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.
Sesha Ammal Vs. Venkatanarasimha Bhattachariar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad91; 152Ind.Cas.882
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an application under the Indian Lunacy Act by a wife for an order directing an inquisition whether her husband is of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself and his affairs. The application was heard by Anantakrishna Ayyar, J. He himself examined the respondent and questioned him for more than an hour and heard the medical evidence and came to the conclusion that the respondent was not of unsound mind, though subnormal and was not quite capable of managing his affairs though he was capable of managing himself. What has to be found under the Act is that the person is of unsound mind and that the unsoundness of mind is such as to make' him incapable of managing his affairs. A person who is incapable of managing his affairs is not necessarily of unsound mind and a person of unsound mind may not be incapable of managing his affairs. The Court must hold that both unsound-ness of mind and incapacity to manage his affairs are present and that the latter is due t...
A. Venkatasami Chettiar Vs. Sankaranarayana Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad12; (1935)69MLJ566
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This second appeal has been placed before a Bench because of a contention by the appellant's Advocate that the Bench decisions in Muthukumarasami Pillai v. Muthuswami Thevan (1926) 52 M.L.J. 148 and Jagannadha Rao v. Basavayya : AIR1927Mad835 throw doubt on the observations in Venkata Reddy v. Kunjappa Goundan I.L.R. (1923) 47 Mad. 551 : 46 M.L.J. 391 on which the two lower Courts have relied.2. The suit was really a controversy between two rival purchasers of the same mortgaged property. The plaintiff, was the purchaser in execution of a decree passed on a prior mortgage which I will call Mortgage No. 1 whilst the first defendant was the purchaser in execution of a decree passed on a puisne mortgage which I will call mortgage No. 2. No. 2 mortgagee brought his suit first and obtained a decree in 1922. Afterwards No. 1 mortgagee brought her suit and obtained her decree in 1924. To No. 2 mortgage suit No. 1 mortgagee was not made a party. To No. ...
A.M. Rangachariar Vs. Venkataswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad56
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioner contends that the order of the 1st Class Bench Magistrate's Court, Conjeeveram, dated 31st October 1933, discharging the respondent in contrary to law. The petitioner admitted during his examination as P.W. 1 in that Court that:for the same offence the accused was charged in E.C. No. 378 of 1933,and the order of the Court dated 3rd March 1933 which decided that case showed that the accused had been acquitted. The Court held that the accused was not liable to be tried again for the same offence in view of Section 403, Criminal P.C. and the ruling reported in Ramanujachariar v. Kailasam Iyer 1925 Mad. 1067.2. It is now contended that the offence is not the same because the subsequent complaint alleged a subsequent notice to remove the same encroachment; except that the notice in the present case bears a subsequent date all the facts alleged in the present case are exactly the same-as those alleged in the previous case of the same year which ended in acquitt...
A.M. Rangachariar Vs. Venkatasami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.322
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner contends that the order of the 1st Class Bench Magistrate's Court, Conjeevaram, dated October 31, 1933, discharging the respondent is contrary to law. The petitioner admitted during his examination as P.W. No. 1 in that Court that 'for the same offence the accused was charged in B.C. No. 378 of 1933', and the order of the Court dated March 3, 1933, which decided that case showed that the accused had been acquitted. The Court held that the accused was not liable to be tried again for the same offence in view of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, and the ruling reported in Ramanujachariar v. Kailasam Iyer : AIR1925Mad1067 .2. It is now contended that the offence is not the same because the subsequent complaint alleged a subsequent notice to remove the same encroachment; except that the notice in the present case bears a subsequent date, all the facts alleged in the present case are exactly the same as the alleged in the previous case of the same ...
Chidambaram Chettiar Alias Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. Ayyappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad152; 155Ind.Cas.1059; (1935)69MLJ558
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah directing the filing of an award on a matter referred to arbitration without the intervention of the Court under Rule 20 of second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers and belong to the Nattukottai Chetti community. In 1903 their father divided from his other brothers, receiving certain sums of money and some immoveable and movable property. In 1917 the father died. Up to the time of his death he was managing the business, which consisted in money-lending, and the property together with the younger son, the defendant. After his death it was managed by the defendant. In 1922 the brothers attempted to make a division by means of an arbitration which is said to have awarded to the plaintiff Rs. 12,000, but this fell through. On the 31st December, 1928, the brothers executed the muchilika Ex. I to three arbitrators, requesting them to mak...
Konduri Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Vagasana Venkataraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ12
Varadachariar, J.1. The only point for determination in this appeal is a question of limitation, which arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage bond (Ex. A) of 1905 and the principal contesting defendant, (the 11th defendant) had a mortgage, in his favour, of 1902 (Ex. I). To get over the prima facie priority of Ex. I, Plaintiff relied on the fact that his mortgage Ex. A was practically a renewal of Ex. B, which, being dated 24th May, 1892, was long anterior to Ex. I. The learned Subordinate Judge, in appeal, accepted the Plaintiff's claim to priority and gave him a decree as prayed for. On Second Appeal to this Court, Jackson, J., reversed this decision, holding that on the date of Ex. A, the claim under Ex. B had become barred by limitation and therefore the Plaintiff was not entitled to priority as against the 11th defendant. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The way in which a renewal of an earlier mortgage operates as against intermediate transf...
Manikkam Pillai Vs. N.M. Nagasami Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad714
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. The petitioner is a landholder and he sues the defendants, who occupy a holding under him, to eject them from part of a tank-bed upon which he alleged that they had encroached. A preliminary issue has been framed as to the correct court-fee to be paid, and this revision petition has been presented against an order requiring payment of an ad valorem fee under Section 7, Clause 5(c), Court-fees Act, which provides that, where land pays no revenue, the value is to be taken as fifteen times the net profits, or if no net profits have arisen therefrom, as the value of similar land in the neighbourhood. It is contended that the appropriate provision is Article 17-B, Schedule 2 of the Act, which relates to plaints in suits where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.2. The contention is supported by two separate arguments. The reliefs asked for were the eviction of the defendants, a...
Konduri Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Vegasana Venkataraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad64; 153Ind.Cas.2
1. The only point for determination in this appeal is a question of limitation, which arises under the following circumstances. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage bond (Ex. A) of 1905 and the principal contesting defendant, (the 11th defendant) had a mortgage, in his favour, of 1902 (Ex. 1), To get over the prima facie priority of Ex. 1, plaintiff relied on the fact that his mortgage Ex. A. was practically a renewal of Ex. B, which, being dated May 21, 1892, was long anterior to Ex. 1. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal, accepted the plaintiffs claim to priority and gave him a decree as prayed for. On second appeal to this Court, Jackson J., reversed this decision, holding that on the date of Ex. A, the claim under Ex. B had become barred by limitation and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to priority as against the 11th defendant. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The way in which a renewal of an earlier mortgage operates as against intermediate transferees of the mortgage...
Manikam Pillai Vs. N.M. Nagasami Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.679
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner is a landholder and he sues the defendants, who occupy a holding under him, to eject them from part of a tank-bed upon wnich he alleged that they had encroached. A preliminary issue has been framed as to the correct court-fee to be paid, and this revision petition has been presented against an order requiring payment of an ad valorem fee under Section 7, Clause (v)(c) of the Court Fees Act, which provides that, where land pays no revenue, the value is to be taken as fifteen times the net profits, or if no net profits have arisen therefrom, as the value of similar land in the neighbourhood. It is contended that the appropriate provision is Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Act, which relates to plaints in suits ' when it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.2. The contention is supported by two separate arguments. The reliefs asked for were the eviction of the defend...
A.L. Rama Patter and Brothers by Partner A.L. Rama Pattar Vs. Manikkam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad726; 158Ind.Cas.485; (1935)69MLJ104
1. The plaintiffs - appellants are a family of landlords and money-lenders in Palghat. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers, and the third Defendant is their nephew. They two owned extensive properties in the neighbourhood of Palghat, but have latterly got into difficulties and 1 and 2 defendants were adjudicated insolvents in 1932. The suit was laid for the recovery of a sum of about Rs. 58,000 due as per account Ex. A. The third Defendant was the only contesting defendant and the question in the appeal relates to his liability. The claim in the appeal has been limited to a sum of Rs. 15,000 on the ground, perhaps, that the third defendant has not assets enough to yield anything more, or on the ground that the balance could be realised from the assets of 1 and 2 defendants. But this makes no difference, so far as the question to be decided is concerned.2. The point in dispute was embodied in one comprehensive issue, viz., whether the 3rd Defendant's signature (to Ex. A), has not been obtai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »