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.
Ottapilakool Kurunkot Mammili Rammunni Kitav and Manager of Kurungot H ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ112
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff's suit was decreed in the trial Court and dismissed in the lower Appellate Court and he prefers this second appeal. The genelogy of the family has been set out in paragraph 9 of the trial Court's judgment and it will be convenient to repeat it here: Ittichira Amma. | _____________________________________________________________ | | | | | Komunni Kitav Cheera Cheeroonni Ummamma Ammini. | | | Chirutha | | | | | Ramunni Kitav | Krishnan Kitav | | (Plaintiff in | this suit) | | | ________________________________________________ | | | Ramunni Krishnan Kitav. Chathukutti Kitav. Kitav.2. One further fact may be noted that of the three sons of Cherooni, Ramunni Kitav was the son by the first husband and Krishnan Kitav and Chathukutti Kitav are the sons by the second husband. The facts which led up to the suit are as follows: - Krishnan Kitav and Chathukutti Kitav who are the sons of Cheeroonni applied to the Collector to have the registry transferred to t...
Indian Equitable Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Onkarappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad674; 152Ind.Cas.654
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff's father took out an insurance policy on his life in the defendant Company in 1920. The premium was payable annually, but the payment due in March 1924 was allowed to remain unpaid even after the expiry of the period of grace. i.e., even after 2nd April. When the Company gave the assured a notice of lapse on 8th April, the assured sent in the declaration Ex. 5 as required by the rules of the Company and the terms of the policy according to which the policy could be revivedon furnishing satisfactory evidence of continued good health and on the payment to the Company of all premiums duo with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum up to the date of re-instatement.2. It would appear that the policy in this case had even by the date in question acquired a surrender value, but it is unnecessary to base any conclusion on that circumstance, because the declaration was made within the time allowed even in respect of policies which had not acquired such su...
Kizhiakalathil Puthan Veetil Thavazhi Karnavan Vs. Manikat Variath Ukk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad52
Walsh, J.1. The legal representative of plaintiff 2 in the suit is the appellant in this Court. Under Ex. B dated 26th Juno 1919 plaintiff 2 got a melcharth of the suit property from plaintiff 1, the sthani. The previous demisee, who was defendant 1, had a kanom, which did not expire till 1922. Plaintiff 1 (the sthani) and plaintiff 2 waited till the expiry of the previous demise and then instituted a suit for redemption. Defendant 1 transferred his rights to defendant 2, who is now the principal contesting defendant and he impugned the validity of the melcharth and in the alternative claimed reclamation expenses in case the melcharth be found good. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff 1 died and defendant 15 came on the record as his legal representative. He did not prosecute the suit but contented himself with appearing as a defendant and disputed the validity of the melcharth Ex. 13, and he further executed a renewal in favour of defendant 2. During the pendency of the appeal d...
(Ottapilokool Kurunkot Mammili) Ramunni Kitav Vs. Chalikkara Kunhayan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad125a; 155Ind.Cas.651
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff's suit was decreed in the trial Court and dismissed in the lower appellate Court and he prefers this second appeal. The genealogy of the family has been set out in para. 9 of the trial Court's judgment and it will he convenient to repeat it here: Ittichira Amma | |---------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------| Kommuni Kitav Cheeru Cheronni Ummamma Ammini | | | Chirutha | | | | | Ramunni Kitav | Krishnan Kitav | | Plaintiff in this suit | |-------------------------------|----------------------------| Rammunni Kitav Krishnan Kitav Chathukutti Kitav2. One further fact may be noted that of the three sons of Cherooni, Ramunni Kitav was the son by the first husband and Krishnan Kitav and Chathukutti Kitav are the sons by the second husband. The facts which led up to the suit are as follows : Krishnan Kitav and Chathukutti Kitav who are the sons of Cherooni applied to the Collector to have the registry transferred to their names. This was ...
Kizhiakalathil Puthan Seettil Thavazhi Karnavan Gopalan Nair and Anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.659
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The legal representative of the 2nd plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in this Court. Under Ex. B, dated June 26, 1919, the 2nd plaintiff got a melcharth of the suit property from the first plaintiff the sthani. The previous demisee who was the 1st defendant, had a kanom which did not expire till 1922. The 1st plaintiff (the sthani) and the 2nd plaintiff waited till the expiry of the [previous demise, and then instituted a suit for redemption. The 1st defendant transferred his rights to the 2nd defendant, who is now the principal contesting defendant and he impugned the validity of the melcharth and in the alternative claimed reclamation expenses in case the melcharth be found good. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st plaintiff died and the 15th defendant came on the record as his legal representative. He did not prosecute the suit but contented himself with appearing as a defendant and disputed the validity of the melcharth Ex. B, and he further executed ...
In Re: Kuppini Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.694; (1935)68MLJ493
Pandrang Row, J.1. I concur in the view of the District Magistrate that a Second Class Magistrate is not competent to pass a sentence of imprisonment for breach of an order under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing payment of maintenance. Even assuming that the words ' any Magistrate ' in Section 490 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been used with reference to the class of Magisirates referred to in Sections 488 and 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the power to enforce an order of maintenance does not necessarily include the power to sentence the person against whom it was passed to imprisonment. The order of the Second Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, dated 8th December, 1933, is therefore set aside....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›