Chennai Court March 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.
(Manathanath Kolongara Veetil Adambat) Gopalan Nair Vs. Dist. Board of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad704; 145Ind.Cas.476
Walsh, J.1. The defendant in this appeal is a toll-gate contractor. He had rented a toll at Tamarasseri for 1921-22 for a sum of Rs. 7,500. The contract was to run from 1st April 1921 to 31st March 1922. He defaulted in October 1921, owing to the Moplah rebellion. In all he paid for the contract amount Rs. 3,300. The District Board of Malabar (plaintiff) granted a remission of Rs. 2,000. The Board exercised its option of resale which was held on 26th October 1921, but at which there were no bidders. A second sale was held on 10th December 1921. The resale resulted in a loss of Rs. 2,795. Deducting the Rs. 2,000 remitted the Board sued for the balance of Rs. 795 with interest at 'the stipulated rate of 12 per cent.'2. Various contentions were raised of which the only two which arise in second appeal are the questions of limitation and the matter of interest. As regards limitation the trial Court found that the suit which was brought on 12th November 1924 was time-barred and dismissed it...
Manicka Chetty Vs. Narayanasami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad679; 145Ind.Cas.852
1. The petitioner who applied for leave to sue as a pauper has brought a suit to redeem a mortgage (for Rs. 6,000. The mortgage is stated to be a mortgage by conditional sale, and the petitioner is not in possession. In his plaint he alleges that the mortgaged property is worth at least Rs. 12,000. The Subordinate Judge has dismissed the application in the following words:The petitioner cannot redeem except on payment of Rs. 6,000 according to him. If he can find that amount after the decree is passed he can find it now and file the suit after paying court-fee.2. The petitioner in order to bring himself within the explanation of 'pauper' in Order XXXIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, must show that he is not entitled to property worihRs. 100 other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject-matter of the suit. He has at least the equity of redemption which he admits to be worth considerably more than Rs. 103. In Kapil Deo, Singh v. Ram Rikha Singh 8 Ind. Cas. 484 : 33 A 237 : 7 ...
Pottella Ragadu and ors. Vs. Poondla Lakshminarappa Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad502; (1933)65MLJ24
ORDERBurn, J.1. In my opinion the language of Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act (I of 1871) is not wide enough to enable a Magistrate to award pleader's fees to a successful complainant. The Magistrate can award 'reasonable compensation for the loss caused by the seizure or detention' of the cattle. It is obvious that pleader's fees cannot come under this head. He can also award 'all fines paid, expenses incurred by the complainant in procuring the release of the cattle'.2. In this case the expenses of releasing the cattle had all been paid, and the cattle had been released, long before the complainant engaged a pleader or filed his complaint. Therefore the learned Magistrate could not award pleader's fees under this head either. This item is approximately Rs. 63 and I direct that if the compensation has been collected Rs. 9 be refunded to each of the accused from whom the amount of Rs. 12 has been collected....
Kandaswami Goundan (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Venkatarama Goundan and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad774; (1933)65MLJ696
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be briefly stated. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are brothers. Defendants 4 to 7 are the sons of one or other of these three brothers and their rights follow that of their fathers, and it is unnecessary to make any further reference to them. The father of defendants 1 to 3 died in May, 1912. It is the 1st defendant's case that, soon after, the brothers entered into an agreement to refer the disputes relating to their family properties to certain arbitrators. The arbitrators passed an award dated the 30th November, 1912, Ex. 1. Defendants 2 and 3 would not recognise the validity of this award or submit to it on the ground that two of the arbitrators did not act. The 1st defendant thereupon filed an award in Court seeking to make it a rule of Court. This petition was filed as O.S. No. 112 of 1913 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupattur. The plaint is Ex. O. The District Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit or, in ...
(Chivukula) Venkatanarasimham Vs. (Boggavarapu) Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad867; 147Ind.Cas.694
Walsh, J.1. The suit was on a hypothecation deed executed by defendants 1, 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 1 is the father of defendants 2 to 4. Defendant 2 was a minor at the date of the deed. The trial Court passed a decree and defendant 2 appealed, his contention being that his share was not liable. This contention was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge. Hence the second appeal. The deed in question was taken for Rs. 600 to discharge miscellaneous debts incurred for the marriage of defendant 4 and for the expenses of the joint family. Defendant 1 in his written statement admitted that the loan was for the above purposes but examined as D.W. 1 he threw over his written statement and his evidence has been rightly disregarded by both the Courts. The plaintiff himself gave evidence and also examined other witnesses to show the circumstances under which he lent the money and that he made reasonable inquiries. Defendant 1 tried to make out that the marriage was twelv...
Appavoo Asary Vs. Sornammal Fernandez and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad821; (1933)65MLJ734
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The appellant brought the suit for payment for work done by him for the 1st defendant's deceased husband Cruz Machado who was a merchant in Tuticorin. His case was that he was engaged by the 1st defendant's husband to work in his salt pans and on some schooners, a bungalow, sheds, etc., and that he had settled accounts with Machado up to August, 1917. Further dealings began on the 10th of February, 1918 and went on during the lifetime of Cruz Machado who died some time in July, 1922. The plaintiff then approached the 1st defendant, his widow, who asked him to go on with the work and he did so till the 7th of March, 1923. There was a settlement of accounts between himself and the 1st defendant attempted by P. Ws. 2 and 3 from which nothing resulted. Consequently the suit was launched for the recovery of the amount due to the plaintiff and Rs. 2,736-4-11 was claimed as due.2. The trial began on the 15th April, 1926, and was transferred to the Court of the District Mu...
(Baghvatham) Mahadeva Sastrigal Vs. Kariyakara Marulai Reddiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad874
Walsh, J.1. Defendant 6 is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 614 alleged to be due on a mortgage, Ex. A, dated 18th February 1910, executed by defendant 1, in favour of plaintiff 1, plaintiff 2's father and defendant 7. Defendants 2 to 5 are the sons of defendant 1. Defendant 6 is a subsequent mortgagee under the mortgage, Ex. 2, dated 4th January 1918. He was the only contesting defendant. He had brought a suit on his mortgage. In that suit in execution he purchased the mortgaged property in Court-auction. His defence in the present suit is that the mortgage Ex. A had been discharged by the mortgage, Ex. 1, dated 28th August 1913, which he had himself paid off when he took his own mortgage, Ex. 2, and that the plaintiff and defendant 1 are colluding in this suit. A question as regards non-joinder of parties was also raised. The suit bond being dated 18th February 1910, and the suit having been brought on 27th August 1925, the claim was prim...
Pasumarthi Subbaraya Sastri Vs. Mukkamala Seetha Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad664; (1933)65MLJ290
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff brought the suit to eject the defendant from a site and to remove a pial erected by him thereon. The plea of the defendant was that the land belonged to the Municipal Council, that he put up a pial with its permission and that the Municipal Council was a necessary party to the suit. This latter point was raised as issue No. 3 and the objection was repeated in appeal. With regard to issue 3 the trial Court said:According to the plaint allegations, plaintiff exclusively claimed the suit lane as his property. So it is unnecessary for him to implead third party on the contentions raised by the defendant.2. In respect of this its judgment reads throughout as if it were a decision between the plaintiff and the Municipality. The District Munsif says in para. 6:I am constrained in this state of evidence as observed (sic) that plaintiff had made out a better title to the suit lane than the Municipality,and later on in the same paragraphAs already observed ther...
Alluri Suranna and ors. Vs. Chedalavadu Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad871; 147Ind.Cas.680; (1933)65MLJ769
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The 6th defendant and representatives of the deceased 5th defendant, hereinafter referred to as defendants 5 and 6 and persons claiming under them are the appellants. The suit was brought for partition and separate possession of one-fourth share of a plot of land described as pati site and said to be roughly 11,000 and odd square yards in extent, which had been the property of a family of Zamindars of which the surviving representatives are defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 and of whom, according to the plaintiff's case, the 1st defendant was entitled to one-half of the property, the 2nd defendant to one-fourth and defendants 3 and 4 to the other one-fourth. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the share of the defendants 3 and 4 from their father by a sale deed of 1901.2. The defendants 5 and 6, who were the principal contesting defendants, contended that the defendants 3 and 4 were not entitled to any share of the property at all but that the 1st defendant was entit...
(Delhi) Venkatarama Doss Pantulu Vs. (Delhi) Bheema Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad103
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree in favour of the respondent, an insane person, and his elder brother, who acted as his next friend as well, and the sola Question for determination is whether the application is barred by limitation' The prior application by the wife of the insane respondent for removal of the next friend and permission to execute the decree on behalf of her husband cannot be deemed to be an application for execution in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182, Lim. Act, nor was it pressed finally. The original next friend continued to represent the respondent and a batta memo filed in such an application can hardly furnish a fresh starting point o limitation. The question thus depends upon whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit o Section 7, Lim. Act, and whether or not by reason of the decree being on a joint promissory note in favour of the brothers, and the next friend being the elder broth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »