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.
Narayana Goundan Vs. Appavu Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad727; 153Ind.Cas.819
King, J.1. Two decrees were obtained against one Appavu Goundan, a minor, with his mother Konammal as his guar. dian in O.S. Nos. 1114 and 835 respectively of 1922, on the file of the District Munsif of Udumalpet. In execution of the first (O.S. No. 1114) certain property was attached on 2nd May 1923. On 4th July 1923, Konammal on behalf of her son sought for permission under Order 21, Rule 83, to mortgage the property in order to satisfy the decree. Permission was granted by the Court on 5th July, and the mortgage was actually effected in pursuance of it on 19th August by Ex. A. Next day (20th August) the mortgage money was paid into Court by the mortgagee (Narayana Goundan) and the decree in O.S. No. 1114 was discharged. Meanwhile however on 19th July the decree-holder in O.S. No. 835 had also attached the same property and the property was in due course proclaimed and sold in pursuance of the attachment, one Kandasami Chetti becoming the auction-purchaser on 8th February 1924. In 19...
Mavuthalayan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad721; 155Ind.Cas.74
Walsh, J.1. In this case the accused have been convicted of house-breaking and theft, offences under Sections 457 and 380, I.P.C. There is no direct evidence that any of them were seen at the place of house-breaking and the conviction rests on the subsequent recovery of certain of the stolen articles. The learned Sessions Judge says in his charge to the jury there Is hardly little or no evidence on record that these accused were arrested with these articles in their possession.2. So the evidence against them is that of third persons to whom they handed over the property. One of these is P.W. 6 to whom 6 brass vessels, M.O.S. 2 to 7 and a silk saree, M.O. 10 were sold. As regards this witness the learned Judge instructed the jury as follows:What P.W. 6, Abdul Rahim Sahib, says is that accused 1, 2 and 4 who are all brothers brought to him these brass vessels and one silk saree, M.O.S. 2 to 7 and 10, and wanted him to give them Rs. 2. As he had no money then he gave them six annas. You h...
In Re: Jana Yellamraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad51; 153Ind.Cas.476; (1935)68MLJ51
ORDER1. The question of the effect of Rule 2 of the Agency Rules of 1924 has been argued before us. Mr. Rama Rao lays stress upon the fact that this rule reproduces only some of the provisions of Order 33 and Order 44, Civil Procedure Code while other provisions are not re-produced and contends that as the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the Agency Tracts, we ought not, in dealing with this case, be guided by the provision in Order 44 of the Code, which enables the High Court to refuse leave to appeal in forma pauperis, unless upon a perusal of the judgment and decree appealed from it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the force of law, or is otherwise erroneous or unjust. He also 3raws our attention to the fact that in the case of appeals from the Agent, there is no provision corresponding to Order 41, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. As regards the usage of the word 'may' in Rule 2 of the Agency Rules he invokes the well establishe...
(Kommuru) Venkata Rao Vs. (Korella) Sesharattama
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad730
Ramesam, J.1. I do not agree with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge and the court-fee examiner. This suit is for a declaration that the person re-ally interested in the promissory notes is the plaintiff and not the defendant though they stand in the defendant's name and for recovery of the notes but not for the recovery of the money due [on the notes. The makers of the notes are parties so that the finding may be binding on them also. Section 7, Clause 4 (a), Court-fees Act, is the clause applicable and not Clause 3 as the Subordinate -Judge seems to think.2. Under Section 7, Clause 4(a), Court-fees Act, the plaintiff has not got to pay court-fees on the value of the notes. The value of the notes is not the money due on the notes. Their value is only evidentiary. The plaintiff has got to state the value at which he values the relief sought. He has stated it to be Rs. 500. I set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and find that the plaintiff has not to pay additional court-fe...
T.P. Kuppuswami Pillai Vs. Alwar Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad89
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The first point raised in the civil revision petition is one of jurisdiction, namely, that the suit in the District Munsif's Court should have been brought on the Original Side of that Court and not on the Small Cause Side as it was. This is a point which is raised in the written statement of the defendant. No mention of this point is made anywhere in his judgment by the learned District Munsif' and I am entitled to assume and do assume that it was a point which was not pressed before him. There was no adjudication upon it and the learned District Munsif proceeded to deal with the case on its merits. I have been invited however to consider the point, it being urged that this being a point of jurisdiction it is quite proper to take it here. I am well aware that points of jurisdiction, even though not taken in the lower Court, can be argued here. At the same; time I am bound to state that the revisional powers of the High Court are not exercised unless it appears to ...
Shanmugan and ors. Vs. P.L.A.P.L. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad141
1. These appeals arise out of a suit brought for accounts. The facts of the case may be shortly stated. The common ancestor of the parties was one Palaniappa Chetti. He had two sons Annamalai Chetti and Thenappa Chetti. Annamalai Chetti died in-1891 having a son Palaniappa Chetti. The second Palaniappa Chetti died in 1902 leaving his widow Seethai Achi and his mother Meenakshi Achi. There were disputes between the mother in law and the daughter in law and litigations pending when in 1904 an amicable settlement was effected by Ex. A. Under this settlement each of the women was to make an adoption. Thenappa Chetti was to bring about the adoption. Accordingly Seethai Achi adopted Venkatachala in 1905 and Meenakshi adopted Adaikkalava in 1906. This Adaikkalava is the father of defendants and 1 and 2 his widow is defendant 3. Each of the adopted sons took a half share of the properties. Venkatachala enjoyed his half share till 1912 when he died leaving his widow Alagammai Achi who is now de...
Vyravan Chettiar Vs. Rajah Srimhtau Muthuvijaya Reghunatha Doraisingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad259
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This is a petition by the defendant to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Manamadura in Section C. Suit No. 123 of 1931. It is unnecessary to refer to the previous history of the suit or its transfer 'from the revenue Court to the Small Cause Court, except to say that its original presentation in revenue Court explains certain expressions in the plaint which may not be appropriate to the suit if it had been intended to file it in the first instance in the Small Cause Court. Before dealing with the merits it is perhaps convenient to deal with one contention raised by Mr. Patanjali Sastri, that while point No. 1 noted for determination in para. 4 of the District Munsif's judgment speaks of the claim as thirva or cess, an application was at one stage made before the Small Cause Court to have the plaint amended by converting it into a claim for kanganam and Kulavettu cess. It would appear that this petition was dismissed as not pressed on. 3rd September 19...
Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. P.L.A.P.L. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.102
1. These appeals arise out, of a suit brought for accounts. The facts of the case may be shortly stated. The common ancestor of the parties was one Palaniappa Chetti. He had two sons Annamalai Chetti and Thenappa Chetti. Annamalai Chetti died in 1891 leaving a son Palaniappa Chetti. The second Palaniappa Chetti died in 1902 leaving his widow Seethai Achi and his mother Meenakshi Achi. There were disputes between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law and litigations pending when in 1904 an amicable settlement was effected by Ex. A. Under this settlement each of the women was to make an adoption. Thenappa Chetti was to bring about the adoption. Accordingly Seethai Achi adopted Venkatachala in 1905 and Meenakshi adopted Adaikkalava in 1906. This Adaikkalava is the father of the first and second defendants and his widow is the third defendant. Each of the adopted sons took a half share of the properties. Venkatachala enjoyed, his half share till 1912 when he died leaving his widow Alag...
Kommura Venkata Rao Vs. Korella Sesharattamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.756
Ramesam, J.1. I do not agree with the view taken by the Subordinate Judge and the Court-fee Examiner. This suit is for a declaration that the person really interested in the promissory notes is the plaintiff and not the defendant though they stand in the defendant's name and for recovery of the notes but not for the recovery of the money due on the notes.2. The makers of the notes are parties so that the finding may be binding on them also.3. Section 7, Clause (iv)(a) of the Court Fees Act is the clause applicable and not Clause (iii) as the Subordinate Judge seems to think.4. Under's. 7, Clause (iv)(a), Court Fees Act, the plaintiff has not got to pay court-fees on the value of the notes. The value of the notes is not the money due on the notes. Their value is only evidentiary. The plaintiff has got to state the value at which he values the relief sought. He has stated it to be Rs. 500.5. I set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and find that the plaintiff has not to pay additio...
Vyraven Chettiar Vs. Collector of Sivaganga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.975
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This is a petition by the defendant to revise the decree of the District Munsif of Manamadura in S.C. Suit No. 123 of 1931. It is unnecessary to refer to the previous history of the suit or its transfer from the Reveuue Court to the Small Cause Court, except to say that its original presentation in the Revenue Court explains certain expressions in the plaint which may not be appropriated to the suit if it had been intended to file it in the first instance in the Small Cause Court. Before dealing with the merits it is perhaps convenient to deal with one contention raised by Mr. Patanjali Sastri that while point No. 1 noted for determination in para. 4 of the District Munsif's judgment speaks of the claim as thirva or cess, an application was at one stage made before the Small Cause Court to have the plaint amended by converting it into a claim for kanganam and kulavettu cess. It would appear that this petition was dismissed as not pressed on September 3, 1931, b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »