Chennai Court August 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.
Murugesam Pillai Vs. Meenakshisundara Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad107a
1. This appeal arises out of THE petition for the execution of a decree after recognizing the petitioner as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. The petitioner-respondent is the mother of the decree-holder who died since the passing of the decree. The prayer in the petition is that the petitioner may be brought on record as the legal representative of her son the plaintiff and that the charged properties may be sold for the realisation of Rupees 15,000 with interest and costs. The facts are those. One Narayana Pillai died on 17th March 1912. The plaintiff-decree-holder was the son by his third wife. Defendant 1 is the son lay the second wife. Defendant 2 is defendant 1's mother. The plaintiff and defendant 1 were both of them minors at the death of their father. Before his death Narayana Pillai made a partition of properties on 26th February 1912, and afterwards made a. will on 15th March 1912 dealing with the property that came to his share in the partition. This will b...
A.M. Dawood Sahib Vs. Collector of Chingleput
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad279; 155Ind.Cas.280
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the claimant who is not satisfied with the amount awarded to him by the learned District; Judge as compensation for a piece of land and building acquired from him, in Poonamallee. The learned District Judge has incidentally dealt with the question whether or not there was a contract between the claimant and the District Board of Chingle-put, whereby the price was fixed at Bu-pees 10,500. This question was introduced into the discussion of the amount of compensation payable, because of the reliano placed by the claimant on the decision of the Privy Council in Fort Press Co., Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay 1922 PC 365. But as the learned Judge himself points out, the action there was between private parties themselves and their Lordships of the Judicial Committee made it clear that their decision will only be binding as between the parties and will not affect the jurisdiction of the Collector to adopt such course as he may thi...
Ragampudi Malliah and ors. Vs. Mutta Venkateswarlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.772
1. This appeal is by defendants Nos. 3 to 6 against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in a suit brought on a mortgage bond Ex. A. dated November 8, 1916, executed by the 1st defendant's father. The appellants-defendants are purchasers of the equity of redemption in execution of a money decree obtained by them after the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree.2. Two points are argued in appeal. The first is that the mortgage bond is not supported by consideration and is merely nominal. The Subordinate Judge discusses the evidence. We see no reason to differ from his estimate of the evidence. The burden of proof is upon the defendants. Not only have they not discharged the burden but there is considerable evidence for the plaintiff to show that consideration was fully paid. It is unnecessary to dwell on the oral and documentary evidence in detail.3. The second point argued is that there is a charge on the suit land created in 1912 in favour of the Imperial B...
Chikka Veerappa Setti Vs. Sarkaru Muniswami Achari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad710; (1935)69MLJ19
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether an execution petition filed on the 22nd November, 1926, was barred by limitation. The executing Court found it barred; the lower appellate Court found it not barred and Pakenham Walsh, J., in Second Appeal found that it was barred.2. Briefly the facts are as follows: - The decree-holder in O.S. No. 434 of 1919 in the District Munsif's Court Madanapallee, put in an execution application on 20th August, 1923, for the transfer of the decree to the District Munsif's Court of Chittoor for execution. Defendants 3 and 6 contested the application saying that the decree was fully satisfied. Transfer of the decree for execution was eventually ordered on 7th December, 1923. The execution petition of the 22nd November, 1926, was admittedly barred unless something had been done subsequent to the date of the application of 20th August, 1923 which saved limitation. The article of the Limitation Act in qu...
(Katapra Penkamana Illath) Narayanan Vishnu Nambudri Vs. Udayamangalat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad701; 152Ind.Cas.765
King, J.1. In 1915 a decree was obtained in a Travancore Court against a defendant who is described as Puroorattati Nal Udaya Varma Valia Rajah Avergal, Marumakkathayam family manager of Netumbrath Kovilagam. The question at issue in these connected appeals is whether execution of that decree can proceed against the kovilagam properties of the Udaya Mangalath Meethali Kovilagam. The District Munsif of Taliparamba to whose Court the decree was transferred for execution decided in the negative, the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry reversed him, and in second appeal Jackson, J., restored the District Munsif's decree in the following brief judgment:The question is whether a decree against a Valia Rajah without the words of such and such kovilagam is a decree against the kovilagam. In Kerala Verma v. Shangaram (1893) 16 Mad. 452, the wording is Valiya Rajah Chirakal Kovilagam. The special mention of the kovilagam is certainly significant. In Krishnan v. Krishnan Nair (1895) 18 Mad 452n ther...
Thirupathuran Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad722; 155Ind.Cas.408
Walsh, J.1. The accused has been convicted of murder and sentenced to transportation for life. He prefers this Jail appeal. The facts according to the prosecution are these. On 6th November 1933 the accused reported shortly before midnight to P.W. 6 that the deceased had come to his house the previous evening when he was absent at a shandy knocked at his door, pushed his wife and attempted to seduce her. He asked P.W. 6 to convene a panchayat about this and P.W. 6 did so, summoning P.Ws. 7, 9, 10- and others. Deceased was called and accused laid his complaint before the panchayat. Deceased denied the charge and suggested that accused's wife be sent for. This was done' and she stated' that somebody had knocked at her door the previous night, that on opening it she had found nobody there and had not seen the deceased. Deceased then asked accused why he had come forward with a false complaint, on which accused abused him in filthy terms saying that deceased had not only attempted to seduc...
Rajagopal Doss and ors. Vs. A. Kuppuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad93
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These appeals arise out of 14 applications made by the plaintiff-respondent for the issue of a commission to value the improvements effected by the defendants on their holdings. The applications were made under Section 4, Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 3 of 1922. The plaintiff-respondent, who is the owner of re-survey No. 1065/2 had leased out portions of this land to the Adi Dravidas for house sites. In 1929 and 1930 he filed 14 suits in ejectment against them. Then each of them applied to the Court under Section 9 of the Act, for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell the land for a price to be fixed by the Court. In addition to the sites held by the tenants, there were, on the land pathways, a temple, common latrine, etc., erected by the Adi Dravidas for their common use and enjoyment. The sale of these sites not being in their occupation could not be asked by the tenants. As they wanted these also sold to them, they arrived at an understanding...
Rajagopal Doss and anr. Vs. Shanmugam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.270
1. These appeals arise out of 14 applications made by the plaintiff-respondent for the issue of commission to value the improvements effected by the defendants on their holdings. The applications were made under Section 4 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act III of 1922.2. The plaintiff-respondent who is the owner of re-survey No. 1065/2 had leased out portions of this land to the Adi-Dravidas for house sites. In 1929 and 1930 he filed 14 suits in ejectment, against them. Then each of them applied to the Court under Section 9 of the Act, for an order that the landlord shall be directed to sell the land for a price to be fixed by the Court. In addition to the sites held by the tenants, there were on the land pathway?, a temple, common latrine, etc., erected by the Adi-Dravidas for their common use and enjoyment. The sale of these sites not being in their occupation could not be asked by the tenants. As they wanted these also sold to them, they arrived at an understanding with the p...
S. Ramaswami Poosari Vs. the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad755; (1935)68MLJ178
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 107 of the Government of India Act of 1908 to issue a writ of certiorari against the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and to quash the proceedings of that Board, dated 17th July, 1934. The matter concerns the Mariamman temple of Irakkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Ramnad District. It is an excepted temple according to the amended definition of Act IV of 1930. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board had suo motu started proceedings under Section 62 of Act II of 1927 which I shall hereafter call the Act to frame a scheme. The draft scheme had been submitted to the trustees and was pending at the time of the order. The Board states in the order:whereas complaints have been received by the Board that Sri Mariamman temple of Irakkankudi, Sattur Taluk, Ramnad District is receiving income by way of Kanikkais and other offerings from the worshippers estimated to amount to thousands of rupees and t...
P. Guruswami Naick Vs. Venkidammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad699a; 153Ind.Cas.451; (1935)68MLJ405
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner instituted a suit on the small cause side for contribution to the extent of Rs. 200 against the legal representatives of one Naranappa who died about six years prior to suit in respect of the amount paid by the petitioner in satisfaction of a joint decree against himself and Naranappa. That decree had been passed against them as joint managers of a chit fund. The District Munsif was of opinion that the suit was not of a small cause nature and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The real contest between the parties, and this was the point actually decided by the District Munsif, was whether a suit for contribution was maintainable at all in view of the fact that the decree in question was a liability of the partnerships composed of the petitioner and the late Naranappa, and not whether if such a suit was maintainable it was of a small cause nature. The District Munsif accepted the contention of the contesting defendan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »