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.
(Singanamala) Venkataswamy Vs. (Pese) Venkataramana Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad692a; 152Ind.Cas.789
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioner in E.P. No. 36 of 1930 on the file of the District Judge of Anantapur, is the appellant. The appeal raises an important question of law, namely, whether in execution of a money decree, a preliminary decree for partition obtained by the judgment-debtor can be validly sold. The facts are simple and may be briefly stated. The appellant obtained a money decree in O.S. No. 357 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Bellary, against respondent 1 herein. The latter had obtained a preliminary decree for partition against the other respondents in O.S. No. 14 of 1923 (that is O.S. No. 20 of 1925 of the Sub-Court, Anantapur). In execution of the appellant's money decree this preliminary decree for partition was attached and thereafter his decree was transmitted to the District Court of Anantapur to enable him to execute the preliminary decree for partition. Respondent 1, that is, the decree-holder in the partition suit, does not raise any objection;...
Official Assignee Vs. Khambampati Pedda Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad697
King, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the insolvency of the three partners of Mahomad Khaja Sahib & Co., and the simple point at issue is whether a certain agreement to which these partners were parties, which is unregistered, is or is not exempt from registration. The learned trial Judge has held that it is not exempt, and therefore is not admissible in evidence and the Official Assignee who seeks to rely upon it has appealed. The circumstances in which the document came to be executed were these. In 1928 two insolvency petitions I. P.N. 483 and I.P. No. 527, were filed in the High Court against the firm in question each by two of its creditors. These petitioning creditors applied under Section 13(8), Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, for leave to withdraw their petitions. Their applications were posted to 11th December 1928 and on that day they produced in support of them the agreement now in dispute which was undated but signed by the three partners and by nineteen of their credit...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. Khambampati Pedda Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.541
King, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the insolvency of the three partners of Mahomed Khaja Sahib & Co., and the simple point at issue is whether a certain agreement to which these partners were parties, which is unregistered, is or is not exempt from registration. The learned trial Judge has held that it is not exempt, and, therefore, is not admissible in evidence and the Official Assignee who seeks to rely upon it has appealed.2. The circumstances in which the document came to be executed were these. In 1928 two Insolvency Petitions, Insolvency Petition No. 483 and Insolvency Petition No. 527 were filed in the High Court against the firm in question--each by two of its creditors. These petitioning creditors applied under Section 13(8) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act for leave to withdraw their petitions. Their applications were posted to December 11, 1928, and on that day they produced in support of them the agreement now in dispute which was undated but signed by the three...
Guruzada Venkateswara Rao and anr. Vs. Guruzada Audinarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad129; (1935)69MLJ256
Varadachariar, J.1. Both parties to this suit are agnatic kinsmen of one Sarabharaju and they claim, against each other, the properties which his widow enjoyed till her death in 1926. A genealogical table is appended to the plaint, showing the relationship of the various parties. It is not necessary to refer to it here in more detail than to say that the plaintiff is the father's brother's grandson of Sarabharaju and that the defendants are the brother's great grandsons of Sarabharaju. The only other portion of the pedigree, to be borne in mind in dealing with the evidence, is that Sarabharaju had two step-brothers Lakshmikantham and Nagabhushanam, that Nagabushanam left only a widow surviving him and that Lakshmikantham had a son Papahari' who predeceased him, leaving a son Nagabhushanam the father of the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff claimed that the properties in the possession of the widow were held by her as a widow's estate, she having succeeded to the same on Sarabharaju's d...
Sri Mahant Prayag Doss Jee Varu and ors. Vs. Archakam Bokkasam Govinda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad220; 157Ind.Cas.547; (1935)68MLJ295
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals arise out of disputes between certain archakas of the Tiruchanur Temple and Sri Mahant of Tirupathi as the Vicharanakartha of the said temple. To follow the evidence and appreciate the contentions in the case a preliminary narrative may be helpful.2. The Tiruchanur Temple has long been associated not merely in the popular mind but also in respect of its management with the temples at Tirumalai (on the hills), and Tirupathi (at the foot), and all the three and a number of other temples in the neighbourhood have generally come to be known as the Tirumalai Tirupathi, etc., Devasthanams. When the Government divested themselves of the management of Hindu Temples, this group was handed over to the then Mahant of the Hatiramji Mutt at Tirupathi, and they have ever since continued under a common management.3. In the Tiruchanur temple the principal shrine is that of the Goddess Sri Padmavathi(referred to as Thayar or Amrn'avaru). But in the same temple there ha...
Vepa Suramma and anr. Vs. Chakka Venkayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad695; 152Ind.Cas.617
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage (Ex. A in the case) dated 16th October 1908. Only two questions were raised in the memorandum of appeal: one relating to limitation, in respect of interest accruing due between the years 1908 and 1912 and the other relating to the enforceability by way of charge on the property, or the compensation allowed by the Court in place of the provision in the bond for enhanced interest.2. As regards the first point, Mr. Lakahmanna's argument is that an independent suit for the amount of interest accruing due each year, between the years 1908 and 1912, could have been brought that these claims for interest furnished separate causes of action and therefore his suit brought in 1924 is to that extent barred by limitation. We are unable to agree with this contention. The language of the document shows that interest is payable till the principal amount is paid and ordinarily there is only a single cause of action for both principal a...
Gurazada Venkateswara Rao and anr. Vs. Gurazada Audinarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.923
1. Both parties to this suit are agnatic kinsmen of one Sarabharaju and they claim against each other the properties which his widow enjoyed till her death in 1926. A genealogical table is appended to the plaint, showing the relationship of the various parties. It is not necessary to refer to it here in more detail then to say that the plaintiff is the father's brother's grandson of Sarabharaju and that the defendants are the brother's great grandsons of Sarabharaju. The only other portion of the pedigree to be borne in mind in dealing with the evidence, is that Sarabharaju had two step-brothers Lakshimikantham and Naghabushanam, that Nagabhushanam left only a widow surviving him and that Lakshmikantham had a son Papahari, who pre-deceased him leaving a son Naghabhushanam, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff claimed that the properties in the possession of the widow were held by her as a widow's estate, she having succeeded to the same on Sarabharaju's death somewhere ...
K. Srirangachariar Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad673
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner was committed to the Chingleput Sessions Court to take his trial on two separate charges accusing him of two distinct offences, viz. the offence of theft of a blank 2nd class railway ticket from the South Indian Railway Company's booking office at Conjeeveram punishable under Section 380, I.P.C. and the offence of forgery in respect of certain entries alleged to have been made by him in that ticket with intent that fraud may be committed, punishable under Section 467, I.P.C.2. The trial of the petitioner was proceeded with at first only in respect of the first offence, i.e., the offence of theft. This trial in respect of the offence of theft which was held by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chingleput, with the aid of a jury ended in acquittal. Thereupon the trial of the petitioner in respect of the second offence, the offences of forgery, was taken up by the Sessions Judge, Chingleput. The petitioner contended that his acquittal in the earlier tria...
(Thithi) Suryanarayana Vs. Thota Simhadri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad664a; 152Ind.Cas.481
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. Both the Courts below found, that the warrant while executing which the process-server was resisted, was an illegal warrant inasmuch as the Court which issued it had no power under law to issue it. The petitioner has nevertheless been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 186, I.P.C., on the ground that he was not entitled to the benefit of the right of private defence in view of the limitation placed thereon by Section 99, I.P.C. This consideration is really irrelevant for unless the essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 186, I. P.C. one of which is the lawful nature of the duties in the discharge of which resistance is offered are made out the question whether there was a right of private defence or not does not arise. For the present case that essential ingredient is absent and it follows that the offence has not been established. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 186, I.P.C., is therefore set aside and the sente...
In Re: K. Srirangachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.154
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner was committed to the Chingleput Sessions Court to take his trial on two separate charges accusing him of two distinct offences, viz., the offence of theft of a blank second class Railway ticket from the South Indian Railway Company's booking office at Conjeevaram punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, and the offence of forgery in respect of certain entries alleged to have (been) made by him in that ticket with intent that fraud may be committed, punishable under Section 467, Indian Penal Code.2. The trial of the petitioner was proceeded with at first only in respect of the first offence, i.e., the offence of theft. This trial in respect of the offence of theft which was held by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chingleput, with the aid of the jury ended in acquittal. Thereupon the trial of the petitioner in respect of the 2nd offence, the offence of forgery, was taken up by the Sessions Judge, Chingleput. The petitioner contended that...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »