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.
Abdulla Rowther Vs. Kesava Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad47; 153Ind.Cas.652; (1935)68MLJ151
ORDERPakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Petition for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to the Election Commissioner arising in the following way. In May, 1932, an election for Ward No. 3 of Puduvayal Panchayat Board was held and the petitioner and the first respondent were duly nominated for that election. Out of the 25 votes recorded, the Election Officer treated 22 votes as invalid and of the remaining 3 votes, 2 were secured by the first respondent and 1 by the petitioner. The first respondent was therefore declared duly elected. The petitioner then filed a petition alleging several irregularities in the conduct of the election and prayed that he might be declared as having been duly elected or in the alternative, to set aside the election and to direct a fresh one. The Election Officer had to declare these 22 votes invalid, as the ballot papers in those cases contained the serial numbers of the voters and also their names. P.W. 1, the Polling Officer, under a mistak...
South Indian Railway Company Ltd. Vs. V.M.K.S. Dandayutham Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad715
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the S.I.R. Co. This petition is to revise an order of the District Munsif of Udumalpet awarding damages to the plaintiff for the loss caused to him on account of rain leaking into the waggon, as a result of which 15 bags out of the 141 bags of rice consigned to him were found wet. The defendant company claimed exemption from liability for the damage caused as the goods were sent under risk note form H. Under this contract the company will be liable if it is proved that the damage was caused on account of the 'misconduct' of the Railway Department or its servants. The question is whether there has been such misconduct as is contemplated by the risk note form H in this case. It is admitted-see D.W. 1-that the bags of rice became wet on account of the rain blowing into the waggon through the crevices of the doors; but there is evidence that the waggon in which the goods were despatched was found watertight at the last periodical examination on 1s...
Etavoor Koorikandathil Puthan Veettil Kuttipennamma's daughter, Naraya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ61
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The Appellants here were defend ants 3, 5, 6, 8 and 12 to 26 in the suit. Defendants 3 to 26 are members of. a tarwad to whom the 1st Defendant sub-leased the suit lands. The plaintiff sited to recover possession of the suit lands.2. The point for consideration is one which arises out of Section 6 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (I of 1900). The appellants, being sub-tenants and the plaintiff having succeeded in his suit for ejectment, claimed compensation for improvements under Section 5 of the same Act. The question here is whether the 1st respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, is entitled to set off any money due to him for rent in respect of the tenancy against the sum found due to the tenants for compensation. It is contended for the appellants that they are the sub-tenants of the 1st defendant and have paid rent to him and that there is, therefore, nothing due in respect of rent from them to the 1st respondent. In...
The Official Receiver of Kistna Vs. the Imperial Bank of India and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad151; (1935)68MLJ78
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is the Official Receiver of Kistna, and as such the Receiver in the insolvency of the 2nd and 3rd respondents to this appeal. The 1st respondent, the Imperial Bank of India, obtained a money decree against the two other respondents and against the 4th respondent, a son of the 3rd respondent, in respect of his share in the joint family property. This decree was obtained in March, 1931.2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were respectively adjudicated insolvents on 12th September, 1931 and 11th January, 1932.3. The Bank had attached the property of the two insolvent's and the share of the 4th respondent before judgment. This statement could not, of course, operate to prevent the vesting of the insolvents' property in the Official Receiver on their later insolvency Raghunath Das v. Sundar Das Khetri (1914) L.R. 41 I.L.R. 42 Cal. 72 : 27 M.L.J. 150 .4. The Bank subsequently took steps to bring the 4th respondent's share in the Property to sale. Objection was made by t...
Parakkatavath Puthiapurayil Assan Vs. Puthiapurayil Tharuvayi MoidIn K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad140; 155Ind.Cas.284; (1935)68MLJ129
King, J.1. The contesting parties in this appeal are Plaintiff and Defendant 4. Plaintiff filed a suit for money (O.S. No. 1 of 1923 Sub-Court, Tellicherry) against Defendant 1 and others and obtained a decree in September 1924. Defend ant 4 is the holder of another decree (in O.S. No, 394 of 1921 District Munsif's Court Kasargod). That suit (O.S. No. 394 of 1921) was originally filed by Defendant 1 but on 4th August, 1921 first Defendant assigned his claim against the Defendants in that suit to Defendant 4. Defendant 4 was then impleadea as supplemental second Plaintiff and on 11th March, 1922 a compromise decree was passed in favour of Defendant 4 alone. Now when Plaintiff brought his suit against Defendant 1 in 1923 he attached this decree in favour of Defendant 4 before judgment, alleging that Defendant 4 was really only a benamidar for Defendant 1. Defendant 4 objected to this attachment and the attachment was raised. Plaintiff then in 1923, filed the present suit and obtained a d...
C. Narayanaswami Naidu Vs. N. Subbaramulu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad394; (1935)68MLJ236
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a Revision Petition by the first defendant against the order of the District Munsif of Poonamallee in O.S. No. 247 of 1932 adding the present first respondent as third plaintiff. The ground on which the first respondent asked to be added was that his maternal uncle had undertaken to finance the plaintiffs' suit, that there was an agreement that in the event of their winning the plaintiffs should convey to the maternal uncle a half share in the immoveable suit properties and pay half the moneys that they might recover from the defendant for costs and mesne profits. On the death of his maternal uncle while the litigation was proceeding he (respondent) took his uncle's place and the plaintiffs confirmed the agreement. He said he apprehended that the first plaintiff was about to withdraw from the suit without his intervention. The learned District Munsif allowed the request. 'Petitioner claims derivative interest in the suit properties and opposes the withdrawa...
Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao Vs. Chitluri Venkataramay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ282
ORDER1. The question which these Criminal Revision Petitions raises is as to the admissibility of certain statements. made by the complainant in an income-tax return. The case is in the stage of a preliminary inquiry, and, if committed, will eventually be heard by the Sessions Court. In these circumstances, it has been urged upon us by the complainant that we should not interfere with the Order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate admitting the evidence. We believe it to be very unusual for this Court to hold up a preliminary enquiry while it adjudicates upon an order of this kind. Indeed, only one reported case, a recent one decided by Burn, J., (in Ponnusami Chetty, In re I.L.R.(1933) 56 Mad. 475 has been brought to our notice in which a question of the admissibility of evidence at this stage has been entertained; and it does not appear that any objection, such as is raised now, was preferred. We are influenced by the consideration that if the case is committed for trial, it will...
Periaswami thevan and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad36
Pandrang Row, J.1. The two appellants in this appeal have been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, appellant 1 of an offence punishable under Section 201, Penal Code, and appellant 2 of murder. Appellant 1 received a sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment while appellant 2 was sentenced to transportation for life under Section 302, Penal Code. The case arose out of the discovery of the dead body of one Ramaswami Thevan, a bachelor of about 23 years in the early morning of 8th October in the Itteri near the field belonging to witness Royappa Goundan. Ho reported the discovery of the dead body which had numerous injuries to the village Munsif who reported the matter to the police and the Magistrate. The inquest was held on Sunday night 8th October and the only eye-witness examined at the inquest was not examined as a witness for the prosecution.2. The next day however during the investigation the Sub-Inspector was able 1,0 got the evidence of two eye-witnesse...
(Etayoor Koorikandathil Puthan Veetil Kutti Pennama's daughter) Naraya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad139
Beasley, C.J.1. The appellants here were defendants 3, 5, 6, 8 and 12 to 26 in the suit. Defendants 3 to 26 are members of a tarwad to whom defendant 1 sub-leased the suit lands. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit lands. The point for consideration is one which arises out of Section 6, Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (1 of 1900). The appellants, being sub-tenants and the plaintiff having succeeded in his suit for ejectment, claimed compensation for improvements under Section 5 of the same Act. The question here is whether respondent 1, the plaintiff in the suit, is en-titled to set off any money due to him for rent in respect of the tenancy against the sum found due to the tenants for compensation. It is contended for the appellants that they are the sub-tenants of defendant 1 and have paid rent to him and that there is therefore nothing due in respect of rent from them to respondent 1. In the lower appellate Court it was held that on a construction...
Narayani Amma and ors. Vs. Narayanan Namboodripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.271
Beasley, C.J.1. The appellants here were defendants Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 12 to 26 in the suit. Defendants Nos. 3 to 26 are members of a tarwad to whom the first defendant sub-leased the suit lands. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit lands.2. The point for consideration is one which arises out of Section 6 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act (I of 1900). The appellants, being subtenants and the plaintiff having succeeded in his suit for ejectment, claimed compensation for improvements under Section 5 of the same Act. The question here is whether the first respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, is entitled to set off any money due to him for rent in respect of the tenancy against the sum found due to the tenants for compensation. It is contended for the appellants that they are the sub-tenants of the first defendant and have paid rent to him and that there is, therefore, nothing due in respect of rent from them to the first respondent. In the lower ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »