Chennai Court December 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.
Tanneru Venkayamma Vs. Tanneru Gangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad16
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the widowed daughter-in-law, against defendant 1, her father-in-law, and the other members of the family for a partition and separate possession of her husband's share of the properties specified in Schedules A, B, C and D of the plaint. Defendant 1 had married two wives By his first wife, defendant 6, he had two sons, Sri ramulu and Punnayya. Sriramulu died in 1911. His son is defendant 4. Punmayya died in 1923. His widow is the plaintiff. Defendant 5 is the brother of defendant 6 and brother-in-law of defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the children of defendant 1 by his second wife.2. Schedule A of the plaint comprises properties gifted by defendant 5 under Ex. A to defendant 1, Punnayya, the deceased husband of the plaintiff, and defendant 4, the grandson of defendant 1; B schedule comprises properties that were subsequently acquired by defendant 1; 0 schedule comprises ...
Dharapuram Municipal Council Vs. Sultan Moideen Ansari Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad335
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff, the Municicipal Council of Dharapuram, is the petitioner. The plaintiff's suit was for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 202-2-0 on the ground that the right to remove the rubbish accumulating within the Municipal limits for the year 1927-28 was put up for auction and that it was purchased by the defendant he being the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 225. It was stated that a portion of the amount was paid and the balance is due. Various issues were raised in the case. Issue 1 was:Is the contract on which the suit is based enforceable in view of Section 69, District Municipalities Act?2. The other issues related to the merits of the case. On this preliminary issue the lower Court found that the contract was void and dismissed the suit. In the course of the judgment the learned District Munsif expressed the opinion that the contract being void the plaintiff is not entitled to relief on the basis of quantum meruit. It was urged before him, having regard to t...
N.K.R.M. Rajagopala Chettiar Vs. Hindu Religious Endowment Board and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad555
ORDERCronish, J.1. This revision petition relates to the Sri Rajagopalaswami Temple at Ammayappan in the Tanjore District. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board by an order dated 19th July 1929 declared the temple to be an 'excepted' temple. This it did in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Section 84(1), Religious Endowments Act. 1927, which says that if any dispute arises as to whether a temple is one to which the Act applies or is an excepted temple such dispute shall be decided by the Board.2. Apparently the question of the status of the temple was raised by the present trustee-petitioner for the purpose of getting the decision of the Board. Mr. Rajah Ayyar has taken the point that in the circumstances there was no dispute within the contemplation of Section 84. But it is conceded that the Board can initiate a dispute by challenging the status of a temple and can decide the question against the trustee who asserts that it is not a public temple or that it is an excepted t...
The Indian Bank and the Official Receiver of Madura Vs. Seth Bansiram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad360; 150Ind.Cas.538; (1934)66MLJ532
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Appeal has been filed against the decree in O.S. No. 116 of 1927 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura.2. The Indian Bank, Ltd., Madras, is the appellant in this Court. The appellant was not a party to the suit or to the decree passed in it. A preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal is taken by the respondents that since the appellant was not a party to the suit or decree in the Lower Court, this appeal is incompetent and should be dismissed.3. The 1st plaintiff in the suit is a moneylender. The 2nd plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit properties from him. The defendant is the Official Receiver of Madura. There are no other parties to the suit.4. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs under Order 21, Rule 403, Civil Procedure Code, to declare their title to two items of property and for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from taking possession of them.5. On the 22nd March, 1923,...
In Re: Penumatcha Janakiramaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ653
ORDERHorace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question raised in this Criminal Revision Case is whether an accused person who has been acquitted of an offence under Section 397, Indian Penal Code, can be tried for an offence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, that is to say, whether Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars the trial of the latter offence.2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and 19 others were charged with dacoity and other offences relating thereto. The petitioner was charged on the second count with dacoity using a deadly weapon and attempting to cause the death of one Kesava Rao punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code. The charge runs as follows:That you on or about the 4th June, 1932, committed dacoity of moveables...and at the time of committing the said dacoity you used a deadly weapon, to wit, a loaded revolver and attempted to cause the death of Jupudi Kesava Rao and thereby committed an offence punishable ...
Byya Reddi Vs. T.S. Gopala Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad303; 150Ind.Cas.71; (1934)66MLJ486
Madhavan, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an application for execution made by the appellant. He obtained a decree in O.S. No. 533 of 1921 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Krishnagiri on 5th September, 1922. This decree was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Salem in A. S. No. 275 of 1922 on the 20th April, 1925. The judgment-debtor preferred an appeal against the appellate decree to the High Court. This appeal was filed four days out of time. The High Court in C. M. P. No. 3943 of 1925 refused to excuse the delay in presenting the second appeal. In consequence, the C.M.P. and S.R. (the second appeal sought to be preferred to the High Court) were dismissed on the 5th March, 1926. The decree now sought to be executed is the decree passed on first appeal on 20th April, 1925. The present application to execute that decree was filed on 6th September, 1928, that is after the lapse of more than three years. The respondent, the judgment-de...
Tirunarayana Pillai and anr. Vs. P.R.Y. Manickavachagam Chettiar and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad448; 155Ind.Cas.359
Pandalai, J.1. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the lower Court. On the death of appellant 1 (defendant 1) pending this appeal the other appellant applied to add his legal representative, who opposed the application and stated that he did not wish to continue the appeal. The appellants being co-trustees and the presence of all trustees before the Court being necessary to determine the appeal by the surviving trustee and the questions arising between the trustees and the respondents oestui que trust, we ordered the addition of the legal representative of the deceased defendant 1 as a co-respondent.2. The suit though originally brought by two plaintiffs was afterwards continued as a representative one on behalf of all creditors of defendants 5 to 8 for whose benefit they executed a trust deed Ex.1 dated 19th August 1923 of all their properties mentioned' in the 'Schedules attached thereto constituting defendants 1 to 4 and another, since deceased, trustees to sell and distribute ...
Neelakantan Nambudripad Vs. Anantanarayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad718
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The subject matter of the appeal relates to the value of improvements awarded to defendant 2 by the decree for redemption passed in plaintiff's favour. The appellant, the jenmi, says that with respect to certain of the suit plots the learned Subordinate Judge should not have given any value for improvements, whilst with respect to certain others he says the value awarded should be reduced. The amount awarded by the decree for value of improvements is Rs. 29,193-2-5. The appeal is valued at Rs. 7,906-7-10. The respondent has filed a Memorandum of Objections in which he claims that the lower Court should have awarded him Rs. 6,000 more for the value of improvements. We will deal with the appeal and the Memorandum of Objections together.2. The first item dealt with in the argument of the appellant's counsel is covered by para. 32 of the lower Court's judgment. This relates to the land called Kayyara. The learned Judge has awarded the respondent compensat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›