Chennai Court March 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.
Gopalasami Baghavathar and ors. Vs. Nataraja Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad645
1. The document provides for payment of interest on 16th July, 1916, 16th July 1917 and 16th July 1918, and for payment of interest on interest in default of payment of interest on those dates. This part of the document is not now in question. It does not provide generally for annual payment of interest at a particular date or for further interest on interest in default of payment of interest. On general principles it is true that the document carries interest even after 16th July 1918, but we cannot spell out a provision to pay interest on a specified date after 16th July 1918 or to pay interest on interest in default. This will be adding to the bond clauses not in it.2. The cases in Jagmohan Das v. Jugal Kishore 1932 P.C. 99 and Marimuthu Pillai v. Gopalakrishna Iyer 1929 Mad. 774, are distinguishable as they contain general clauses providing for payment of interest. As to the case Ramanathan Chetty v. Nur Muhammad : (1901)11MLJ183 , we are inclined to agree with Davies, J's. judgmen...
Rathan Chand Kumaji Vs. Amichand and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad665
JUDGMENT 1. Defendants 1 to 3, one Jagarupchand Kumaji and certain others were carrying on a partnership business which admittedly came to an end in October 1925, on the death of Jagarup. The plaintiff claims to be an undivided brother of Jagarup and as such entitled to his share of the partnership assets. The present suit is framed in the alternative in view of what happened in a former suit, O.S. No. 62 of 1927 on the file of the City Civil Court. To elucidate the contentions raised before us, it is necessary to refer in some detail to the nature and course of that litigation. Samrathmull, the present defendant 3, was the plaintiff therein and he sued his partners and the present plaintiff who was impleaded as defendant 3. The plaint prayed that the usual partnership accounts be taken; the total amount of profits earned in the business be ascertained and the amount due to the plaintiff for his share of the profits be also ascertained. 2. Defendant 3, i.e., the present plaintiff, did ...
P.M. Balasubramaniam Mudaliar Vs. Marian Rodrigues and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad507; 153Ind.Cas.535
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Stone, J. The question here is whether Section 306, Succession Act, can avail the respondents here who were the plaintiffs in the suit in the trial Court and who claimed damages from defendant alleging that through his negligence he had caused the death of plaintiff 1's husband. During the pendency of the suit the defendant died; and the question in the trial Court and here was whether the action could be continued against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. If Section 306, Succession Act, is of application then clearly the right to continue the suit against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant survives. This being a case of a fatal accident, without statutory provision such an action could not be brought against the wrong-doer. But, as in England, the Fatal Accidents Act, here (Act 13 of 1855) enables an action for compensation to be brought by the family of a person for loss occasioned to it by his d...
Nagu Servai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad473
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The Joint Magistrate of Devakottah made a complaint against two persons of an offence punishable under Section 188, I.P.C., for having disobeyed orders passed in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The present petitioner, who is one of the two persons complained against, applied to the District Magistrate of Ramnad to have the complaint withdrawn but the District Magistrate without giving notice to the petitioner dismissed his petition summarily. It is contended by Mr. Jayarama Ayyar on behalf of the petitioner that the application to the District Magistrate for the withdrawal of the complaint was an appeal and that under the proviso Clause (1), Section 421, Criminal P.C. it should not have been summarily dismissed without giving the petitioner or his pleader an opportunity of being heard. A number of decisions of this Court have been quoted with reference to Clause 6 of Section 195, Criminal P.C., 1898. These decisions, however do not apply and are not of...
Potluri Rangarao Vs. Sait Chowgmal Vardichand and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad560; 152Ind.Cas.262
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner as defendant in the lower Court resisted the respondent-plaintiff's claim based on a promissory note executed by the petitioner on the ground that he was a minor at the time the note was executed by him and was therefore not bound by it. The learned Subordinate Judge while finding that the petitioner was a minor at the time held that he was estopped from raising the plea of minority and decreed the suit against him. It is well, settled that there is no estoppel at all in a case of this kind and the decree is not attempted to be supported by the respondent's advocate on the ground of estoppel. On an application for review made by the petitioner to the lower Court the Subordinate Judge himself held that there was no estoppel but declined to review the decree on the ground that the minor was bound to restore the money received by him by fraudulent misrepresentation about his age. No allegation of fraud was made in the plaint; even otherwise no suit w...
In Re: Nagu Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1934
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.773
Bardswell, J.1. The Joint Magistrate of Devakottah made a complaint against two persons of an offence punishable under Section 188, Indian Penal Code for having disobeyed orders passed in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The present petitioner, who is one of the two persons complained against, applied to the District Magistrate of Ramnad to have the complaint withdrawn but the District Magistrate, without giving notice to the petitioner dismissed his petition summarily. It is contended by Mr. Jayarama Ayyar on behalf of the petitioner that the application to the District Magistrate for the withdrawal of the complaint was an appeal and that under the proviso to Clause (1) of Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, it should not have been summarily dismissed without giving the petitioner or his Pleader an opportunity of being heard.2. A number of decisions of this Court have been quoted with reference to Clause 6 of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. T...
(Chennuri) Appalanarasiah Chetty Garu Vs. Makka Chittavadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad454
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The rent at one time payable on the suit lands was Rs. 132-3-6. In Fasli 1334 the defendant executed a muchilika agreeing to pay increased rent (the increase being at the rate of 2 as. per rupee), on the understanding that the plaintiff would repair his irrigation sources. The rent at the increased rate would amount to Rs. 148-12-1. The finding is, that the defendant executed the muchilika voluntarily and received, better irrigation facilities in return for the enhanced rent. The defendant urges that the agreement to pay increased; rent is not enforceable, being opposed to : Section 24, Madras Estates Land Act. Both the lower Courts have held that this contention must be upheld and in my opinion rightly. Section 24 says, 'the rent of a raiyat shall not be enhanced except as provided by this Act.' That shows that we must turn to the provisions of the Act to ascertain what course it prescribes for getting the rent enhanced. Section 30 enacts that a landholder may f...
Jaddu Padhi Vs. Chokkapu Boddu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad469; 150Ind.Cas.76
Jackson, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a bench by Pandalai, J. The plaintiffs, two brothers, sued for a declaration that the sale executed by their mother, defendant 2, to defendant 1 was not valid. It was found that plaintiff 1 had attained majority more than three years before the suit was filed, and accordingly the District Munsif dismissed the suit. The District Judge confirmed the finding of fact and that is not now disputed. In this Presidency it has been settled by the Pull Bench decision, Doraisami Sorumadan v. Nondisami Saluvan A.I.R. 1915 Mad. 1201 that in circumstances like the present, if one brother comes of age and allows three years to pass before suing, time has run against the younger brother also. But the District Judge refused to follow this ruling, because of a Privy Council ruling in Jawahir Singh v. Udai Parkash A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 16. Hence the appeal.2. In that case the two younger sons sued to set aside an alienation joining as defendants their father and ...
In Re: Mala Chengadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad457; 150Ind.Cas.796
ORDERBardswell, J.1. One Mala Chengadu alias Peva Doss was bound over by the Joint Magistrate of Chandragiri, to be of good behaviour for the space of one year with reference to Section 109, Clauses (a) and (b), Criminal P.C. He failed to give security and he was then ordered by the Joint Magistrate to be detained in a Borstal School for a period of two years, his age being 20. Under the Madras Borstal Schools Act, the minimum period for an adolescent offender to be ordered to be detained in a Borstal School is one of two years. Had Mala Ohengadu been ordered under Section 123 Criminal P.C., to be committed to or detained in prison, he could only have been kept in prison for the space of one year, even if he failed altogether to furnish security, that, being the period for good behaviour during which security had been ordered to be given by him. The learned Sessions Judge raises the question whether it was legal to 'send him to a Borstal School for, two years; and he also questions whe...
(Alakki) Venkataramayya Vs. (Rajah Saheb Meharban-i-dostan Sree) Rajah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad601
Ramesam, J.1. The question arising in this second appeal is one relating to the application and working of Sections 145 and 146, Madras Estates Land Act. Respondent 1 in this second appeal is the Maharajah of Pithapuram. In the village of Pavara in his estate, three brothers of the Chellikani family, Buchirayanim Guru, Tammayya Garu, and Achutha Rayanim Garu, were holding certain lands, under patta No. 6. The holding consisted of the following Survey Nos. with their corresponding extents. Extent.Survey No. Ac. cent. 201/2 - 95 205 10 64 214/2 1 26 242/a 40 48 246 6 22. The rent of the whole holding was Rs. 392-11-0. The evidence shows that the three brothers divided the holding and were enjoying their respective portions separately. Of these fields, the 2nd, the 3rd above mentioned, namely Section Nos. 205 and 214/2 fell to the share of the eldest brother Buchirayanim Garu. The shares of the other two brothers were sold to various persons. In the year 1912 steps were taken to have a re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »