Chennai Court September 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.
Chinnappayya Mudali Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad79
ORDER1. The petitioner is the renter of an arrack shop at Tirumani. It is supplied with arrack from the depot at Vellore, and on the occasion which gave rise to this case, a permit was issued for the transport of three gallons of arrack from depot to shop. Only one gallon reached the shop; the other two were diverted elsewhere, it is alleged, to be made the subject of illicit sale. There is no question that the breach of the law thus committed was committed by the petitioner's servants, employed by him for transporting the arrack. He has also himself been convicted under Section 50(b)(doing or omitting to do something in breach of the conditions of his licence or permit) read with Section 64, Madras Abkari Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150. At the trial an attempt was made to show that the failure to carry all the arrack to its destination was due to circumstances beyond the control of the employee, so that there was no wilful breach of the terms of the permit. This was disbe...
P. Rajagopala Naidu Vs. P.R. Seshayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad368; 157Ind.Cas.505
King, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by a son (plaintiff l) against his father (defendant 1) for partition. There are other parties of lesser importance, plaintiff l's minor son (plaintiff 2), and minor sister (plaintiff 3) and various alienees from defendant 1 (defendant 2 to 5), but it will be convenient for the purposes of this judgment to refer the son and father as plaintiff and defendant simply. The plaintiff has obtained a decree from Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J. and defendant appeals. The question at issue in the appeal is whether the property in suit which, subject She setting aside of alienations, is valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 9,000, is joint family property or the self-acquired property of the defendant. It is common ground that the defendant did not sue-oft to any ancestral property, and that the first item of property which he acquired was a house site in the name of his wife Rangammal in 1897 for which he paid Rs. 150. At that time defendant's father was dead...
V.A. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors. Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad410
Curgenven, J.1. The facts of this case are not clearly stated in the order under appeal. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No 625 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirumangalam and he obtained a simple money decree against his judgment-debtor In execution of that decree he brought to sale and purchased the equity of redemption in a certain property. The property was knocked down on 15th April 1929, the certificate is dated 6th June 1929, but delivery was not effected until 5th January 1930. The respondent to this appeal was a simple mortgagee of the same property and he sued to enforce his mortgage in O.S. No. 97 of 1927, on the file of the Sub-Court of dadura, and obtained a compromise decree on 5th November 1927 to sell the property. The appointment of a Receiver was then applied for in the mortgage action and granted by the Sub-Court on 16th December 1929, i.e., after the sale to the appellant but before delivery. There was opposition by the appellant to this order...
V.A.Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Ramanathan Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.67
1. The facts, of this case are not clearly stated in the order under appeal. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 625 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirumangalam and be obtained a simple money decree against his judgment debtor. In execution of that decree he brought to sale and purchased the equity of redemption in a certain property. The properly was knocked down on April 15, 1929, the certiticate is dated June 6, 1929, but delivery was not effected until January 5, 1930. The respondent to this appealed was a simple mortgagee, of the same property and he sued to enforce hie mortgage in O.S. No. 97 of 1927, on the file of the Sub-Court of Madura and obtained a compromise decree on November 5, 1927, to sell the property. The appointment of a Receiver was then applied for in the mortgage action and granted by the Sub-Court on December 16, 1929, i.e., after the sale to the appellant but before delivery. There was opposition by the appellant to this order and the Cou...
In Re: Chinnappayya Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.604
ORDER1. The -petitioner is the renter of an arrack shop at Tirumani. It is supplied with arrack from the depot at Vellore, and on the occasion which gave rise to this case a permit was issued for the transport of three gallons of arrack from depot to shop. Only one gallon reached the shop: the other two were diverted elsewhere, it is alleged, to be made the subject of illicit sale. There is no question that the breach of the law thus committed was committed by the petitioner's servants, employed by him for transporting the arrack. He has himself been convicted, under Section 56(6) (doing or omitting to do something in breach of the conditions of his licence or permit) read with Section 64; of the Madras Abkari Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150. At the trial an attempt was made to show that the failure to carry all the arrack to its destination was due to circumstances beyond the control of the employee, so that there was, no wilful breach of the terms of the permit. This was ...
Kottapalli Lakshminarayana, Minor by Mother and Guardian Rajalakshmamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad144; (1935)68MLJ528
King, J.1. The question in this appeal is a simple one, vis.,. whether the sons of one Kothapalli Venkatasubbayya who executed a security bond in 1919 and is now dead are liable on that bond. By the terms of the bond the surety undertook that a judgment-debtor would file an insolvency petition within one month, and the insolvency petition was not filed. The District Munsif of Bapatla held that the sons were liable. The Additional Sub-Judge of Bapatla that they were not, and in Second Appeal Pakenham Walsh, J. restored the decree of the District Munsif.2. It is common ground at the hearing before us and was fully recognised in the judgment of Pakenham Walsh, J. that the question of the son's liability must first be determined with, reference to the classification of suretyship debts in the ancient Lai texts. Four kinds of such debts are distinguished (i) for appearance, (ii) for confidence or for honesty, (iii) for payment of money and (iv) for delivery of assets. Pakenham Walsh, J. hol...
Mangammal Vs. Rengappa Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad137
Walsh, J.1. Plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction against the defendants from trespassing on her land. Defendant 1 is the brother of plaintiff's deceased husband and the other defendents are sons of defendant 1. Plaintiff's case was that her husband was divided from his brother, defendant 1, about 35 years ago, that the land in question fell to his share and he had been enjoying it, and after his death she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants admitted the partition but denied that the suit lands were ever family property. Before, the suit came on for trial the plaintiff asked leave to amend her plaint by further basing her title on adverse possession against the defendants for 12 years, and asking for a declaration that the suit properties belong to the plaintiff and are in her possession and enjoyment. The petition was opposed and was refused. Against this order the present petition is filed.2. The defendants are unfortunately not represented before me...
(Golla) Lakshmiah Naidu Vs. (Golla) Krishnaswami Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad286
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they are the Golla Mirasi holders of the Sri Kothandarama-swami temple and that by a registered agreement dated 22nd August 1906 between them and the defendant they were entitled to take yearly turns in holding office. They also sued to recover possession of the key of the temple and to fill this office for the year beginning with 1st July 1931. The suit was filed in November 1931 and did not come up for hearing till March 1933 apparently for no fault of the plaintiffs. By that time the year for which they were entitled to possession had elapsed. The defendant urged that they must be therefore nonsuited as a mere prayer for declaration without possession could not be granted. The plaintiffs asked to amend their plaint by claiming the relief' they were-entitled to, viz., to get possession during: alternate years. This amendment was-allowed by the Court and against the order allowing it the present revision, petition is filed. The ar...
V.A.S. Udayamuthier Vs. Shunmugam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad431
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. His suit was for general partition after setting aside the alienations made by his father defendant 1. It was held that with respect to some alienations his right was barred by limitation : (see alionations Exs. 9-a, 10 and 11) and with respect to others it was held that the alienations were binding on the plaintiff.2. In second appeal, two points were argued. First, it was argued that the learned Judge was wrong in holding, that the right of the plaintiff to set aside the alienations Exs. 9-a, 10 and-11 was barred. To appreciate the argument on this point some facts have to be stated. These alienations were made' in 1900, 1903 and 1904 long before the plaintiff was born in August 1906. The plaintiff had an elder brother, deceased Ananthasubramania Ayyar, who was born in January 1898 before these alienations and he died an unmarried minor in July 1911. The question is whether in these circumstances the plaintiff's right to set aside the a...
Venkatarama Reddiar and anr. Vs. Valli Akkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad181; 153Ind.Cas.944; (1935)68MLJ81
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiffs appeal against the decree dismissing their suit in limine. They had obtained a money-decree against the first defendant and in execution thereof they attempted to attach a promissory note, dated 23rd December, 1924, executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant and endorsed by the third defendant to the fourth defendant. The allegations in the plaint were that, with a view to defraud the plaintiffs of the amount clue to them under their decree, the first, third and fourth defendants joined together and got this promissory note executed by the second defendant in favour of the third defendant in respect of a sum of money really due by the second defendant to the first and that in pursuance of the same fraudulent scheme the note was transferred to the fourth defendant without any consideration. An application to attach this promissory note was dismissed, on objection raised by the fourth defendant, on the ground that the promissory n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »