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.
Tadepalli Subbiah Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad735; 153Ind.Cas.627
ORDERWalsh, J.1. I think the order cannot be upheld. It has not been shown that the accused petitioner had any such definite knowledge of the petition given by the complainant to the District Magistrate, its date or its contents that he could have produced it sooner than he did. The learned Sub-Magistrate is wrong in saying that Section 510 Criminal P. 0., relates only to 'important documents overlooked by the Prosecution.' It is equally available to the defence and it is mandatory if the evidence appears to the Court to be essential to a just decision of the case. The learned Sub-Magistrate does not discuss the latter aspect except where he says that 'omissions are not contradictions.' He has authority for this in the decision of a single Judge of this Court, Burn, J., reported in Ponnuswami Chetty v. Emperor 1933 Mad 372. In a re-cent Sessions case I expressed my respectful dissent from this proposition as too wide but of course the learned Sub-Magistrate cannot be found fault with f...
Padilam Narayanamma and anr. Vs. Neti Venkatasomayajulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad46; 153Ind.Cas.624
Beasley, C.J.1. The question in this, appeal is whether an application in insolvency made by a creditor to the District Munsif under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, asking for a declaration that a certain transaction was benami was barred by reason of the fact that leave of the Insolvency Court had not been obtained as provided by Section 28 of the same Act. In the sense that no formal application was ever made to the Insolvency Court under that section and formal leave granted, there was no sanctioning of the presentation of the application, but the District Munsif in the Insolvency Court entertained the application, heard it and proceeded to give a. decision upon it. It was contended before Jackson, J., in second appeal that the Insolvency Court must have impliedly granted its consent. Jackson, J., accepted that contention and thought that leave might be fairly inferred and at the same time observed that, even if it could not be inferred, the point was so technical as not to be...
Kamsala Narasappa Vs. HussaIn Sab and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad55; 152Ind.Cas.988
Beasley, C.J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether a transfer deed (Ex. B) executed by the Official Receiver of Cuddapah in favour of the appellant required registration. That deed transferred to him promissory-notes, mortgage debts, etc., belonging to an insolvent which had been sold by the Official Receiver in public auction, the appellant being the highest bidder. The sale was subsequently confirmed by the District Court. The District Munsif hold that it did not require registration, but on appeal the District Judge reversed that decision. It is argued here for the appellant that by reason of Section 17(2)(xii), Registration Act the transfer deed is exempted from registration being a certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of property sold by public auction by a civil or Revenue Officer. It is contended that the sale by the Official Receiver was a sale by a civil officer because as it required confirmation of the Court, it was the act of the Court and the Official Re...
Yalamanchili Anantaramayya Vs. Suryadevara Narasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad50
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner's suit which was based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant on 1st September 1927, was filed on 26th August 1930, and dismissed on 13th August 1931, on the ground that the note was not genuine. That finding cannot, and is not attacked in revision. The only point urged before me is that the District Munsif acted erroneously in the exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing to allow the petitioner to amend the-plaint on his application dated 25th June 1931. This application was made with a view to base the cause of action on the loan itself, and the District Munsif dismissed it on 27th July 1931 on the ground that the allowing of the amendment would take away from, the defendant the legal right which accrued to him by lapse of time, and that there were no special circumstances in the case which outweighed this. After hearing full arguments on this point from the learned advocate for the petitioner, I remain unconvinced that...
Yelamanchili Anantaramayya Vs. Suryadevara Narasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.266
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner's suit which was based, on a promissory-note said to have been executed by the defendant on September 1, 1927, was filed on August 26, 1930, and dismissed on August 13, 1931, on the ground that the note was not genuine. That finding cannot, and is not attacked in revision. The only point urged before me is that the District Munsif acted erroneously in the exercise of his jurisdiction in refusing to allow the petitioner to amend the plaint on his application dated June 25, 1931. This application was made with a view to base the cause of action in the loan itself, and the District Munsif dismissed it on July 27, 1931, on the ground that the allowance of the amendment would take away from the defendant the legal right which accrued to him by lapse of time, and that there were no special circumstances in the case which outweighed this. After hearing full arguments on this point from the learned Advocate for the petitioner, I remain unconvinced that the Dis...
Haddu Sahu Vs. Haji Zamal Noor Mahomed Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad699; 153Ind.Cas.458
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. I agree with the lower Court's order. The decision in Ramappa Chettiar v. Ekambara Padayachi 1924 Mad. 715 is no doubt in favour of the appellant but at the time when the learned Judge decided that case the decision of the Full Bench in Alaga Sundaram v. Pichuvier 1929 Mad. 757 and Arunachalam v. Veerappa Chettiar 1931 Mad. 656 did not exist. After these decisions it will be difficult to say that an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C. is not a proceeding in execution. If it is such a proceeding then Order 9, Rule 13 will not apply. The Full Bench decisions also show that Courts have no inherent power to set aside orders of dismissal for default passed in respect of such applications. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs....
(Thumbalam Gooty) Thimmayya Vs. Konakondla Vittobarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad290
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 810 alleged to be due to him by two brothers defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 2 became an insolvent and defendant 3, the Official Receiver, was added. Defendants-2 and 3 remained ex parte in the suit. The plaintiff's case was that defendants-1 and 2 were members of an undivided Hindu family, that there was a joint-family shop at Adoni which both of them managed, that there was an understanding with him that both of them, would be responsible for money owing; by either of them, and that he accordingly opened a joint account in their names.2. The suit was brought upon three items: first a sum of Rs. 1,000 borrowed on 5th December 1920 for which both the defendants executed a pro-note for Rs. 600' and for the remaining Rs. 400 gold jewels were pledged; and the interest in both the cases was to be 14 annas-per cent per mensem. On 27th July 1921 a further sum of Rs. 500 was borrowed by defendant 2 at one rupee per cent per men...
Medavarapu Narasayya Vs. Medavarapu Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad268
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He sued to recover portions of three survey fields Nos. 203, 266 and 294 in Petunee-dipalem hamlet of Anumunilanna from the defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 as will be seen from the genealogical table set out in pora. 3 of the lower appellate Court's judgment, are descendants of one Medavarapu Appayya (defendant 1 being the latter's son and defendants 2 and 3 grandsons). The plaintiff's case was that under the sale deed Ex. A dated 2nd July 1912 from one Ragamma he bought this property, which was subject to a registered lease, Ex. B, dated 3rd June 1907 for 10 years executed in favour of this Appayya by Ragamma. Ex. A recites this lease deed as subsisting. The lessee on the termination of the lease in 1917 refused to deliver possession and hence this suit. The defence was a total denial of Ragamma's title and also of the alleged tenancy under Ex. B. The trial Court found that the defendants were estopped from denying. M. Ap...
Thoppai Kaveri Ammal Vs. Subba Ayyar Deceased and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad731; 152Ind.Cas.709
1. Tenth defendant-appellant is the mother of certain mortgagors and she was impleaded as a party in the mortgage suit. She comtended that the mortgage could not avail against her right to maintenance because the properties mortgaged were joint family properties and she as the widow of a deceased co-parcener was entitled to be maintained therefrom. The learned Judge has found that the transfer was for consideration and was not intended to defraud or defeat the lady's claim for maintenance. An incidental reference is made to a decree obtained by her on December 19, 1924, declaring her maintenance a charge, but we need not deal with that matter at any length because, whether it is collusive or not, it cannot affect the rights acquired by the mortgagees under a mortgage of much earlier date. We have, therefore, to deal with the case on the footing that at the date of the mortgage this widow had the general right of a Hindu widow to maintenance out of joint family property, which had not r...
Ramachandra Naidu Vs. Pavalayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad360; 159Ind.Cas.478; (1935)68MLJ717
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on foot of a mortgage, dated 7th April, 1923 executed in favour of the plaintiff by Sengoda Goundan, father of defendants 1 to 3. The fourth defendant was impleaded as he purchased the mortgage properties in an auction sale held in execution of a money decree obtained against the mortgagor and is in possession. Defendants 1 to 3 did not contest the claim. The fourth defendant raised various defences. First, he pleaded that the suit mortgage bond was not supported by consideration and that it was a collusive transaction between the mortgagor and the plaintiff who was his near relation, intended to screen the properties as the mortgagor was then heavily indebted. Secondly he pleaded that besides the plaintiffs' mortgage there were two prior mortgages which were paid off by him and that he is entitled to priority by reason of such payment over the suit mortgage. These two contentions are made the subject of two issues. The first issue w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »