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.
Boppana Venkataratnam Vs. Kamalakara Hanumantha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad135
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff and the defendant were co-defendants in O.S. No. 19 of 1924, which was a reversionary suit filed by one Devarasu Venkatasiva Rao against these and other defendants. It is not sesiously denied that the present defendant and his co-defendants 14 to 18 were the persons mainly and really interested in the subject-matter of the suit. The plaintiff was in possession of some property therein, but it was comparatively trivial in extent and in value. There were some documents in the possession of the plaintiff which were of real value in defending the suit. The plaintiff was persuaded to hand over those documents to the defendants, to enable them to prepare their defence in the suit, under the agreement Ex. A executed by the defendant. According to the plaintiff's evidence which stands unrebutted, these documents were shown by the defendant to a pleader and it was after he had pronounced that the documents were of real value that...
South India Railway Co. Ltd. Vs. S.M. Bhashyam Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad356
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the South India Railway Company, wherein the company object to some of the items which have been allowed by the lower Court, out of the claim made by the plaintiff on the basis of a contract between his grandfather and the company, in connection with the construction of the Shoranur Nilambur Railway. A number of items were claimed, a specified in several sub-paragraphs of para. 11 of the plaint; some of them have been allowed by the lower Court and some disallowed. In the appeal before us the learned Counsel for the company has argued only four items. The contractor has also filed a memorandum of objections, taking exception to the lower Court's decision in respect of two items, namely, these claimed in sub-paras. 2 and 4 of para. 11 of the plaint,2. The main item in dispute between the parties is the one claimed in sub-paras. I to 9 of para.11. There is no dispute as to the amount awardable, if the right of the plaintiff to make a claim under t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›