Chennai Court January 1935 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.
T. Keshavan Vs. Bipathumma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad340; 159Ind.Cas.993
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of South Kaaara dated 20th February 192. He then proceeded to express his opinion that as the first judgment-debtor had admittedly no interest in the property sold, the decree-holder purchaser had bought nothing and therefore nothing need be set aside, and that without setting aside the sale it was open to him to set aside the order recording satisfaction to the extent of the amount of the purchase money, namely Rs. 780. He was of opinion that as the question that h9 had to decide was really one relating to satisfaction of the decree, this question which was to be decided by the executing Court could be raised in an application made within three years from the date of the decree, or from the date of the previous step in aid of the execution. On appeal by the judgment-debtors, the Additional Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the executing Court had no right to set aside the order recording satisf...
T.T.K.K. Kumare Appan Srirangachariar Vs. T.V.A.K.T. Annamalai Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad647
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from the decrees in two appeals preferred to the District Court of Chittoor, namely A.S. No. 203 of 1931 and 89 of 1932, dated 6th October 1932 and 3rd October 1932, respectively. The question that arose for decision in both the appeals was one and the same, namely whether certain properties which were proclaimed for sale in execution of two mortgage decrees, could be sold in execution. The contention of the judgment-debtor wa3 that the properties constituted an Acharyapurusha service inam which was inalienable according to law, and that even though the decree provided for the sale of the properties, the executing Court should not actually sell them because the law prohibits such sale. In one case, the District Munsif of Tirupati held that the judgment-debtor was not entitled to raise this question in the course of execution and directed execution to proceed. On appeal, the District Judge confirmed the order.2. In the other case, the Subordinate Jud...
The Mercantile Bank of India, Ltd. Vs. the Central Bank of India, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad936; 160Ind.Cas.430; (1935)69MLJ509
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Stone, J. in C.S. No. 567 of 1929. That was a suit in which the Central Bank of India, Limited were the plaintiffs and the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited the defendants. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages for conversion of goods. The suit arose out of extensive frauds committed by C. iv Narayana Aiyar and Sons whom I shall call C.K.N. & Sons a well-known firm of ground-nut merchants and exporters who were carrying on a large business in Madras. This firm purchased ground-nuts from the up-country growers. The ground-nuts were then despatched by rail to Madras by one or other of two railways, the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway or the South Indian Railway. There was a working arrangement between these railways and the Madras Port Trust which worked its own railway system within the port and took over the consignments of ground-nuts when they arrived at the port. The Port Trust had its tran...
The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. Thayarammal Alias Mangayarkarasi Ammal of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad478; (1935)68MLJ546
ORDER1. It is only necessary to state the facts quite briefly. The appeal related to a suit by the mother of one Balakrishna Gramani by her next friend Chellatnmal and two others. Balakrishna Gramani had executed a mortgage in favour of the respondent Bank. It was a suit to have that mortgage so declared invalid and asking for its cancellation and other reliefs on the ground that Balakrishna Gramani was a minor on the date when he executed the mortgage. Waller, J. before whom the suit came on the Original Side ruled against the plaintiff's plea of minority of Balakrishna Gramani and dismissed the suit. On appeal I and my learned brother Cornish, J. came to the conclusion that Balakrishna Gramani was a minor on the date of the execution of the suit mortgage. We also came to the conclusion, that the money had been obtained from the Bank by means of a fraud played upon the Bank and that the money was used for purposes binding upon the family. Under these circumstances we upheld the plaint...
N.G.N. Rengasawmy Chetty Vs. P.K. Natesa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad542
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question arises under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. I must first remark that the plaint is badly worded and so are the petitions, and the lower Court ought to have insisted upon the defects being remedied before it made the orders in question; but that does not alter the substance of the matter to1 be decided, although, I may point out, the lower Court will do well to require the plaintiffs to suitably amend the plaint and petitions. According to the plaint, there are two rival groups in the Vaniya Vaisya community to which the parties belong : (i) the Periya Thanakar : faction and (ii) the Nattamaikar faction. ', The plaintiffs, alleging that they belong 1 to the former body, have put forward in the suit a certain claim as against the. defendant, who is said to represent the rival group. They applied first that : they should be allowed to sue on behalf ; of, and as representing their group and.' secondly that the defendant should be allowed to be sued as...
Mudda Verrappa Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad318; 157Ind.Cas.1020
ORDERBurn, J.1. The learned Sub Magistrate has not apparently understood Section 350. Criminal P.C. He may have been misled by the use in the accused's petition of the phrase 'de novo trial.' This Js common, but inaccurate. The accused cannot demand a de novo trial. All that he can demand is that the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded or any of them be summoned and re-heard. This is apparently to to ensure that the accused, if he wants it, may have the satisfaction of knowing that the Magistrate's decision will be based on the evidence of witnesses whom the Magistrate has himself seen. It follows that if the accused after putting forward his demand for the rehearing of the witnesses says he does not want any particular witness to be heard, the Magistrate has no power to order that the evidence of that witness shall be taken afresh. This however as the learned Public Prosecutor, points out, is subject to a limitation. The Magistrate, as well as the accused, has a privile...
Rengasami thevar Vs. Ramanathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad423
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal purports to be one from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore dated 26th July 1933 in A.S. 56 of 1933, on appeal from the order of the District Munsif of Pattukottai of 3rd February 1932 allowing an application made under Order 22, Rule 10, Civil P.C., by the petitioner in I.A. No. 398 of 1931 to be substituted in the place of the plaintiff decree-holder in O.S. 24 of 1927. There was also another application by him for tpassing a final decree, Both these applications were allowed by the District Munsif in spite of the objection made by the judgment-debtor, defendant 1, who pleaded that the preliminary decree in the suit had been settled out of Court ,and fully satisfied by payment of JRs. 2,000 obtained by the sale of certain properties belonging to defendant 1 to -.the petitioner who had been directed to -pay the same to the plaintiff decree-holder in the suit. This order was passed by the District Munsif without staking any evidence, apparently ...
Thangatur Subbarayudu Vs. Nichanametla Subbarayudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad473
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Cuddappah, dated 4th April 1932, on an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Prodattur, dated 12th August 1931, dismissing the suit (No. 119 of 1931) instituted by one Subbarayudu for recovery of the amount due on a promissory note executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants.2. Defendant 2 is the adoptive mother of the plaintiff. Disputes arose between them sometime after the promissory note was executed in favour of defendant 3 and the disputes were referred to certain arbitrators in January 1930. The arbitrators delivered an award in September 1930, and the award was subsequently registered in the same month by the District Registrar of Cuddapah. It may also be stated in this connexion that the suit promissory note was actually delivered to the plaintiff by the arbitrators, because under the award this promissory note as well as certain other oustandings were allotted to the plaintiff's share ...
R. Kanakasabapathi Chettiar Vs. Gomathi Meenakshi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad720
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These are two alternative attempts by one o the creditors in I.P. No. 53 of 1929 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura to get rid of the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing his application under Section 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, for a declaration that certain properties claimed by respondent 1, the insolvent's wife, are really the properties of the insolvent. The properties are worth over Rs. 12,000 and though they admittedly belonged to the insolvent at one time, they were sold by the Official Receiver and purchased by certain persons who in their turn subsequently sold them to respondent 1 who happens to be the wife of the insolvent. One of the creditors who is the appellant in this second appeal and the petitioner in the revision petition alleged that the wife was only a name-lender; and that the properties really belonged to the insolvent as they were purchased with his own money which he had secreted with his wife. The learned Sub...
Sethukaruppan Ambalam Alias Pasukalakki and ors. Vs. Peer Mahammad Sam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad350; 159Ind.Cas.49; (1935)68MLJ417
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This Criminal Revision Petition is presented against an order of the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad under Section 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed in the following circumstances. There is a system of fishing, well-known upon this coast, whereby a long net is hung like a curtain in the sea, being supported by floats and kept vertical by weights. This net is laid parallel to and at some distance from the shore, and is then pulled in by means of ropes fixed to the two ends. In this way a catch of fish is landed. In the case now under reference, the system embraced the use of successive nets, and further particulars of it are given in the learned Joint Magistrate's order. It was worked by seven fishing-boats, which were originally owned by Mahomedans; but sometime ago Hindus acquired what is described as a 2| share in the seven boats - in other words the shares enjoyed by the Mahomedans and the Hindus were in the ratio of 5 to 3. Disputes subsequently arose betwee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »