Chennai Court December 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.
Chava Ramanayudu Vs. Suryadevara Seetharamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad440; 155Ind.Cas.544; (1935)68MLJ570
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit on a promissory note.; The plaintiff was one Chava Ramanayudu and there were four defendants. The amount claimed was Rs. 907-13-0. The first defendant admitted the claim but pleaded non-liability on the ground that the plaintiff exonerated him. The third defendant was ex parte. Defendants 2 and 4 pleaded that the suit promissory note was for advances to be made by the plaintiff for carrying on a toddy shop which they (the defendants and the plaintiff) agreed to work as partners after the first defendant had already become the successful bidder for the year 1927-1928 and that the partnership was an illegal partnership. The learned Subordinate Judge finds as a fact that the promissory note was executed for advances to be made by the plaintiff for the partnership, that the plaintiff was a partner and that the first defendant who obtained the license was not shown to have obtained the Collector's permission to work the shop in partne...
Kanchari Modhugari Narayana and ors. Vs. Nandigam Venkataramanna Patna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad899
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore in O.S. No. 4 of 1926 dismissing their suit. The suit was filed on foot of a simple mortgage bond (Ex. A), dated 1st May 1901,, executed by Nandigam Kamanna Patnaik (father of defendants 1 to 4) for himself and as guardian of defendant 2 who was then a minor, in favour of K.M. Appayya (father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and grandfather of plaintiff 4) and K.M. Mokhalingam (son of Appayya and father of plaintiff 4). Under Ex. A the mortgagors had obliged themselves to deliver 26 garces of paddy with interest also payable in kind which works at 36 per cent per annum. The document provides that interest should be paid on the 15th of Pusha Sudha of every year and that the principal should be paid in January 1906. But there is a clause which provides that on the failure of payment of any instalment of interest the whole quantity due under the document should be repaid. The document bears endorsements o...
Thavvala Veeraswami Vs. Pulim Ramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad365; (1935)68MLJ444
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This Civil Revision B Petition arises out of execution proceedings. The petitioner in those proceedings was the transferee of a promissory note executed by the first and second respondents in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner filed a suit on the promissory note and obtained a decree and had obtained before judgment an attachment of some money that lay in the Rajamundry Sub-Court to the credit of the first respondent. The fourth respondent gave security and thereupon the attachment of the money was raised. Subsequently the suit was dismissed for default but was afterwards restored to the file and a decree in favour of the petitioner was passed. The petitioner applied to execute the decree against his surety but the latter contended that on the dismissal of the suit the security bond given by him became cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the security bond and also the law. The District Munsif upheld this contention relying...
Gopalaswami Naidu Vs. Lakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad305
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point to decide is whether the lease deed in question requires to be registered under Section 17(1)(d), Registration Act. The lease is for a period of throe years, no rent being payable for the first two years and for the third year Rs. 400 being the rent fixed. Under Section 17(1)(d) the Registration is compulsory in respect of,leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent.2. But under the proviso to that section, a notification has been issued exempting from its operation,any leases executed in any district (of the presidency) the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed 50 rupees: (See p. 52 of the Madras 'Registration Mannul, Part 1).3. The question is, does the present lease come within the exemption? It has been held that a lease for a term of three years, which reserves no annual rent but only provides for payment of a lump s...
Gopalasami Naidu Vs. Lakmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.825
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point to decide is whether the lease deed in question requires to be registered under Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act. The lease is for a period of three years, no rent being payable for the first two years, and for the third year Rs. 400 being the rent fixed. Under Section 17(1)(d) the registration is compulsory in respect of 'leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year or reserving a yearly rent'. But under the proviso to that section, a notification, has been issued exempting from its operation 'any leases executed in any district (of the Presidency) the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees'. (See p. 52 of the Madras Registration Manual, Part I.) The question is, does the present lease come within the exemption? It has been held that a lease for a term of three years, which reserves no annual rent but only provides for payment...
Sri Perla Annapurnammagaru and anr. Vs. the Rajah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad367; 157Ind.Cas.783; (1935)68MLJ441
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Sub-Collector, holding that the Court had no jurisdiction, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. On a revision petition having been filed' before the Collector, he reversed the order of the first Court and remanded the suit for disposal. The question is, whether the High Court's power extends to revising the order of the Collector, made by him in the exercise of his own revisional powers. This question must be answered in the affirmative on the authority oi Paramasvoamy Aiyangar v. Alamelu Natchiar Ammal I.L.R. (1918)Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632 and Ramasami Goundan v. Kali Goundan I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 310 : 36 M.L.J. 571 Mr Venkatesa Aiyangar relies upon the decision of the majority of the Judges in RaghunadhaPatro v. Govinda Patro : (1928)55MLJ798 but that case dealt with the orders of the Board of Revenue and not of the Collector and having regard to the dissent expressed from it by several Judges in the later Full Bench case Rajah of ...
K.E.P.V. Venkatachalam Pillai Vs. Rajaballi M. Sajun
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad663; (1935)68MLJ504
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit in the I District Munsif's Court at Tuticorin. His claim as against the defendant who carries on business in Rangoon was for shortfall in goods ordered and for damages on account of the inferiority of quality of those goods. On an examination of the plaint it is clear that the suit as framed is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant as his vendor. A preliminary issue was taken that the District Munsif's Court at Tuticorin had no jurisdiction to try the suit because no part of the cause of action had arisen there and the point was argued that in fact the relationship here was not that of vendor and purchaser at all but that of principal and agent, 'the defendant being a mere commission agent purchasing goods on the orders of the plaintiff. This was treated as a question of law by the District Munsif who held that the relationship was that of principal and agent and that the suit did not lie in the District M...
Municipal Council Vs. K. Ratnam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad378
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff, the Municipal Council of Trichinopoly represented by its Chairman is the appellant. The question for decision in the Second Appeal is whether the suit for recovery of the property tax for the year 1923-24 instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants who are the owners of houses Nos. 21 and 21-b in ward No. 15 of the Trichinopoly Municipality is barred by limitation. Under Section 85, District Municipalities Act, the property tax on buildings and lands is declared a first charge on the property subject to the prior payment of land revenue. In the suit the Municipality seeks to enforce this charge against the defendants. Under Article 132, Lim. Act, 12 years time is the period prescribed for enforcing the payment of money charged upon immovable property the period being calculated from the time when the money sued for becomes due. In the present case the suit was instituted on 22nd February 1928. If Article 132, Lim. Act, applies the suit is withi...
Kandasami Mudaliar Vs. Sivagarunatha Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad328
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant. The plaintiff purchased the suit property in execution of the decree in 0.S. No. 89 of 1919, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Chidambaram which he had obtained against defendant l's father, one Nataraja. Mudaly. In the course of the execution proceedings defendant 1 preferred a claim on 16th November 1922 claiming the suit house as belonging to her, she-having inherited it from her husband: Nagaratna Mudaly to whom it originally belonged. This claim petition is Ex. F. When this petition came on for hearing,, on 29th November 1922, she stated that she would bring a regular suit to establish her claim and did not press the-petition; and hence it was dismissed on 29th January 1922. The order on the petition which was passed after issue of notice to the present plaintiff is as follows:The petitioner says that he (she) will bring; a regular suit and that he does not press this. So this is dismissed.2. After the dismissal of the ...
C.M. Maroof Sahib and ors. Vs. Ayyakannu Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad569; 157Ind.Cas.94; (1935)68MLJ755
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is whether a proper Court-fee has been paid on the plaints in each of these fourteen suits. They were filed by an inamdar for the recovery of holdings comprised in the inam, each suit being against a particular tenant in respect of his holding. It is alleged that so far as the plaintiff's right to the melvaram is concerned, there is no dispute and that the only quarrel between the plaintiff and the defendants is as regards the former's right to the kudivaram. The plaintiff brings these suits for a declaration that he is the owner of the kudivaram and for the recovery in each suit of the specific holding to which it relates. These cases were originally filed in the District Munsif's Court in 1929 and a plea of res judicata having been raised and upheld, the suits were dismissed. Appeals were taken to the District Court and the finding of the learned Munsif on the question of res judicata having been reversed the suits were remanded on the 22nd ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »