Chennai Court January 1934 Judgments
Public Prosecutor Vs. M. Munisami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad464; 150Ind.Cas.1119
Beasley, C.J.1. The respondent was charged before the Taluq Magistrate of Cuddalore with an offence under Section 294-A, I.P.C. and was acquitted. Government now appeals against that acquittal. The respondent is a cycle and gramaphone dealer keeping a shop for that purpose, and the case for the prosecution is that, besides carrying on that perfectly legitimate, business, he got up a lottery after having invited members of the public to take part in it and also that he kept an office or place for the purpose of drawing the lottery which was not authorized by Government. First of all, we have got to see what this scheme of the respondent which is alleged to be a lottery, provided for. That is set Oat in para. 3 of the Magistrate's order. It is evident that the respondent started two chits as they are described by the Taluq Magistrate one in February 1932, and the other in March 1932. The condition of these chits, or whatever description the scheme merits, are contained in two, documents ...
Tag this Judgment!Picha Pillai Vs. Kathaperumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad356
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant is the undivided son of the third respondent and the suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by him for a declaration that two gift deeds executed by the third respondent in favour of his nephew, the first respondent, are not valid and recovery of the properties gifted with past and future mesne profits. The second respondent is the father of the first respondent and their case was that the gift deeds were executed for their joint benefit though they were taken in the name of the first respondent. The gift deeds would undisputedly be void as held by the lower Courts if the properties dealt with are the family properties of the appellant and the third respondent and the properties would be family properties if the third respondent was adopted by his maternal uncle Narayana Pillai. No doubt the onus of proving the adoption is initially on the party asserting it, but as pointed out by the Privy Council in Chandra Kunwar v. Narpat Singh ...
Tag this Judgment!Vatakkethala Thottungal Chakku's Son Mathu Vs. Achu and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad461
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. Defendants 1 to 6 are the heirs of one Veeran Haji. The plaintiff's suit out of which this appeal arises was for rendition of accounts by defendants 1 to 6 and for recovery from them personally and from the assets of the deceased Veeran Haji the sum found due on taking accounts which is estimated to be about Rs. 25,000. The plaintiff sued as the assignee of the rights of defendants 7 to 11.2. The facts are these : The deceased Veeran Haji who died in 1927 was a railway contractor. He had entered into a contract with the S.I. Ry. Co. in 1924 for doing 'earthwork in the Shoranur-Nilambur line.' In connexion with this work he appointed as his sub-contractors defendants 7 and 8 and one Antony, the deceased husband of defendant 9 and father of defendants 10 and 11. Under the terms of the contract Veeran Haji, after taking a commission of ten per cent. on earth-work' and 2 1/2 per cent, on 'culvert work' on the amount of money paid by the r...
Tag this Judgment!imperial Bank of India Vs. P.L.A. Veerappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad595
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of Waller, J., dated 16th February 1931 in C. S. No. 348 of 1928, a suit instituted by the Imperial Bank of India, Madras, to recover the amount due on two promissory-notes executed on the 4th and 7th days of August 1925 for Rs. 25,000 and rupees 37,000 respectively by one Kadiresan Chetty as agent of the guardian of the minor defendant 1, then aged about three years, and the sole proprietor of the P.L.A. Firm. The promissory-notes were executed in favour of defendant 2 firm known as the M.A.R.A.R. Firm, and they were endorsed in favour of the Imperial Bank of India, the first note being endorsed by Kadiresan Chetty himself as agent for defendant 2's firm, and the second note by the principal of that firm. The plaint proceeded on the basis that the promissory-notes were executed by the P.L.A. Firm, and the claim against this firm was based only on the execution of the promissory-notes by this firm. Defendant 2 firm consented to a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurangi Bhimacharya Vs. Divadhina Charya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad624; 152Ind.Cas.251
1. The plaintiff-appellant is the head of the Uttaradhi Mutt. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the inam village of Tirumalapuram. This village was granted originally by the Nawab of Mysore in 1784 to Sri Sathya Bodha Swami Garu, the then head of the mutt, for purposes of worshipping Srirama Devaru. The village was in the possession and management of Sathya Bodha Swami and his successors till 1797. In that year Sathya Dharma Swami, a successor of Sathya Bodha Swami, gifted it to Kothandapani Rangacharlu (an ancestor of the defendant) and his successors 'from son to grandson and so on in succession for the diligent study of the Vedas' (See Ex. G). From that time onwards, that is for about 130 years, the inam has been in the occupation of the defendant and his predecessors.2. The grant by the swami was recognised by the Muhammadan sovereigns first and afterwards by the British Government. At the time of the Inam Inquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatakrishna Reddi Vs. Batcha Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad500; (1934)66MLJ703
Jackson, J.1. Plaintiff sues defendant for Rs. 300 on the allegation that he advanced this amount to defendant who agreed to repay it at 12 per cent. interest. 'In support of this' he executed a document understamped for a promissory note. The District Munsif admitted the document as an acknowledgment, found the agreement to be proved and decreed the suit.2. The District Judge disbelieved the story of the prior agreement and held it to be an ordinary promissory note transaction. Accordingly he dismissed the suit.3. In revision it is pleaded that he was not entitled to reverse the decree on the mere ground of an improper admission of the promissory note.4. The Lower Court dismissed the suit because it did not believe the evidence of the prior contract, not on the mere ground that the document was improperly admitted; and if the Deputy Registrar had read the papers he would never have admitted this Civil Revision Petition.5. Now two points are taken. Firstly, that the cause of action was...
Tag this Judgment!Dara Sivarao Vs. Kola Subbarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad302
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Jackson, J. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who is the assignee of a mortgage held by defendant 4, for the recovery of a sum of money, by enforcing the mortgage. Defendant 1 was the mortgagor. Two items of properties are comprised in the mortgage. Defendant 3 happened to be a subsequent purchaser of item 2 for a sum of Rs. 725. It is clear from the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court, that this transaction of sale by defendant 1 to defendant 3 was brought about with full knowledge and concurrence of the mortgagee (defendant 4) who was more or less instrumental in bringing about this purchase and who derived the benefit of this purchase, inasmuch as he credited the purchase money, viz., Rs. 725 towards the debt (between Rupees 800 and Rs. 900) due from defendant 1. This amount covers the debt due on the mortgage also. However, no endorsement of pa...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswami Goundan and anr. Vs. Kalyanasundara Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad365; (1934)66MLJ712
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Anantakrishna Aiyar, J. in second appeal. The suit under appeal was an ejectment suit. The plaintiff claimed to be landlord and owner of the suit property claiming that the defendants were mere tenants from year to year. The defendants, however, claimed that they had a permanent right of occupancy and, therefore, could not be ejected. The whole question turned on Exhibit M, the document under which the defendants occupied the premises. If it was a genuine document, then they had no defence because the document establishes the fact that the tenancy was one from year to year. Its genuineness was denied by the defendants who said that it was a forgery. No question in this case turns upon the identity of the person who is alleged to have executed the document. It is conceded that it is supposed to refer to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant was a marksman and besides the document writer there were two other att...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Meerkanni Rowther Vs. A.V. Periyakaruppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad687
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises two questions of law : first, in a suit by a purchaser against his vendor for breach of covenant of title, is he bound to waif; till his possession is disturbed? Secondly, in such a suit on whom is the onus of proof? Although I am upholding the lower appellate Court's judgment, I must say that its view on the first point is wrong. Covenants for title must be 'distinguished from covenants for quiet 'enjoyment; in the case of the former, they are, if broken, 'necessarily broken immediately upon the execution of the assurance which contains them.' (Dart's Vendors and Purchasers, Edn. 8, p. 663.) The purchaser may bring an action immediately without waiting to be evicted or disturbed : (p. 665). The law is stated in the same terms by Sugden. A covenant for title,' says the learned author, 'in broken immediately after the execution of the deed, if the seller does not possess the estate professed to be granted and the purchaser is not bound to wait t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Ayyar Vs. T.B. Ramachandra Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad646
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows : One Ramaji Bavaji Pandit, a Mahratta Brahmin of Tanjore, died on 10th August 1858. Before his death, he had adopted a son, Bavaji Ramaji Pandit, whose son is the present plaintiff. He also left two widows, Kamakshi Boyee and Tulaja Boyee. He had also executed a will dated 6th August 1858 (Ex. 5) making various dispositions of his property. After giving certain properties to his relations, half of the remaining properties he devised to his two widows, who 'shall be entitled to and take the same'. By an arrangement in the year 1860 between the two widows, Tulaja Boyee got the suit house 'belonging to the deceased. A creditor of the widows filed O.S. No. 275 of 1872 against them for the recovery of a debt contracted by them after their husband's death. A decree was obtained and In Court auction in execution of the decree, the house was sold and purchased by the decree-holder and one Krishnaji Kottayya. They sold thei...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »