Chennai Court November 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.
Kamaraju Gadda Ramayya and anr. Vs. Singaraju Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad664; 157Ind.Cas.1100
Ramesam, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff to recover certain items of jeroyati lands in the Vallur zamindari. These lands were originally purchased in 1874 under Ex. A on behalf of Kala-patapu Venkatappayya by his mother and guardian Bapamma who is defendant 11 in this suit. In the sale deed he was described as aged eight. Till 1881 we find the properties were being enjoyed on behalf of the minor, Ex F is a cist receipt book and Ex. H is a khat dated 1881 taken in the name of the minor by defendant 11 and her father as guardian, and Ex. 1 is the corresponding muchilika in favour of the zamindar. The Subordinate Judge finds that the minor died at about this time and we agree with him. Between 1881 and 1892 we find receipts issued by dedant 11 s brother Mallikarjunudu. In. 1892, Ex. 15 was executed by Mallikar-junndu in favour of the zamindar and a pattah was given, to him, Ex. 1-0. In. 1903, we have got a muchilika executed in favour of Mallikar...
Emperor Vs. Ramanuja Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad486; 158Ind.Cas.764
Cornish, J.1. The learned Chief Justice acting under Clause 25, Letters Patent, has reserved as a point of law for determination under Clause 26 the question whether certain statements given in evidence at the trial of M. Ramanuja Ayyangar for murder were admissible. The statements which are in question were made by the prisoner while he was in the custody of a Police Officer at the shop of a witness, J.W. No. 10, and had relation to the sale of a mattress by that witness at that shop to the prisoner on the January 12, and to the carriage of the mattress by a coolie woman, P.W. No. 11, from the shop.2. The circumstances in which the statements came to be made may be briefly narrated. It is in evidence that the murdered woman had left her husband on August 4, and from that date had been living with the prisoner at different places in Madras, From December 23, until the evening of January 11, which was the last occasion according to the evidence on which she was seen alive, the prisoner ...
Srirangan Chettiar Vs. M. Sornam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad202
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The only point of substance is, whether the Court had the power to order the amendment in question. In the petition, as it originally stood, where the acts of insolvency were mentioned, the words 'with intent to defeat and delay his creditors' were owing to a defective drafting omitted. The object of the amendment was to insert these words so that the requirements of the section might be complied with. Section 5, Provincial Insolvency Act, provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, the Court has the same powers, and shall follow the same procedure as in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction. This section renders the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, Civil P.C., relating to the amendment of pleadings applicable. The general rule is, that leave to amend will be granted so as to enable the real question in issue to be raised, where the amendment will occasion no injury to the opposite party except such as can be sufficiently compensated for by cost...
Govindaswami Mudaliar Vs. Rasu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad232; (1935)68MLJ41
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this case relates to the construction of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Indian Registration 4ct. Under the clause as it originally stood, 'decrees and orders of Courts and awards' were excepted from registration; but by an amendment made by Section 10 of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, the following clause was substituted:any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immoveable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding.2. In Hementa Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zemindari & Co. (1919) L.R. 46 IndAp 240 (246) : I.L.R. Cal. 485 : 37 M.L.J. 525 the Judicial Committee held, having regard to the wording of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that where a suit is adjusted by a lawful agreement between the parties, the proper course is to recite the agreement in the decree or annex it as a schedule to the decree, but in...
Chinnayya Naidu Vs. Srinivasa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad206; 160Ind.Cas.1069
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit is filed on an insufficiently stamped promissory note. The learned Subordinate Judge has on the allegations in the plaint and the recitals in the note, holding that no-action would lie on the original consideration, dismissed the suit, without taking evidence. On this point there is-a marked conflict of judicial opinion in this Presidency, although the lower Court assumes that the law is clear and settled. Two recent decisions will serve to show how divergent the views taken by this Court on this question are. In Murugappa Chetty v. nachiappa Chetty 1934 Mad. 503, the question arose before Stone, J., in a case on the original, side of the High Court. There a hundi for Rs. 10,000 addressed to the plaintiff's firm was handed by the plaintiff to defendant 1 who deeming it equivalent to cash, executed in favour of the plaintiff a promissory note for that sum. The question arose, was there a cause of action independent of the note? Stone, J., thus observ...
Govindasamy Mudaliar Vs. Rasu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.791
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this case relates to the construction of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Indian Registration Act. Under the clause as it originally stood, 'decree and orders of Courts and awards' were excepted from registration; but by an amendment by Section 10, of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act. 1929, the following clause was substituted;any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding.2. In Hementa Kumari Debi v. Mindapur Zemindari Co. 53 Ind. Cas. 534 : 46 I.A. 240 : 47 C. 485 : 11 L.W. 301 : 37 M.L.J. 525 : 17 A.L.J. 1117 : 24 C.W.N. 177 : (1920) M.W.N. 66 : 27 M.L.T. 42 : 31 C.L.J. 298 : 22 Bom. L.R. 488 the Judicial Committee held, having regard to the wording of Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, that where a suit is adjusted by a lawful agreement between the parties, ...
Chinnakuzhandai Ammal Vs. Kuzhandai Veerasami Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad312; 159Ind.Cas.458; (1935)68MLJ713
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued on a promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff's claim was that the promissory note was executed in favour of the second defendant benami for herself. The trial Court dismissed the suit as not maintainable, and against this order of dismissal the present Revision Petition has been filed.2. No direct authority of this Court has been quoted to me but there is an obiter remark of a Full Bench in Subba Narayana Vathiar v. Ramaswami Aiyar I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 88 : 16 M.L.J. 508 which supports the view of the learned District Munsif. That was a suit in which the payee sued the maker of the note who pleaded that the note had been executed in plaintiff's favour only benami for one K and that it had been discharged by payment to the person really interested. It was held by the Bench that evidence to this effect could not be adduced by the defendant. That case is of course different from the...
In Re: Krishna Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad479; 157Ind.Cas.297
Curgenven, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore of the murder of one Nagendra Iyer on the night of lst-2nd April last at Mayavaram and have been sentenced to death. The case for the prosecution was in brief that the deceased man was a merchant trading in Madura. A few days before the occurrence he went to Mayavaram to collect his dues and, as he was accustomed to do, stayed in the house occupied by accused 1, his father and some of his brothers. These are Sourashtras, like the deceased himself. Nagendra Iyer collected a number of outstandings so that by 1st April he had with him a sum of over Rs. 900. He received a further sum of Rs. 105 from another Madura merchant, P.W. 3, to make some payments in Madura on his behalf. On the night of 1st April he went to rest at the house, sleeping on an outside pial with accused 1 and P.W. 3, while the father, P.W. 1, slept on another pial of the house. At about 2 a. m. the deceased got up intending to g...
Sree Minakshi Mills Ltd. Through Its Managing Agents K.R.M.T.T.T. Thia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ510
Stone, J.1. This case raises two points one of which is of some interest. The facts are not in dispute. It is unfortunate that the respondent who is the respondent to the appeal that raises the only question of any difficulty is not represented so that we have not had the advantage of an argument in support of the position he would presumably have maintained.2. The plaintiffs are a limited Company. The defendants are (1) a firm and (2) The Indian Bank, Ltd.3. The firms were at all material times acting as Managing agents of the plaintiff Company pursuant to an agreement. The terms of that agreement are scheduled to the Articles of Association and Article 132, provides inter alia that the firm' shall be and are hereby appointed the agents of the Company for the period and upon the terms provisions and conditions set out in the (scheduled) agreement and the Board is hereby authorised to execute the said agreement on, behalf of the Company.'4. Article 149, provides that any preliminary ex...
The Sree Meenakshi Mills, Limited Vs. Calliangee and Sons and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad799; 156Ind.Cas.570
1. This case raises two points one of which is of some interest. The facts are not in dispute. It is unfortunate that the respondent who is the respondent to the appeal that raises the only question of any difficulty is not represented so that we have not had the advantage of an argument in support of the position he would presumably have maintained.2. The plaintiffs are a Limited Company. The defendants are (1) a firm, and (2) The Indian Bank, Limited.3. The firm were at all material times acting as managing agents of the plaintiff Company pursuant to an agreement. The terms of that agreement are scheduled to the Articles of Association and Article 132 provides inter alia that the firm shall be and are hereby appointed the agents of the Company for the period and upon the terms, provisions and conditions set out in the Scheduled Agreement...and the Board is hereby authorised to execute the said agreement on behalf of the Company.4. Article 149, provides that any preliminary expenses:a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »