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.
Govinda Padayachi Vs. Velu Murugayya Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad399; (1933)64MLJ586
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. In this case the auction purchaser is the Appellant. He got a decree which on the date of sale amounted to Rs. 2,127 odd. The judgment-debtor was an undivided member of a joint Hindu family entitled to an undivided one-fifth share in the family property. At the request of the appellant the property which was the total property of the family was divided into two lots for sale.2. The Court had given standing instructions that in Court sales no bid was to be finally accepted before the Court had sanctioned it. The District Munsif had also informed the Deputy Nazir, who conducted the sale, that in this sale he should not sell more than would realize the decree amount. The first lot was valued at about Rs. 940. It had a usufructuary mortgage on it for Rs. 400.3. It was put up for sale first and the decree-holder purchased it for Rs. 950. Then the second lot was put up and he purchased this for Rs. 2,275. When the Dy. Nazir brought the papers to the Court in the evening ...
Jamunadas Ravujisait Vs. Puthanmarakar Kandiyil Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.1004
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 second 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 April 3, 1922, for attachment of (movables. 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 hairs in succession, would be liable for all the loss that may be sustained thereby and for any amount that may be directed by the court.3. In a bond of ...
In Re: Ponnusami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1933
Reported in: (1933)64MLJ519
ORDERBurn, J.1. The point raised in this case is whether a statement made by a witness to the Police in an investigation under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, can be filed, or exhibited, or, in short, used, when the witness is under examination in an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to show that while giving evidence the witness has made assertions which he did not make when he was examined by the Police.2. Statements recorded under S'. 162, Criminal Procedure Code, can be used at a subsequent inquiry or trial for one purpose only, to contradict the witness. If they are to be used for this purpose the statements made under Section 162 must be duly proved, and used in the manner laid down in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It follows, of course, that unless there is a contradiction between the statement recorded under Section 162 and the statement made by the witness in the course of his deposition, the statement recorded under Section 162 canno...
Ponnusami Chetty Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1933
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.424
ORDERBurn, J.1. The point, raised in this case is whether a statement, made by a witness to the Police in an investigation under Section criminal Procedure Code, can be filed, or exhibited, or in short, used, when the witness is under examination in an inquiry under Chap. XVIII of the Criminal! Procedure Code, in order to show that while giving evidence the witness has made assertions which he did not make when he was examined by the Police.2. Statements recorded under Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, can be used at a subsequent inquiry or trial for one purpose only, to contradict the witness. If they are to be used for this purpose the statements made under Section 162 must be duly proved, and used in the manner laid down in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It follows of course that unless there is a contradiction between the statement recorded under Section 162 and the statement made by the witness in the course of his deposition, the statement recorded under Section 162 cannot ...
Sri Chidambara Sivaprakasa Pandara Sannadhi Avergal Vs. Manickam Pilla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad481; (1933)64MLJ577
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for the recovery of possession of the plaint-mentioned manai together with arrears of rent from the defendants to whose ancestor this site was granted by the plaintiff under a registered lease deed, Ex. A, dated the 3rd July, 1891. The appellant's case is that he is the head of Sivaprakasa Swamigal Mutt, that the suit property which is situated in Madappuram village belongs to the aforesaid Mutt and that it was leased out to the father of defendants 1 to 3 who took it for erecting a house upon it for his occupation. The plaintiff's claim was resisted by the defendants on several grounds. It was urged that the lease granted by the plaintiff was a permanent lease, that no default was made in the payment of rent, that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation and that in case of eviction a sum of Rs. 1,000 should be paid as compensation for the house built on the s...
G. Kuppuswamy Chetty Vs. Pahkiri Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad342
Walsh, J.1. In this case the properties of a judgment-debtor were attached and the respondents' sureties executed a bond for the production of the articles. The petitioner applied for the arrest of these persons on the ground that they did not produce the articles. The lower Court dismissed the petition mainly on two grounds: firstly that the bonds were defective as the list of articles attached had not been initialed by the parties on each page, and secondly that there must be a notice to the sureties to produce the articles for any valid order of execution to be taken against them and there was no such notice in the case of the first surety. The matter was taken in appeal to the District Court, which found that the appeal did not lie and that finding is not contested before me. The learned District Judge remarked however thathe was not at all satisfied with the manner in which the lower Court dismissed the execution petition on the merits. The surety bond is not incomplete in law by ...
Ravella Krishnamurthy Vs. Yarlagadda Pitchayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad485
Walsh, J.1. One Ramaswami Mudali had married two wives. He divided with his sons by the first wife one of whom was a minor. This minor son was given his share with his father as guardian. Ramaswami Mudali went to Masulipatam for treatment and there made a will bequeathing his property to this minor son by his first wife. It is then said that seeing that his second wife was pregnant he executed a codicil bequeathing his property to his second wife and the unborn child. After his death the will was presented for registration. The codicil was disputed by his first wife and her sons and registration was refused. The second wife brought a suit under Section 77, Registration Act, to have the codicil registered. The Subordinate Judge directed registration of the codicil and on this an appeal was taken to the High Court. (A.S. No. 415 of 1924). After the death of Ramaswami Mudali his minor son by his first wife brought suits on two promissory notes executed by third parties in favour of Ramasw...
S.V.R. Rm. Ramaswami Chetty Vs. S.P.S.S. Palaniappa Chetty (Deaceased) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad675; 145Ind.Cas.933; (1933)65MLJ271
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This appeal concerns the question as to whether an execution petition filed on 15th December, 1923, is time barred or not. The facts are fully stated in the order of the lower appellate Court and the question of limitation turns on two points:(1) Was the application of the decree-holder's pleader on 16th December, 1920, for time to put in an application for substituted service a step-in-aid of the execution petition then pending, E.P. No. 1006 of 1920?(2) Had that petition been improperly dismissed on 23rd December, 1920, and was it therefore to be regarded as still pending when the present execution petition was put in on 15th December, 1923?2. The learned District Judge with some hesitation finds the first point in the decree-holder's favour but thinks that the second, which he finds in the affirmative, is a stronger ground. Against his finding that the execution petition is not time barred this appeal is filed.3. The decree was a mortgage one for sale. The decre...
Sri Sri Sri Ramachandra Deo, Maharaja of Jeypore (Dead) and ors. Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad925; (1933)65MLJ684
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The Plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Plaintiff, the Maharaja of Jeypore, in the Court of the Agency Additional District Judge of Waltair for kattubadi for the years ending 30th June, 1918, 30th June, 1919 and 30th June, 1920. The suit is directed against the mokasadars of the Pachipenta Estate and the usufructuary mortgagees from the mokasadars of a portion of the suit mokasa. These usufructuary mortgagees are defendants 12 to 21. These defendants contended that as being mortgagees from the mokasadars there was no privity of contract between them and the Plaintiff and that therefore they were not liable for rent payable by the mortgagors. Plaintiff pleaded that these defendants are estopped by the decrees in O.S. No. 18 of 1913 on the file of the Special Assistant Agent, Koraput and in A.S. No. 3 of 1916 on the file of the Agent to the Governor, Vizagapatam, from questioning the Plaintiff's right to obtain kattubadi from...
Kanteti Rama Krishnayya and ors. Vs. Neti Venkata Somayajulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad31a
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. It is sufficient for the present purpose to refer to the terms of the mortgage-deed, dated 23rd November 1911 (Ex. B). By that deed, defendant 1 agrees to repay the sum lent, namely Rs. 5,000, with simple interest at Rs. 1-0-3 per cent per month by 23rd November 1912, (that is, one year), and in default to pay the said amount with compound interest at the enhanced rate of Rs. 1.2-3 per cent per month with annual rests. It is common ground that a stipulation for the payment of compound interest at a rate higher than that of simple interest is a penalty within the meaning of Section 74, Contract Act, and can be relieved against. But the question that has been debated is, What is the extent of the relief that can be granted? It is contended for the plaintiff, that this stipulation consists of two separate and severable parts, one of which is not penal; but that the joining of the two makes it a penalty. The argument is put thus: A stipulation to pay compound in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »