Chennai Court July 1933 Judgments
Gujjula Narasimhulu Vs. Nagur Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad95; 147Ind.Cas.553; (1934)66MLJ31
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. These are two connected petitions filed by the complainants against the orders of acquittal passed in two cases by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Badvel in Cuddappah District. The two complainants were re-building their houses which abut a public street in the aforesaid village. A portion of the superstructure was alleged to be an encroachment on a portion of the public street and the accused in these two cases are said to have gathered there for the purpose of abating what they considered to be a public nuisance and demolished a portion of the terrace and the walls which stood on the encroached portion. The Magistrate who tried the case framed charges against the accused under Sections 147 and 427, Indian Penal Code, and in one case there was an additional charge under Section 114. According to the facts found by the Magistrate, the portions of the building demolished by the accused would be an encroachment on part of the public path and the respondents we...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Subramania Pandara Sannadhi (Managing Truste ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad398; 147Ind.Cas.1226; (1934)66MLJ179
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. It is not denied that a pandal was erected without obtaining a licence from the President of the Panchayat Board nor was it seriously disputed that a licence would be necessary if the street in question is a public street vested in the Board. It is the doing of the act without a licence that is made punishable by Section 219, Clause (b) of the Madras Local Boards Act and it is immaterial whether or not the act, viz., the erection of the pandal, caused any inconvenience or obstruction to the public. The pandal in question would also be a projection over the street for which too a licence is necessary and considering that it is the act itself that is made punishable under Section 219, Clause (b) of the Madras Local Boards Act, a notice to remove the pandal cannot possibly be a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution. The section too does not make it a condition precedent to the institution of the prosecution, and notices were in fact given to the acc...
Tag this Judgment!Vijyalakshmi Ammal Vs. K.R. Srinivasa Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ35
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The petitioner in this case filed a suit to recover possession of certain immoveable properties. The suit was valued at Rs. 1,000 and a Court-fee of Rs. 112-7-0 was paid thereon. The defendants contested that the market value of the properties was Rs. 4,000 and that the plaintiff has to pay an additional Court-fee. On an issue being raised as to the Court-fee payable the Court found that the correct fee was to be calculated on ten times the kist, i.e., Rs. 125, and that the Court-fee payable was Rs. 14-9-0. It decreed the suit but in awarding costs only ordered a sum of Rs. 14-9-0 to be paid for stamp fee. Petitioner then applied for a certificate for refund of the excess Court-fee paid but the Court refused the application and this Revision Petition is filed against that order.2. It appears to be well settled that the Court has the power under Section 151 to grant a certificate in cases not covered by Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Court-Fees Act. It does not appea...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmanan Chettiar, Minor by His Mother and Next Friend Lakshmi Achi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad787; 145Ind.Cas.946; (1933)65MLJ526
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder. The decree in this case arises out of a suit for dissolution of a partnership and for accounts and other incidental reliefs. In the final decree that was passed in this suit, a decree was given in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 4,284-12-11 against defendants 1 to 3 in excess of the amount claimed in the plaint for which court-fee was already paid. According to the provisions of Section 11 of the Court Fees Act, the decree for the excess amount shall not be executed until the additional court-fee is actually paid. This is a mandatory provision which the executing Court is to carry out when the decree-holder applies for the recovery of such excess amount by way of execution of the decree. In the final decree that was passed in this suit there is a direction that 'On payment of the additional court-fee the plaintiff do recover the sum of Rs. 4,284-12-11, the excess amount decreed.' ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee Vs. Neelambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad920; 147Ind.Cas.417; (1933)65MLJ798
Reilly, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of Stone, J. in an insolvency matter. On the application of some creditors, three brothers, Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar, were adjudged insolvents by this Court in February, 1929. They were described in the order as 'of C. K. Narayana Ayyar & Sons'. The petitioning creditors did not mention, and the learned Judge who made the adjudication order was obviously unaware, that Ramanatha Ayyar had died five years earlier. There is no suggestion that any application was made to the Court for the administration of his estate under Section 108 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Ramanatha Ayyar had left a minor son, Subrahmanya Ayyar. In May, 1929, the minor's mother, Meenakshi Ammal, sent a notice to the Official Assignee that Ramanatha Ayyar, Sundaresa Ayyar and Viswanatha Ayyar had carried on business not as members of a joint family, but as partners under a partnership deed of the 26th May, 1913, that the minor...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Venkatachari Vs. Karruppan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad256
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Defendant 5 is the appellant. His mortgage is evidenced by Ex. 1 which was executed in the year 1923. In that mortgage deed, there is an undertaking for the discharge of a still prior mortgage (Ex. B) for Rs. 500 held by one Murugesa Mudaliar. Defendant 5 made default in the discharge of that mortgage debt and thereupon the mortgagors executed another mortgage in favour of one Alagiriswami Chetty for Rs. 700 in 1924 which is evidenced by Ex. A. A portion of the consideration for this mortgage, viz., a sum of Rs. 560 was paid by Alagiriswami in discharge of the mortgage debt due under Ex. B. Subsequently in 1927 the same property was mortgaged to the plaintiff for rupees 1,000 under Ex. C. A sum of Rs. 700 out of this consideration was paid in discharge of the mortgage debt due under Ex. A. In the present suit brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of the amount due to him under Ex. C, defendant claims priority. To his claim the plaintiff sets up a counter by re...
Tag this Judgment!M.P. Venkatachari Vs. Karuppan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.1126
1. The 5th defendant is the appellant. His mortgage is evidenced by Ex. 1 which was executed in the year 1923. In that mortgage deed, there is: an undertaking for the discharge, of a still prior mortgage (Ex. B) for Rs. 500, held by one Murugesa Mudaliar. The 5th defendant made default in the discharge of that mortgage debt and thereupon the mortgagors executed another mortgage in favour of one Alagirisami Chetti for Rs. 700 in 1924, which is evidenced by (Ex. A). A portion of the consideration fortius mortgage, viz., a sum of Rs. 560, was paid by Alagirisami in discharge of the mortgage debt due under Ex. B. Subsequently in 1927, the same property was mortgaged to the plaintiff for Rs. 1,000 under Ex. C.A. sum of Rs. 700, out of this consideration was paid in discharge of the mortgage debt due under Ex. A. In the present suit brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of the amount due to him under Ex. C. the 5th defendant claims priority. To his claim, the plaintiff sets up a counter ...
Tag this Judgment!Nakur Mira Rowther Vs. Muhammad Ismail and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad797; 145Ind.Cas.974; (1933)65MLJ682
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The finding of the lower appellate Court that no fraud has been made out is a finding of fact, and no grounds have been shown why I should interfere with it in second appeal.2. Mr. R. Somasundaram Aiyar for the appellant, however, raises another point. The Court allowed execution on the application of the 4th November, 1919, and the learned Counsel's argument is, that before ordering execution, the Judge should have directed notice to issue under Order 21, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code. It is contended that for want oft such notice, the order allowing execution is invalid and that the proceedings that followed thereupon are void and of no effect. The soundness of this contention depends upon whether the previous application, dated 12th September, 1919, was a petition for execution or not. The learned Counsel's argument is that it was not such a petition. I cannot agree with this. That was an application by the 1st defendant for his being recognised as assignee de...
Tag this Judgment!(Lambu) Krishnavenamma Vs. (Niriki) Hanumantha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad860
Pandalai, J.1. The appellant was plaintiff 2 in the lower Court. The suit was orginally brought by plaintiff 1; a minor who was alleged to have been adopted by the present appellant, who was impleaded as defendant 2. The original plaintiff having died, defendant 2 was transposed as plaintiff 2 and has now become, on the dismissal of the suit the appellant. The suit was brought for the recovery of certain properties which admittedly belonged to the father of the appellant, one Subba Rao, He had a son by name Hanumantha Rao who however predeceased him. Subba Rao was, it appears, for several years before his death insane and on his death sonless in 1908 the appellant, his daughter, became his heir. On 17th January 1912 she executed Ex. 1 to defendant ], the deceased predecessor of respondents 1 to 3, releasing all her then, rights to defendant 1 described therein as the gnati (reversioner) and agreeing; to accept from him a maintenance for her lifetime of Rs. 5 a month. The appellant was ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›