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.
Thummalapalli Mangayya Vs. Thummalapalli Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad420
Pandrang Row, J.1. The auction-purchaser who is respondent 2 in this appeal applied to the Subordinate Judge at Ellore for amending a sale certificate issued to him by showing the correct survey number of the property sold, or in the alternative, for setting aside the sale and ordering refund of the purchase money. The Subordinate Judge directed the amendment of the sale certificate as prayed for. But on appeal by the judgment-debtor, defendant 9 in the suit, the District Judge of West-Godaveri held that the Subordinate Judge had not exercised his inherent powers of amendment in a proper way, and set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing amendment of the sale certificate. But, being apparently impressed by the justice of the auction-purchaser's case, he allowed the alternative prayer, set aside the sale and ordered refund. The present appeal to this Court is by neither the auction-purchaser nor the judgment-debtor but by the decree-holder, and the preliminary argument addre...
Pena Ana Lana Alagammai Achi Vs. Als. Al. Aurunachalam Chettiar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad543
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Devakottah dated 21st March 1933 in A.S. No. 3 of 1933, in appeal from the order of the District Munsif of Devakottah on an application by a. surety to cancel the security bond executed by him after giving him an opportunity to produce the judgment-debtor referred to in the security bond on a. date fixed by the Court. The security bond in question was given in connexion with the arrest of the judgment-debtor in execution. When the judgment-debtor was brought under arrest the petitioner, viz., the surety, executed a security bond as a result of which the judgment-debtor was released. The District Munsif was of opinion that under the bond the surety was bound to pay the decree amount because he (the judgment-debtor) failed to observe one of the conditions, viz., the filing of an insolvency petition within a month. The application of the surety was accordingly dismissed by the District Munsif.2. The ...
Nagarur Subbarayudu Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad433
Walsh, J.1. Pending the decision of an application to set aside a sale of the insolvent's property by the Official Receiver the adjudication was annulled. The petitioner sought to continue his petition but the Court dismissed it on the ground that on the unconditional annulment of the adjudication the properties revest in the insolvent, and the Insolvency Court has ,no further jurisdiction. The learned District Judge remarked that the Official Receiver no longer represents the insolvent or the general body of creditors and any decision given on the petition will not be binding on them. Against that order the present appeal is preferred. The only case quoted by the lower Court is Maung Hme v. Po Seik 1925 Rang 301. That related to the question whether the Official Receiver could continua an application under Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act after there had been an annulment without any provision made under Section 37 for vesting the property of the insolvent with the Receiver. With...
Ghulam Mohideen Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. Secy. of State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad700; 157Ind.Cas.734
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. It has been found concurrently in this case by both the lower Courts that-the northern branch of the suit channel exclusively belongs to the mittadar and the southern branch to the Government. The appellant says that this finding; should not be accepted because the documents have been misconstrued by the lower Courts. My attention was drawn to the important documents in the case, Ex. FF, M, N and P, etc. I cannot say that the conclusion arrived at by the lower Courts is not warranted by the inference that may be drawn from these documents. So far as this part of the argument is concerned, there-is no question of law.2. The next question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to water from the southern-branch belonging to the Government as-a riparian owner. The question that he is so entitled to it was not raised in the pleadings nor was there any issue on it, but the point was argued before the District Munsif and it was overruled by hi...
Saliah Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Vs. N. Abdul Samath Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ218
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned City Civil Judge. The suit before him was one in which damages were claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant for negligence or rather the case proceeded on the footing that it was a suit in tort and not on contract although a breach of a covenant was pleaded. The facts, quite shortly, are that the plaintiff had sub-let a portion of the premises of which he was the tenant to the defendant. The defendant was a person who dealt in fireworks. He sold fireworks to the public. One day a fire started in a room in the defendant's part of the premises in which there were some fireworks stored and as a result of the fire which spread to other parts of the premises some of the goods of the plaintiff which were there were damaged. Hence his suit against the defendant for damages which were caused by that fire. The plaintiff called no evidence. Indeed it would be very difficult for the plaintiff affirmative...
The President of the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad417; (1935)68MLJ549
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of West Tanjore dismissing E. P. No. 143 i of 1930 by the President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, against the respondents here who are the trustees of a separate kattalai attached to a temple. They are what is known as kattalaidars. The appellant purporting to act under Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927) filed the execution petition to recover the amount stated therein which, according to the appellant, is the share of the contribution to be made by the kattalai to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 69 of the same Act. It was contended before the learned District Judge that the appellant acted without jurisdiction in assessing the respondents with this contribution and the learned District Judge upheld that contention. Dealing with Section 69 he was of the opinion that a separate kattalai attached...
Chandayya Shetty and anr. Vs. Bijoor Venkappa Maiya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad598
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, dated 4th July 1929 setting aside in appeal the order of the District Munsif of Kandapur, dated 14th March 1927 in execution proceedings in 0, Section No. 838 of 1913. The decree in that suit which was brought on the foot of a registered mortgage deed was briefly to the effect that the plaintiff do recover from defendant 1 personally and by the sale of defendant Is' interest only in the property mortgaged to the plaintiff under the suit mortgage subject to certain other mortgages. The decree-holder assignee sought in execution to arrest defendant 1 and also to proceed against his other properties, by way of attachment and sale. Defendant 1 objected that the decree could not be executed against his other properties as the petitioner had not proceeded against the mortgage properties. This objection was overruled by the executing Court i.e. the District Munsif of Kandapur, on the groun...
Venkatachala Padayachi and ors. Vs. Velayudha Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad701
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case had had an unfortunate history and it is to be regretted that it has again to go back to the lower Court. One of the questions to be decided was, whether the alienations were made for justifiable necessity, and that question has not been gone into by the lower appellate Court. Whether the defendants, the appellants here, appeared in that Court or not, it was the Judge's obvious duty (and this is conceded) to have judicially determined that point. As I have said, he did not apply his mind to it and the case has therefore to go back to him to be heard on its merits.2. As regards the issue whether the plaintiff is the reversioner, the case stands on a slightly different footing. The finding was against the present appellants, but no objections were filed questioning it, within the time limited. The finding was received on 8th February 1928 and the objections should have been filed by the 16th. The appeal was taken upon the 27th and on that day the present ...
Saliah Mahammad Haji Ibrahim Vs. N. Abdul Samath Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad606; 157Ind.Cas.991
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned City Civil Judge. The suit before him was one in which damages were claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant for negligence or rather the case proceeded on the footing that it was a suit in fort and not on contract although a breach of a covenant was pleaded. The facts, quite shortly, are that the plaintiff had sub-let a portion of the premises of which he was the tenant to the defendant. The defendant was a person who dealt in fireworks. He sold fireworks to the public. One day a fire started in a room in the defendant's part of the premises in which there were some fireworks stored and as a result of the fire which spread to other parts of the premises some of the goods of the plaintiff which were there were damaged. Hence this suit against the defendant for damages which were caused by that fire. The plaintiff called no evidence. Indeed it would be very difficult for the plaintiff affirmatively to give any evidence ...
Srila Sri Vythilinga Pandarasannidhi Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad342
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that arises is, whether the Government's claim of privilege in regard to the documents Nos. 16 and 17 can be upheld under Section 124, Evidence Act. That section runs thus:No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by that disclosure.2. There are two matters involved in this section: first whether a particular document for which the privilege is claimed, falls within it, that is to say, whether the document is a communication made to a public officer in official confidence. On a proper construction of the section, it is for the Court to decide that question. Secondly, should the Court decide that the document is of the nature contemplated by the section, then the public officer himself is the sole judge as to whether by its disclosure public interests would suffer (that alone being the ground of privilege.)3. This distinction between...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »