Chennai Court December 1934 Judgments
Ravella Mangamma Vs. Bollepalli Ramanamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ602
1. The questions raised by this appeal are two viz.,(1) Whether the alleged adoption said to have been made by one Subbamma of the third defendant was made at all.(2) Whether, if made, it was made without authority;2. The evidence of the fact of adoption is weak but I am not prepared to differ from the trial Judge's finding that there was an adoption, bearing in mind that the registered deed of authority (Ex. I) probabilizes the story of adoption, it being improbable that the gnatis and the widow would have gone to the trouble of registering a deed of authority and then stopped short without effecting the adoption which need only involve a very simple ceremony involving no expense. It is true that the story told of the adoption describes an elaborate ceremonial adoption, with Brahmins chanting mantrams, and drummers and pipers performing, a form of adoption neither necessary nor usual in the case of Sudras, and I view with suspicion the whole story but my suspicion does not go so far a...
Tag this Judgment!Karri Seetaramayya Vs. Pappu Subramanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad547; 157Ind.Cas.173; (1935)68MLJ518
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises are fully stated by my learned brother. There are two stages in this matter. The first is the claim petition E.A. No. 3433 of 1924 purported to be filed under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code Ex. A, dated 21st November, 1924. The order upon this is Ex. B, dated 16th December, 1924. The second stage is in 1928--the obstruction by the petitioner before us to the decree-holder in delivery proceedings followed by the application of the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 97. The order on this petition is the order against which this Revision Petition has been filed. In this order the District Munsif held that the obstructor, that is, the tenant on the land, is precluded by the order Ex. B from setting up his tenancy, he therefore directed delivery free of the tenant's claim.2. On the first matter my learned brother has fully considered the decisions and the construction to be placed upon Ex. B and the effect to ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Venka Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad301
ORDERBurn, J.1. There were not really six 'offences committed by the petitioner in (these cases. At the most it seems to a, there were two offences committed which ware (1) employing four persons ion a Sunday without giving notice to the Inspector and without fixing a notice in the place mentioned in 8. 36, Factories Act. This is an offence under Section 41(a) read with Section 21(1)(b), Factories Act, it is not, I think four separate offences; (2) employing one person, the head foreman, outside the specified hours on a Sunday. This is an offence under Section 41 (a) read with Section 26 of the Act. There is no such offence as that for which the accused has been convicted in C.C. No. 142 of 1933. Mere fail-lure to put up notice of Sunday work is not an offence. The act which is prohibited in Section 22 consists in employing persons on Sunday without (a) giving 'them a compensation holiday and (b) giving notice to the Inspector and putting up a notice in the place mentioned in Section 3...
Tag this Judgment!Kalappatti Eravamannattil Ithamma Maruvalamma's son Krishnan and Anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad402
Beasley, C.J.1. These are appeals from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat appointing a Receiver in a suit for partition of a Marumakkathayam tarwad This suit was filed in November 1933 three months after the Madras Marumakkathayam Act (22 of 1934) which gives a right of the members of such a tarwad to claim partition, came into force. There are 222 members in this tarwad which is divided into three main sub-branches. The plaintiffs, eleven in number, belong to a sub-branch of one of the sub-branches, itself a partible unit under the Act They sue for partition of their share. There are four schedule properties, namely, ABC and D. The A schedule properties were under the compromise in O.S. No. 31 of 1887 allotted to the three main sub-branches of the tarwad for the purpose of providing food. etc. These properties were leased to tenants from whom rents were got and possession of the properties was given to the respective sub-branches. The B schedule properties are properties hel...
Tag this Judgment!Pendela Adi Lakshmi Vs. Gandikota Durgamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad737; 159Ind.Cas.129
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of money due under a promissory note, dated 15th October 1923, executed by one Lakshmikantham deceased, the husband of defendant 1. Defendant 1 was sued as Lakshmikantham's legal representative. Defendant 2 is the daughter of defendants 1 and defendant 3 is defendant 2'sson. Lakshmikantham died in July 1924, leaving a will Ex. B. Under it defendants 1 and 2 got a life interest in a house. Defendant 1 also got a life interest in a share of the scheduled property, defendant 3 getting two shares. It is not necessary to refer to the other items of the will. The suit was filed on 12th October 1926, just three days before the suit note became barred. It was originally instituted only against defendant 1. She pointed out that she had no interest in the properties and that defendants 2 and 3 should be made parties to the suit. The plaintiff then amended the...
Tag this Judgment!Appu Vs. N.V. Sivaramakrishna Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad560; 158Ind.Cas.297
ORDER11. The mortgage will operate as from the date on which it should lave been executed, namely, 6th September 1930. Time for execution extended one month. Appellant will pay the court-fees due to Government on the memorandum of objections....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Konka Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.422
ORDERBurn, J.1. There were not really six offences committed by the petitioner in these cases. At the most it seems to me there were two offences committed which were: (1) employing four persons on a Sunday without giving notice to the Inspector and without fixing a notice in the place mentioned in Section 36 of the Indian Factories Act. This is an offence under Section 41(a) read with Section 21(1)(6) of the Indian Factories Act; it is not, I think four separate offences, (2) employing one person, the head foreman, outside the specified hours on a Sunday. This is an offence under Section 41(a) read with Section 26 of the Act. There is no such offence as that for which the accused has been convicted in C.C. No. 142 of 1933. Mere failure to put up notice of Sunday work is not an offence. The act which is prohibited in Section 22 consists in employing persons on Sunday without (a) giving them a compensation holiday, and (b) giving notice to the Inspector and putting up a notice in the pl...
Tag this Judgment!T.V.K. Kamaraja Pandiya Naicker Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ695
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and' I agree with him on both the points as regards the maintainability of the suit and as regards the construction to be put upon Section 79(iii) of the Madras Local Boards Act. I wish only to make a few remarks on the latter point, as the former becomes academic on the view we take as to the meaning of Section 79(iii), and the non-maintainability of the suit was merely urged by the respondent in case we differ from the finding of the lower Court with regard to the construction of this section.2. As observed by my learned brother, the wording of Section 79(iii) has remained practically the same since the Local Funds Act of 1871, although the position of the landholder in relation to private lands has in the meanwhile undergone considerable change. In Section 2(iii) of the Rent Recovery Act of 1865 the wording was slightly different in describing how the rates of rent wer...
Tag this Judgment!T.V.K. Kamaraja Pandiya Naicker Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1934
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.419
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver and I agree with him on both the points as regards the maintainability of the suit and as regards the construction to be put upon Section 79 (iii), Madras Local Boards Act. I wish only to make a few remarks on the latter point, as the former becomes academic on the view we take as to the meaning of Section 79 (iii) and the non-maintainability of the suit was merely urged by the respondent in case we should differ from the finding of the lower Court with regard to the construction of this section. As observed by my learned, brother, the wording of Section 79 (iii) has remained practically the same since the Local Funds Act of 1871, although the position of the landholder in relation to private-lands has in the meanwhile undergone considerable change. In Section 2 (3), Kent Recovery Act of 1865, the wording was slightly different in describing how the rates of rent were to ...
Tag this Judgment!Yeluri Satyanarayana (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Yelluri Mallayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad447; 155Ind.Cas.581; (1935)68MLJ540
Ramesam, J.1. This Revision Petition arises out of Small Cause Suit No. 1399 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Guntur in which the plaintiff sought to recover a sum of money due to him evidenced by the promissory note (Ex. A) which itself was in renewal of an earlier promissory note (Ex. A-1). Both these notes were executed by the defendants' mother Venkayamma. In the body of the notes the minor defendants are described as the makers with the words 'represented by their mother and guardian Venkayamma' but she signed the notes without any such description attached to her name. Ex. A-l itself was in renewal of an earlier promissory note (Ex. A-2) executed by the defendants' father on the 28th February, 1922. According to the Hindu Law the sons are liable to pay their father's debt to the extent of the joint family properties received by them from their father or other assets inherited by them from him. The District Munsif held that on a construction of the suit p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »