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.
Rudrappa Nayak and ors. Vs. Dasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad610
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiffs as representing the villagers of Kalingapatti brought a suit for a declaration that the plaint property, Survey No. 225 measuring 96 cents, and Survey No. 1690 measuring 3.83 acres, have been set apart for communal purposes from time immemorial and that the Secretary of State (defendant 3) had no right to assign portions of the above survey numbers to defendants 1 and 2. These two survey numbers are both registered as cattle-stand in the re-settlement registers. Both the Courts found, as a matter of fact, that Survey No. 225 is not being used for this purpose but is used for other purposes and that of the 3 acres 83 cents of which Survey No. 1690 consists, only portions are used as cattle-stand and that 59 cents assigned in that number are not being so used. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court and the decree was confirmed in the lower appellate Court. Against this the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.2. The registration of the land as cattle...
Nagar Damodara Shanbhogue Vs. Chandapur Pujary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.1029
1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,065-9-11 by sale of the mortgaged properties on the strength of a usufructuary mortgage deed, Ex. A, which according to the plaintiff's contention contains a personal covenant to pay, whereby he is enabled to sue for the sale of the mortgaged properties though the mortgage deed is styled as a usufructuary mortgage. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit by reason of his findings on issues Nos. 3 and 4. On a construction of the terms of the mortgage deed, he has held that there was no personal convenant to pay the mortgage amount and the suit for sale of the mortgaged properties is not therefore maintainable. This is the main question argued in this appeal. The suit mortgage deed Ex. A. is an unduly long document and a full translation of it is given in the judgment of the lower Court. For the purpose of deciding the point at issue, the following extract from the document would suffice:As we represented...
Subba Naicker Vs. Solaippa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad624; 147Ind.Cas.479; (1933)65MLJ279
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This suit was brought on a mortgage dated 10th August, 1917, by the plaintiff as assignee from the mortgagee, the 6th defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 are the mortgagors. The 4th defendant since deceased was the father of the mortgagee and the 5th defendant is the son-in-law of the 4th defendant. The questions in dispute in this case arose from an order by the District Judge of Tinnevelly adjudging the 6th defendant a lunatic by an interim order dated 28th October, 1919, which was confirmed after security given on 16th January, 1920, by which the 4th defendant, his father, was appointed guardian of the person and manager of the property of the 6th defendant. The assignment by the 6th defendant of the mortgage was dated 11th June, 1923, i.e., some three and a half years after the order in lunacy and while it was still in force. The 6th defendant soon after the assignment, i.e., on 17th July, 1923, applied to have the order against himself set aside and it was set asi...
The Municipal Council Vs. D. Krishnamacharya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad135; (1934)66MLJ409
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This petition arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent for recovery of 90 per cent, of the price paid by his father for a house site purchased by him from the Municipal Council of Kumbakonam under Ex. A, the sale deed dated 12th April, 1921, and the undisputed facts are that on the application of the vendee and others, the petitioner approached the Government for the acquisition of some land for the extension of house sites at the cost of the applicants. The scheme was sanctioned by Government and the land was acquired subsequently. It Was divided into house sites and one of them was allotted to the vendee under Ex. A for constructing a house in a manner to be approved by the Municipal Council. The allotment was subject to the condition that the vendee should always conform to and carry out the terms and conditions specified in the sale deed and abide by the consequences which non-conformance to or breach of any of those terms and conditions may entail as s...
Kavena Nagutha Mohamed Naina Maracair Vs. Ahana Bava Sahib Maracair
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ56
Burn, J.1. With all respect I find myself unable to agree with the opinion of Wallace, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1932 on the file of the High Court that a Magistrate purporting to act under Section 19 of the Fugitive Offenders Act can make an order of discharge on any other grounds than those indicated in the section. It appears clear to me that Magistrates to whom prisoners are brought under Section 14 are not entitled to decide whether the issue of the warrant for the apprehension of the prisoner was or was not justifiable on the evidence. They can only act under Section 19 if the case appears to be trivial or if the Magistrate considers the application not made bona fide, not made in the interests of public justice or for some other reason of that kind.2. In the present case it is not contended that the case is trivial. It is contended that the application is not made bona fide but to spite the Appellant. I cannot say that that has been satisfactorily established.3. This app...
The Imperial Bank of India Vs. S. Krishnamurthi Alias Adikesavalu Naid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad628; (1933)65MLJ471
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Imperial Bank of India, the 2nd defendant in the suit. The facts out of which the suit and this appeal arise are as follows. The plaintiff is the son of one Sanjeevi Rangiah Naidu, who, on the 14th December, 1913, made a will bequeathing to the plaintiff, his younger son, the sum of Rs. 3,121-10-3 which had been deposited by him in the appellant Bank in fixed deposit, dated the 24th July, 1913. In this will the testator appointed Chellammal, his sister and R. Lakshmiah Naidu, his brother-in-law, and the plaintiff's maternal uncle the guardians of the plaintiff. It was further provided that these two guardians were to receive the accrued interest earned by the sum of money in fixed deposit already referred to once a year for the maintenance and education of the plaintiff till he attained majority when he would be entitled to receive the whole amount on fixed deposit from the Bank. The plaintiff's father died on the 20th J...
(Gollapudi) Venkatachalapathi Rao Vs. Adusumilli Gopala Krishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad46; 147Ind.Cas.756
Pandalai, J.1. These appeals arise from Suits brought for recovery of kattubadi by a zamindar against a mokasadar. The several points in dispute between the parties are succinctly set forth by the learned Subordinate Judge in his clear judgment. There are eight points and though the learned advocate for the appellant did not abandon any of them, he has really stressed only two. Of the rest it is sufficient to say that I agree with the learned Judge in his conclusions. The two matters pressed By the appellant are: (1) that the subsequent suit, the subject-matter of Second Appeal No. 1027 of 1931, was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, because it was brought on the same cause of action as the earlier suit, the subject matter of Second Appeal No, 1028 of 1931; and (2) that the plaintiff is entitled to kattubadi only for half the area of the mokhasa because the Government had enfranchised the other half.2. As for the argument based upon Order 2, Rule 2, the learned Subordinate Judge relying on ...
Gollapudi Venkatachalapathi Rao Vs. Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.756
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. These appeals arise from sails brought for recovery of kattubadi by a zemindar against a mokhasadar. The several points in dispute between the parties are succinctly set forth by the learned Subordinate Judge in his clear judgment. There are eight points and though the learned Advocate for the appellant did not abandon any of them, he has really stressed only two. Of the rest it is sufficient to say that I agree with the learned Judge in his conclusions.2. The two matters pressed by the appellant are (1) that the subsequent suit, the sub feet-matter of Second Appeal No. 1027 of 1931, was barred under Order II, Rule 2, because it was brought on the same cause of action as the earlier suit, the subject-matter of Second Appeal No. 1028 of 1931 and (2) that the plaintiff is entitled to kattubadi only for half the area of the mokhasa because the Government had enfranchised the other half.3. As for the argument based upon Order II Rule 2, the learned Subordinate Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›