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.
Kadimcherja Raju and ors. Vs. Kondapi Ayyaparaju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad352
Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal can be dealt with very briefly. The only question in it is whether the order which stayed the execution of the decree amounted to a stay which would be within Section 15, Limitation Act. Waller, J. held that it was such a stay and was a final one so long as it lasted and that therefore the execution petitioner was entitled to bring himself within Section 15, Limitation Act. In our view, the stay was a limited one. It was at order merely staying the Court. It did hot put an end to the rights of either the judgment-creditor or the judgment-debtor to apply for execution which within the plain terms of the order they are entitled to do. The execution of the decree therefore remained stayed, for just so long as the judgment-creditor or the judgment-debtor chose not to apply for execution. As soon as either of these parties applied for execution, then the stay would be removed. It was thus within the power of the execution petitioner at any time himself to remove ...
P.R.P.L.S. Valliappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. N.S. Maruda Pandian Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad549; 152Ind.Cas.299
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by them for the recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due on account of two loans of Rs. 3,000 each, taken from the plaintiffs' father on 14th October 1919 and 28th October 1919 by Rakkammal, the adoptive mother of the defendant. The defendant was then a minor. When these loans were advanced to her, some jewels were also pledged as security for the loans. In evidence of these loans, two documents are alleged to have been obtained from Rakkammal in the form of promissory notes which are filed as Exs. C and C-1. In order to enforce the liability of the defendant for the plaint mentioned loans, the plaintiffs will have to show, besides proving the truth of these loans, that these amounts were really borrowed for legal and justifiable purposes as would bind the defendant and that the debt has been kept alive at the date of suit by any payments or acknowledgments recognized by law. The def...
M. Ar. Rm. M. Annamalai Chettiar and ors. Vs. Al. A. Ct. Solaiyappa Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad983; 152Ind.Cas.369
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. In this case, the point is, whether the course which the lower Court has resolved to adopt is a matter for interference in revision. In a suit of this magnitude involving several questions both of law and fact, what is the reasonable method to be adopted, having regard to the economy of time and the trouble and expense to the parties? Issues Nos. 9 to 11 are, at any rate, issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to try this suit, and the validity of the sanction obtained by the plaintiffs for the institution of this suit. The decision of these questions as preliminary points first, before entering upon the trial of the other issues, would be; the best course. The order of the lower Court is virtually a refusal to go into the question of jurisdiction before proceeding to hear the suit on the merits. This may amount to an irregularity, open to the High Court to interfere in revision [Vide Udmiram Ram Sarup v. Ghasiram Sukhan Lal : AIR1933All7 ]. I am in...
In Re: Rama Boyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.554
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, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the 5th and 6th accused holding that there was no unlawful assembly of five or more persons and finding that there was no rioting. The 1st accused was convicted of the main charge under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused were convicted under Section 304 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code.2. It is contended for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th appellants that their conviction under Section 304 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, is illegal, the contention being that they were charged with a constructive offence and have been found guilty of a substantive off...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›