Chennai Court September 1933 Judgments
Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada by Its Manager R.J. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad264; (1934)66MLJ667
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises was properly instituted by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff is a widow. In 1906 her husband insured his life for the benefit of his wife for a sum of Rs. 2,000 with the New York Life Insurance Company whose office was situate in Calcutta. The business of the New York Life Insurance Company in India has since been taken over by the defendants, the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. The plaintiff's husband obtained a loan of Rs. 600 from the defendants and in 1926' he surrendered his policy receiving a sum of Rs. 700 and odd exercising an option reserved in his favour in the policy. In 1929 the plaintiff's husband died. She now claims to recover the money under the Indian Married Women's Property Act (Act III of 1874) on the ground that under Section 6 of the Act a trust has been created in her favour. In the present suit she asks for a de...
Tag this Judgment!Subbaya Naicker and ors. Vs. Sankarappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1933
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.26; (1934)66MLJ175
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration and injunction and in the alternative for the recovery of possession of certain land in the village of Panthapuli in the Sivagiri Zamindari. The Plaintiff claims the suit land on patta from the Zamindar who is the 9th Defendant. In the alternative he claims a refund of Rs. 300 from the Zamindar. Defendants 1 to 8 are the villagers of Reddiarpatti, a hamlet of Panthapuli. They claim that the suit land is part, of their village and it is communal land and therefore the Zamindar was not entitled to grant patta for it to anybody. The first issue raises the question whether the suit land is assignable by the 9th Defendant. The second raises the question whether there was in fact an assignment. The third and fifth issues relate to possession. The District Munsif decreed the Plaintiff's suit. There was an appeal by Defendants 1 to 8. After the appeal was filed, the 6th Appellant died and Appellants 1, 5 and 7 stated that ...
Tag this Judgment!Panakkatan Sankaran Vs. the District Board of Malabar Through Its Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.964; (1934)66MLJ108
Curgenven, J.1. The two suits out of which these appeals arise were brought by the District Board of Malabar to recover the balance due from toll-gate contractors in regard to the rentals of three toll-gates upon the road between Tellicherry and Mercara, Coorg. The claims have been decreed. In A.S. No. 317 of 1928 (O.S. No. 27 of 1926) the appellant (2nd defendant) is the contractor's surety, and two toll-gates leased to a single contractor are involved, Eranjoli, two miles from Tellicherry, and Merumpuzha, 12 miles from Tellicherry. In A.S. No. 391 of 1928 the appellant is the contractor himself, and the claim relates to Irutti toll-gate, about 26 miles from Tellicherry.2. The right to collect tolls at the toll-gates is put up to auction annually. The suits relate to the sale for the period 1st April, 1924 to 31st March, 1925. The Eranjoli and Merumpuzha gates were knocked down to the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 27 for Rs. 7,020 and Rs. 7,000 respectively. The Irutti gate was knocked do...
Tag this Judgment!V. Veeravagu Pillai Vs. M. Manikkavasagam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad68; 147Ind.Cas.684
Bardswell, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit to recover certain properties. The suit was dismissed on the ground of res judicata by both the first Court and the appellate Court. It was held to be res judicata with reference to two previous decisions, one in O.S. No 505 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Srivaikantam, and the other in O.S. No. 270 of 1925 on the file of the same Court. With regard to O.S. No. 505 of 1923 there has been a great deal of misapprehension and a great deal of unnecessary discussion owing to the wrong way in which that suit was regarded and also owing to a mistranslation of the plaint in that earlier suit as it appears in the printed papers. In the plaint in this suit it was stated that the earlier suit was one for enforcing an award and this is how it has been treated in both the two lower Courts. It has even been referred to in the judgment in that suit itself as a suit to enforce an award. It has therefore been agreed that as the suit was o...
Tag this Judgment!Palaniappa Chetty and ors. Vs. M.P.N.Rm. Raman Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad183
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit relates to a plot of land known as the Thattan Punja. There were two brothers, Sevuga and Muthuvadugu. The plaintiffs' predecessors, in-interest purchased Muthuvadugu's interest in the plot, under a sale-deed executed by him, namely Ex. A, dated 7th September 1903. The plain, tiffs' case is that the land in question belonged to the joint family consisting of Sevuga and Mutbuvadugu and what passed to their predecessors in-interest is the half share of the younger brother Muthuvadugu. On that footing they claim a partition of that plot. The defendants had purchased previously from Sevuga in 1894 what purported to be the whole property. In support of their case that they acquired by the sale the entire land, they put forward two contentions. First, there was a partition before the date of their purchase between the brothers and the suit land fell to the share of Sevuga. They seem to have put forward an alternative case at the trial, that in any event Sevuga...
Tag this Judgment!(Sree Rajah Kakarlapudi) Venkata Krishnamaraju Bahadur Garu Vs. (Sree ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad373
Ramesam, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by six plaintiffs who are now the registered proprietors of Panduru Mallavaram estate against the Secretary of State for India in Council (defendant l) and defendants 2 and 3 who are owners of certain lands for an order directing the separate registration of the defendant's land from the estate of Panduru Mallavaram. The villages of Panduru and Mallavaram were themselves originally part of the permanently settled estate of Uratla. In 1867 one Sagi Jagannadaraju became the proprietor of Uratla. In 1875 he granted these villages to his maternal uncle K. China Narasaraju by Ex. H-1 dated 7th April 1875. Portions of the estate passed by alienation to some of the present plaintiffs under Exs. P-F-4 dated 1917'and 1925 respectively. These two villages were separatly registered in 1875 (vide Ex. A dated 11th December 1875). Ex. B is the proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 15th September 1875 fixing the peishcush o...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Jamal Noor Mohamed Sait and Co. (Merchants) Vs. A. Abdul Kareem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad211; (1934)66MLJ440
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiffs are the manufacturers and vendors of a brand of beedies known as 'Kareem Beedies'. The suit was for an injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from manufacturing or selling beedies in packets which are colourable imitations of plaintiffs' trade-mark and for other and similar remedies. They were given an injunction and Rs. 50 as damages. Against this the defendants have appealed.2. The plaintiffs' case is that they were manufacturing and selling beedies for over 20 years, that they enclose their beedies in packets of 25, that 20 of these packets are then made up into a larger bundle and wrapped in a covering which constitutes plaintiffs' trade-mark, that plaintiffs' beedies are known as 'Kareem Beedies,' that their trade-mark consists, in the front, of two hemispheres with three stripes running across each hemisphere in which their trade name is inscribed, that they have registered these marks with the Chamber of Commerce, and that orig...
Tag this Judgment!Nidamanuri Satyamma Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad917
Bardswell, J.1. The appeal is by the plaintiff. She sued for a declaration of her title to one-eighteenth share in a rice and oil-mill at Bezwada. Her case is that she contributed money towards the share, that the money was first credited in the name of defendant 2 and afterwards in the name of defendant 1. Defendant 3 is the husband of her sister and defendant 1 is his brother and she says, that as these two defendants are her relations her share was nominally standing in their names, but that on 26th April 1924 she got a release deed from them in respect of her share. Defendants 3 and 4 who are creditors of defendant 2 brought I.P. No. 2 of 1924 of the Sub-Court, Bezwada, to have defendants 1 and 2 adjudicated insolvents. In the end only defendant 2 was declared insolvent and it was held that the release deed, Ex. A was invalid and that defendant 2's estate vested in defendant 5 who is the Official Receiver, Kistna District. The District Munsif decreed the suit in favour of the plain...
Tag this Judgment!Sokkmal Suganmull Vs. G. Lokanatha Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.650; (1934)66MLJ361
1. This appeal preferred by the 2nd Defendant arises out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff (1st Respondent) for a declaration that he is absolutely entitled to a pair of diamond thodus, which were wrongfully pledged by the 1st Defendant with the 2nd Defendant. It is common ground that the diamond thodus in question belonged to Plaintiff. Certain facts connected with the question how the Plaintiff came to part with the possession of the jewel, have been fairly established in the evidence. Plaintiff and 2nd Defendant are the only witnesses examined in this case, and some documents have also been filed. Plaintiff is a goldsmith by profession. There is no doubt, that by the machinations of two or three swindlers, the Plaintiff was made to believe that the 1st Defendant was a Government servant of respectable status, and hand over the jewel to 1st Defendant on 8th June, 1929, for inspection, and after approval for settlement of the price. When taking the jewel from Plaintiff, the 1st Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Kamboji Venkataramanna and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad248
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Accused 1 to 7 are the appellants. Eleven persons were charged in connexion with the murder of one Pullayya, a Vysya money lender, of 21st August 1932, on his way from his village called Thappetavaripalli to the railway station at Malakazemala which is at a distance of six or seven miles from his village. Accused 1 to 8 stood charged directly under Section 302, Penal Code, whereas accused 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 were charged under Section 201 for having disposed of the dead body on that night, the murder itself having been committed in the afternoon It was only on 1st September 1932 that two gunny bags weighted with stone containing the parts of the body of the deceased without the head were found at the bottom of a deep pond about four miles from the scene of offence. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 8 to 11, and convicted accused 1 to 7 of the offence of abetment of murder under Section 302 read with Section 114, Penal Code, and sentenced them to transpor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »