Chennai Court October 1934 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.
Minor Veerappa Chettiar by Guardian Vinaitheethal Achi and anr. Vs. S. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ157
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, who are uncle and nephew, against a decree which dismissed their suit to have it declared that a half share in certain properties is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree, obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant, in O.S. No. 215 of 1929. The debt for which that decree was obtained was contracted by the 2nd defendant on 14th December, 1928. On 1st February, 1929, the 2nd defendant, under the advice of certain elders and mediators, executed a release Seed Ex. A in favour of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff being his younger brother and the second plaintiff being his minor son. That document recites that the second defendant since he attained majority has not been properly looking after the family or its affairs and that he has taken to bad ways. These recitals are now confirmed by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 2 is no doubt interested in the minor plaintiff, being the grandfather of the ...
A. Muthuswami Ayyar and anr. Vs. P.B. Loganatha Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad404
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against a decree in ejectment passed against them, in respect of the properties specified in Schedule A to the plaint and directing payment of a small sum of money representing the price of easuarina trees admittedly cut by them. Defendant 1 having died pending the appeal his son defendant 2 is continuing the appeal so far as the. legal title to the A schedule properties is concerned; the appellants claim title to it under Ex. 23 executed by the Official Assignee of Madras, on 27th March 1925, representing the estate of one Sadagopa Chetti.2. The properties admittedly belonged, originally to one Shanmuga Mudali, father of defendants 4 and 5. This Shanmuga had entered into an agreement with Sadagopa, in January 1921, to sell these properties and also certain movables, for a total consideration of Rs. 15,000. Shanmuga had already borrowed Rs. 4,000 from Sadagopa on 14th January 1921 and given a promissory note therefor, Ex. 10-B...
B. Raghavachari and ors. Vs. Pelletti Venkatanarayana Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad456
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The facts of the case are-as-follows: The suit properties mentioned in Schedules A and B to the plaint belonged to one Ummer Beg Sahib. He mortgaged them to one Venkatarama Beddi on 2nd January 1900 and subsequently sold Schedule A properties to the father of the defendants. On 14th July 190? Schedule B properties were usufructuarily mortgaged by Ummar Beg Sahib to the-plaintiff. Venkatarama Reddi instituted a suit O.S. No. 190 of 1908 to enforce his mortgage impleading Ummar Beg Sahib, the father of defendants 1 to 3' the plaintiff herein, and some others and obtained a decree in execution of which he brought the properties to sale. The' defendants objected to the order in which the properties were sought to be-sold and contended that Schedule A proper, ties which they purchased should be sold last. The Court did not grant their prayer, but ultimately the High Court in C.M.S.A. No. 11 of 1922, see Raghavachariar v. Krishna Reddi 1...
Muchi Dola Behera and ors. Vs. Jujisti Janni and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad716
Curgenven, J.1. The appellants are the decree-holders in a mortgage suit. They obtained a preliminary decree for Rs. 15,000 odd on 16th March 1925. Time for redemption was allowed up to the 16th June. The debt was not redeemed and a first application for passing a final decree was made on 10th February 1927. The decree-holders failed to take certain steps in connexion with the issue of notice and the application was dismissed on 3rd October 1927. A second application, the one out of which this appeal arises, was filed on 6th July 1928. This was more than three years after the date of redemption. Taking into account the effect of the Court's vacation, the latest date on which it could have been filed was the 2nd July. It was accordingly four days late. On an application being filed under Section 5, Lim. Act, to excuse the delay the lower Court has found that the delay of one of those four days has not been satisfactorily accounted for. It also appeared doubtful -whether Section 5 would ...
Emperor Vs. Muthuswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.438
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an application by the Crown Prosecutor, Madras, to enhance the sentence passed on the accused in C.C. No. 246 of 1934 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Madras. The accused in the case was found guilty of having stolen some cash and clothes worth in all about 12 rupees belonging to P.W. No. 1 in the case while the latter was bathing at a bathing that in Madras. The Magistrate found the accused guilty of an offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of rupees thirty, and in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three months, and directed Rs. 12 out of the fine, if collected, to be paid as compensation to P.W. No. 1. It would appear that the fine has not been paid. The conviction and sentence are dated February 21, 1934, and it is clear that the accused in the case must have undergone the entire sentence of imprisonment.2. The only ground on which it is contended before me tha...
Muchi Dola Behara and ors. Vs. Jujisti Jami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1934
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.758
1. The appellants are the decree-holders in a mortgage suit. They obtained a preliminary decree for Rs. 15,000 odd on March 16, 1925. Time for redemption was allowed up to June 16. The debt was not redeemed and a first application for passing a final decree was made on February 10, 1927. The decree-holders failed to take certain steps in connection with the issue of notice and the application was dismissed on October 3, 1927. A second application, the one out of which this appeal arises, was filed on July 6, 1928. This was more than three years after the date of redemption. Taking into account the effect of the Court's vacation the latest date on which it could have been filed was July 2. It was accordingly four days late. On an application being filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the delay, the lower Court has found that the delay of one of those four days has not been satisfactorily accounted for. It also appeared doubtful whether Section 5 would apply to such a ca...
Mowlavi Haji Haji Mahomed Abdul Baqi Vs. Kanuru Sundararamayya and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad209; (1935)68MLJ136
Cornish, J.1. The appellant by a letter (Ex. A), dated 7th October, 1930 undertook to be surety for the payment of a decree-debt due by his brother. The letter recited that the decree-holder had agreed not to execute his decree against the brother on the representation that it would be fully satisfied before the end of April 1931, and it concluded with these words: 'If we fail to so pay the amount to you, not only will my younger brother be liable therefor, but you can take proceedings against our properties and against us and we shall not raise any objection thereto'.2. It is clear from the terms of Ex. A that the appellant had made himself personally liable to the decree-holder as surety for the payment of the decree against his brother. The learned Subordinate Judge has ordered execution to issue against the appellant as surety, and it is from this order that he has appealed. The question turns upon the construction of Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Code, of which the material p...
Arathil Kandoth Madathil Janaki Amma Vs. Kinakool Kuheema Umma and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ231
Stone, J.1. In this matter I am of the opinion that it is not possible to value the subject-matter of the suit as low as Rs. 3,000. The claim for maintenance and arrears of maintenance account for Rs. 2,875-12-0 and there is in addition a claim to set aside an order dismissing a claim petition. It is urged that the value of that remedy should be found by looking at Schedule II, Article 17(1) of the Court Fees Act, observing that a fee of Rs. 15 is payable, then looking at the table of ad valorem fees, observing that that is the appropriate ad valorem fee for a claim of Rs. 190-200, and thus valuing that remedy for the Court Fees Act. Then to get the value for jurisdiction it is said one has to go to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The fallacy lies in this that Section 8 relates to suits where ad valorem court-fees are payable and in cases falling under Schedule II, Article 17(1) the fee is a fixed and not an ad valorem fee. That mode of determining value failing, one is driven to...
Mallampallai Nagamma and anr. Vs. Mallampalli Narasimham Garu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.424; (1935)68MLJ329
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by Defendants 1 and 2 against a decree which declared the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant, invalid. A number of questions were raised and discussed in the Court below; but as the determination of the appeal can be rested on a very short ground, we have not heard appellant's learned Counsel on the other points.2. [Their Lordships, after confirming the finding of fact of the lower Court on the invalidity of the adoption, proceeded to fix the court-fees thus]3. As regards to the court-fee payable upon the suit in the lower Court, we find that the plaintiffs had paid only Rs. 100 by way of court-fee. There can be little doubt that the value of the properties is more than Rs. 10,000 and that the proper method of valuation is not the method provided for in Clause (5) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act. On general principles as also according to the decisions in Veeramma v. Butchayya I.L.R. (1926) 50 Mad. 646 : 52 M.L.J. 381, the v...
C.S. Rajagopala Aiyar Vs. Palaniswamy Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ526
ORDERPandrang Rao, J.1. This application is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor who concedes that the petitioner must be deemed to have acted in his official capacity as a Sub-Magistrate when the acts alleged against him in the complaint were committed. It is abundantly clear that this must have been the case. The Sub-Magistrate went to the spot at the request of the Receiver appointed by the Court as the Sub-Inspector of Police was away and the Sub-Magistrate took a small police force with him for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace which was apprehended. It follows that what he did or is said to have done after reaching the place where the breach of the peace was feared was done in his official capacity as a Magistrate and in the performance of what he considered to be his duty as a Magistrate. Even if he exceeded his powers and even if he thereby committed any offence no complaint in respect of any such offence could be entertained by any Court without the sanct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »