Chennai Court February 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.
Kathasawmy Chettiar and anr. Vs. Ramachandran (Minor) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad428; 150Ind.Cas.779; (1934)66MLJ683
Curgenven, J.1. These two revision petitions are preferred against two orders of the District Munsif of Coimbatore (1) discharging a guardian ad litem and appointing another, and (2) setting aside an ex parte decree. The Plaintiffs, who are the petitioners in both the petitions, sued three brothers to recover some money said to be due in respect of a deposit made with their deceased father. The 1st Defendant was a major and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were minors. The Plaintiffs applied in the ordinary way for appointment of a guardian ad litem to them, proposing first the mother and later the brother, that is, the 1st Defendant. The mother declined to act but agreed that her son might act and the 1st Defendant undertook the duties and was appointed. In the suit he took time to file a written statement but in point of fact he did not file one and made no defence either for himself or on behalf of his minor brothers and the suit was decreed ex parte. Then followed the two applications ou...
Sivakami Ammal Vs. Koolyandi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad318; (1934)66MLJ283
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the paternity of the plaintiff. He claims to be the legitimate son of the 1st defendant and impeaches the alienations made by him in favour of defendants 3 to 9. The 2nd defendant, the plaintiff's mother, was legally married to the 1st, about 30 years previous to the suit; but within three months of the marriage, the wife left the husband and lived in a village called Chintamani near her husband's village, with a paramour Kuttalam Chetty. The evidence is, that she has all through been living with this paramour and that there has been no kind of access between the husband and the wife. The plaintiff, on the date of the suit, was 26 years old and the 1st defendant repudiated the plaintiff's legitimacy not only in the suit but also in his will executed by him during the pendency of the action. The Trial Court, after carefully considering the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the presumption under Section 112 of the Indian E...
(Revinipati) Appala Raju and ors. Vs. Gandreddi Naganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad583; 153Ind.Cas.16
1. The question for determination is whether when the appellant's vendor and respondent (defendant)' had agreed in writing in December 1912 that the vendor would re-deliver certain property to respondent for which respondent had paid the purchase money, Ex. 7, the respondent can set up that contract against the appellants' subsequent vendee in a suit for ejectment. When this question came before Anantakrishna Iyyar, J., all the Courts in India were following the equitable doctrine of part performance which has since been held not to apply to India in Ariff v. Jadunath Majumdar 1931 P.C. 79. It is no longer argued that in the light of that judgment the judgment under appeal can be sustained, but it is urged that, as in-deed is set forth on p. 1246 of the Privy Council judgment, if a party has an effective contract which he can register and use as a bar to ejectment he will be given the relief set forth in Walsh v. Lanadale (1882) 21 Ch.D. 9.2. That argument might be available to respond...
Fallesatha Banu Vs. Muhammad RashidhuddIn Quraishi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad656; 153Ind.Cas.462
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff in the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit properties and the share of the mortgage amount duo to her under Ex. A, the suit mortgage. The parties to the suit are Muhammadans and their relationship is indicated in the genealogical tree given in the lower Court's judgment. After the death of Jalaluddin and his daughter Syed Unnissa Bibi, a usufructuary mortgage (Ex. A, dated 10th November 1893) of 13 items of jenm properties was executed by his heirs, defendant 1, and Hauifa Bi, his wife, for herself and acting as the guardian of defendant 2, and others, in favour of Syed Unnissa Bibi's husband, defendant 3, and their minor daughter, the plaintiff. The mortgage amount of Rs. 4,000 represented the Ma bar paid by defendant 3 at the time of his marriage with Syed Unnissa. The plaintiff claims a 4/6ths share of this amount, namely Rs. 3,333-5-4. Out of the income of the properties 500 paras...
A.M. Koman Nair Vs. Kunhambu Moolacheri Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad95
Curgenven, J.1. These two revision petitions are preferred against two orders of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara in O.S. No. 529 of 1928, District Munsif Section Court, Kasargode, transposing defendant 2 as plaintiff 2 and permitting an amendment to the plaint. The suit was-originally filed before the District Munsif of Kasargode against defendant 1, the plaintiff claiming to be an assignee of the representative of the lessor's interest who was impleaded as defendant 2 - Ostensibly it was suit for rent. The District Munsif found that it should properly have been a suit for damages for use and occupation as the term of the lease had expired and on that footing the plaintiff as assignee obtained no right to sue by the assignment. He accordingly dismissed the suit. In appeal the Subordinate Judge felt a doubt whether the plaintiff's suit was in fact a suit for rent or for damages and not being able upon the record to decide this himself he proposed to remand it framing an issue whic...
Muhamad Aliyar Rowther and ors. Vs. Gnana Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad327; 150Ind.Cas.91; (1934)66MLJ671
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, preferred by the plaintiffs, and arises out of a suit brought by them for the recovery of Rs. 8,217-0-5 due on the promissory note (Ex. A), dated 27th July, 1923 and executed by defendants 2 and 3 for Rs. 5,800. The 1st defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3, whose younger brother is the 4th defendant. Defendants 5 to 9 are the daughters of the 1st defendant. Defendants are all Indian Christians, and according to the plaintiffs' case in paragraph 3 of the plaint, the 1st defendant and his sons have been living as members of one family. It is alleged that till about nine years ago all of them were managing the family affairs, but on account of the 1st defendant's old age the 2nd and 3rd defendants alone have been managing the affairs of the joint family for nine years before suit. The 4th defendant is said to be doing work for the family under the orders of defendants 2 and 3. T...
Korupolu Somu Naidu Vs. Mammuluri Sanyasayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad391
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. I think it is clear that the plaintiff is not an endorsee of the note, because the only person who could endorse it is defendant 2, as holder, or some one, as for example the Court, on the holder's behalf. But the Court could only have acted, not on her behalf but on behalf of the judgment-debtor defendant 3. Therefore the Court's endorsement was not valid.2. The question therefore resolves itself into this, whether a beneficial owner who is not the bolder or an endorsee from the bolder, can sue. There has been some difference of judicial opinion on this point, but so far as this case is concerned, I must be guided by the law as laid down by this Court. In Subbu Narayana Vaithiyar v. Ramaswami Aiyar (1907) 30 Mad. 88 a Bench of three learned Judges has answered the question without qualification in the negative. The view has been criticised as obiter, and hag been differed from in some other Courts : see Surajman Prasad v. Sadanand Misra : AIR1932Pat346 ; Brojolal ...
In Re: Udumalpet Nidhi, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad482; 152Ind.Cas.440
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Stone, J., made upon a petition by the appellant-Nidhi for leave to alter Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association of the Nidhi. Clause 3 sets out the objects for which the Nidhi is established; and a resolution was passed approving of the alteration of the objects of the Nidhi as set out in Schedule B, viz.:To lend at interest moneys received from share-holders and others on the security of deposits, immovable property, goods and sureties, to receive deposits, etc, when necessary and to pay interest and do other banking business, to conduct various kinds of trade should directors decide to establish branches outside, to conduct various kinds of auction chits and prize chits as will be determined by the Board from time to time and to do all acts which will be helpful to the above objects.2. The alteration was approved by Stone, J., subject to the deletion of those parts of the clause relating to the conduct of various kinds of trade a...
Megavarnam Chettiar Vs. Krishnan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad600; 152Ind.Cas.340
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant through his paternal uncle as his next friend, for an injunction restraining respondent, 1, the decree-holder in O.S. No. 15 of 1923 to which the appellant; was a party, from interfering with his possession in pursuance of the decree therein, and the question for determination is whether the lower Courts were* right in dismissing the suit on the ground that the appellant cannot sue for an injunction without asking for as declaration that the decree is not binding on him. The appellant was represented in that suit by his undivided natural father and it is not suggested' that his interests were adverse to that of the minor. The appellant was thus duly represented and the suit was keenly contested by the father along with the other defendants whose interests were not conflicting or divergent. The decisions in Sellappa Goundan v. Masa Naicken 1924 Mad. 297 and Rashid Unnissa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan (190...
Rama Boyan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad565
Bardswell, J.1. Originally six persons were accused in this case of whom the first four are now the appellants. The first accused was charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder and all the accused were charged with rioting armed with deadly weapons and with culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 read with Section 149, Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused 5 and 6 holding that there was no unlawful assembly of five or more persons and finding that there was no rioting. The first accused was convicted of the main charge under Section 304, Penal Code, and accused 2, 3 and 4 were convicted under Section 304 read with Section 34, Penal Code.2. It is contended for appellants 2, 3 and 4 that their conviction under Section 304 read with Section 34, Penal Code, is illegal, the contention being that they were charged with a constructive offence and have bean found guilty of a substantive offence and the decision of Jackson, J., in Rami Reddi, I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »