consequent upon that disturbance the 1st defendant filed a complaint, Ex. V, before the Police on the 13th September. The purport of that complaint was that the village Madigas were holding a festival on that evening and that in consequence of certain conduct of the complainant's which had caused annoyance to them they came in a body to his house and made trouble there. The 1st plaintiff is himself the son-in-law of the 1st defendant and, it was alleged, identified himself with the action of the Madigas and while the disturbance was proceeding fired a shot with a revolver which injured one Venkataramappa, examined in the present case as D.W. 3. Accordingly the 1st p...
M. Savudi Karuppanan Ambalam Vs. Guruswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ431
ORDERBurn, J.1. These cases are precisely similar. The Sub-Magistrate found that the Petitioner (the accused in both cases) was not guilty of the offence of theft or of dishonestly receiving stolen property (Section 379 or 411, Indian Penal Code). He found in fact that the Petitioner had purchased both the bulls for fair prices and without any reason to suppose them to be stolen property. Nevertheless he ordered the bulls to be returned to Meenammal and Pandia Muppan whom after enquiring he considered to be the owners. He was satisfied, he says, that the bulls had been stolen though he does not say whence, by whom or when.2. The general rule in such cases is that where a person accused of theft is acquitted and claims as his own the property seized from him by the Police and alleged to have been stolen, it should be restored to him in the absence of special reasons to the contrary. This is the principle generally recognised in this Court (vide Vaiyapuri Chetty v. Sinniah Chetty : AIR19...
(Bala) Venkatarama Chetty Vs. Angathayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad471
Walsh, J.1. The appellant is a creditor of an insolvent. The Official Receiver brought the property of the insolvent to sale and the insolvent's wife (respondent l) claimed a certain share in the house. The documents relating to this house show that the insolvent's father Krishna Chetty sold it under Ex. P on 26th February 1912 to one Tirumalammal, his sister. Krishna Chetty had three sons one of whom was the insolvent. The others were Ramaswamy Chetty and Kandaswami Chetty. These latter two sons distinctly state in the sale-deed that the house was the self-acquired property of their father in which they had been jointly living and which they had been enjoying. On 29th November 1913 there was a deed of partition, Ex. E, between the father Krishna Chetty and the two brothers of the insolvent Ramaswami Chetty and Kandaswami Chetty. The insolvent does not appear there. There is a statement in the deed that the persons dividing possess no immovable property. On the same day Tirumalammal re...
(Kompalli) Chenchuramayya and ors. Vs. Dama Venkatasubbayya Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad655
Curgenven, J.1. The appeal is by the defendants (except the 7th) against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor declaring the plaintiff's title to the plots marked J and P in the plaintiff's plan and directing formal delivery coupled with an injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the land. There are three contiguous villages, of which Panguru and Jangalapalli are the property of the plaintiff while the third Krishnampalli Agraharam, belongs to the defendants, who are the joint Agraharamdars. These villages have never been surveyed, which adds considerably to the difficulty of locating and identifying any piece of land within them. The plots in dispute are two blocks of forest land, block P being situated according to the plaintiff in Panguru and block J in Jangalapalli, while the defendants assert that they are comprised within the limits of their own village Krishnampalli. Each side has filed a plan in support of its allegations and these plans are considera...
Bala Venkatarama Chetty Vs. Angathayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.204
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The appellant is a creditor of an insolvent. The Official Receiver brought the property of the insolvent to sale and the insolvent's wife (1st respondent) claimed a certain share in the house. The documents relating to this house show that the insolvent's father Krishna Chetty sold it under Ex. F on February 26, 1912, to one Tirumalamma his sister. Krishna Chetty had three sons one of whom was the insolvent. The others were Ramaswamy Chetty and Kandaswami Chetty. These latter two sons distinctly state in the sale deed that the house was the self-acquired property of their father in which they had been jointly living and which they had been enjoying. On November 29, 1913, there was a deed of partition, Ex. E between the father Krishna Chetty and the two brothers of the insolvent Rama-swami Chetty and Kandaswami Chetty. The insolvent does not appear there. There is a statement in the deed that the persons dividing possess no immovable property. On the same day Tiruma...
Sountharapandian Aiyangar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Periaveeru thevan an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad550; 145Ind.Cas.534; (1933)65MLJ58
Ramesam, J.1. The facts of the case are simple. One Pandi Aiyangar died in 1890 leaving his widow Pichai Ammal and daughter Kothai Animal. Kothai Ammal was married to one Doraiswami Aiyangar. She pre-deceased her mother in 1900 leaving a male child who died shortly after. Pichai Ammal died in 1923. Meanwhile, on the 26th May, 1910, Doraiswami Aiyangar adopted the 2nd defendant Alwar Aiyangar. The 2nd defendant claims to succeed to the property of Pandi Aiyangar on the death of Pichai Ammal on the ground of his being related as daughter's son to Pandi Aiyangar by reason of his adoption. The plaintiffs are persons who would be reversioners to the estate of Pandi Aiyangar if the 2nd defendant cannot claim by reason of his adoption. Both the lower Courts found in favour of the adoption and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. When the case came on before our learned brother Sundaram Chetty, J., he referred the case to a Bench of two Judges noting that the decision in Sundaramma v. Venkatasubba ...
Subbiah Pillai Vs. Muthiah Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad657; (1933)65MLJ302
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the only point arising for consideration is upon a construction of Ex. A. This was a security bond executed by the 1st defendant in the suit who was a subscriber in the chit fund in favour of the stake-holder giving security for the amount of the instalments engaging to pay the sums as and when they fell due regularly. This chit was to run throughout sixteen half-yearly instalments. The 1st defendant was apparently the holder of half a chit and his subscription, half-yearly, was Rs. 125. He bought the chit at the very first auction and became entitled to Rs. 2,000. From this amount of Rs. 2,000 there was deducted Rs. 125, being the first subscription payable by him. That left a total amount of Rs. 1,875. In accordance with the rules of the chit, having bought the chit and received payment of the amount due to him the 1st defendant had to execute a security bond in favour of the stake-holder and as the learned Judge ...
The National Indian Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Represented by J.A.N. Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad680; 147Ind.Cas.458; (1933)65MLJ324
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. A question of some interest has been raised in this appeal. The Lower Courts have held that no forfeiture was incurred and in my opinion rightly.2. It is unnecessary to quote the relevant clauses of the policy, which have been set forth in the careful and well-considered judgment of the learned District Munsif. The short point in the case is, what is the true construction of the words 'sufficient to pay at least one year's premium'? Before attempting to construe these words, I shall briefly state the facts. The year with which we are concerned, is 2nd April, 1920 to 1st April, 1921. The annual premium was Rs. 150-12-0, payable in four quarterly instalments. Three instalments amounting to Rs. 113-1-0 were duly paid, and the fourth instalment, which amounts to Rs. 37-11-0, became payable on 2nd January, 1921. The default that occurred was in respect of that instalment. The point to decide is, whether that default led to a forfeiture of the policy. The material port...
Jamundas Ravuji Sait Vs. Puthan Marakar Kandiyil Krishnan (Deceased) a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad722; (1933)65MLJ507
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of South Malabar confirming an order of the District Munsif, Calicut, dismissing E.P. No. 3100 of 1926, to issue a warrant of arrest against one Baputti (the respondent) who stood as 2nd surety for the production of certain articles attached in execution of a decree obtained in O.S. No. 417 of 1921.2. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the District Munsif. Those which are relevant to the appeal are that the decree-holder (appellant) put in E. P. No. 614 of 1922, on 3rd April, 1922, for attachment of moveables. They were left in the possession of this Baputti and another who executed a bond for their production. The material terms of the bond run:Agreeing that if any default is made in respect of the said properties,, ourselves, the properties belonging to us, and our heirs in succession, would be liable for all the loss that may be sustained thereby, and for any amount that may be directed by the ...
Panaganti Rama Rayanimgar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Umade Rajaha Raje Damara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad1; (1934)66MLJ4
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The legal representative of the deceased 1st defendant is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff in the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff is the Raja of Kalahasti. In O.S. No. 22 of 1908 on the file of the District Court of North Arcot, the 2nd defendant, the brother of the 1st defendant, obtained on 29th March, 1909, a money decree for Rs. 81,548-5-4 (Ex. A) against the predecessor of the present plaintiff who was sued as the legal representative of the previous Zemindar. Against this decree the judgment-debtor filed A.S. No. 93 of 1909 to the High Court; and applied for stay of execution of the decree pending disposal of the appeal. Execution was stayed on the applicant undertaking to furnish security for the performance of any decree that may be passed in the appeal. Ex. B is the security bond. Under it, 70 villages attached to the Kalahasti Taluk in the North Arcot District, subject to certain encumbrances, were furnis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »