Chennai Court October 1935 Judgments
In Re: Murugappa thevan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ244
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioners in this revision case are four persons who were accused before the Sub-Magistrate of Mannargudi of having beaten the complainant and extorted from him a promissory note for Rs. 120. Charges were framed against them, after the hearing of the prosecution evidence, under Sections 384 and 352 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Defence witnesses were examined and arguments heard, and the case was finally posted for judgment on the 31st of July last. On the 30th of July the Magistrate who had heard the case was suddenly transferred to Tiruvadamarudur The new Magistrate, I understand, took up the case on the 31st of July and asked the accused whether they wished for a de novo trial, and a trial de novo was requested. The Magistrate seems to have referred to the Additional District Magistrate of Tanjore as to what should be done. The Additional District Magistrate thereupon transferred the case to Tiruvadamarudur so that the judgment might be pronoun...
Tag this Judgment!Srimathu Raja Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Doriasingam Alias Gowri Vallaba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad583; 163Ind.Cas.539; (1937)2MLJ466
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the District Court of Ramnad, where it reversed the decision of the trial Court on the sixth issue in the case. That issue was in the following terms:Has notice of suit been given to the first defendant as required by law?2. The only point for determination now is whether the decision of the lower appellate Court on that issue is not correct.3. The question arises in connection with a suit filed by the members of a Nattukottai Chetty family, seeking to set aside the decision of the appellate survey authority in a boundary dispute under the Survey and Boundaries Act. The plaintiffs are at present the proprietors of a jivitham village in the Sivaganga Zamindari known as Kilayur and the dispute related to the boundary between that village and the adjoining Ayan village of Elayangudi belonging to the Sivaganga estate. At the time of the institution of this suit, the Sivaganga estate was under the management of the C...
Tag this Judgment!K.G. Subramania Iyer Vs. K.V. Krishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad571
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. In execution of a small cause decree in S.C.S. No. 500 of 1916 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Palghat against defendant 1, the suit property was purchased in auction on 17th September 1917, by one Krishna Iyer, who obtained a sale certificate therefor. On 7th January 1918 the said Krishna Iyer conveyed the property to Krishna Pattar and Subbalakshmammal, who again sold the same to the plaintiff by a sale deed dated 3rd February 1927. Neither Krishna Iyer nor the plaintiff's assignor nor the plaintiff obtained possession through Court. The property on the date of sale in Court auction, i.e. in 1917, was in the possession of one Latchmammal as tenant of defendant 1 on a rent of Rs. 2 per mensem. In 1919 the said Latchmammal surrendered possession to defendant 1 who leased the property to one Kuppiah Pattar. In 1923 Kuppiah Pattar assigned his rights to defendant 2 who has been in possession of the property ever since, and in 1927 he finally purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Muthayya Kone Vs. Rakappan Ambalam by Authorised Agent Perumal Ambalam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad137; 160Ind.Cas.729; (1936)70MLJ87
Varadachariar, J.1. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar argues that his client was not in possession of the suit lands during the period for which profits are claimed. But realising that that circumstance by itself will not suffice to exonerate the petitioner if, on account of the order obtained by him, the plaintiff had been precluded from taking possession in execution of his decree, Mr. Ramaswami Aiyar goes further and says that in the written statement filed by his client in O.S. No. 413 of 1927 he had expressed his willingness that the plaintiff should take possession of the suit lands.2. The obstacle in the way of the plaintiff taking possession arose on account of a stay order obtained by the present petitioner pending the appeal in the District Court Ramnad (Vide Ex. C). The stay order was no doubt made conditional on the deposit of two years mesne profits, but it certainly does not mean that if the deposit was so made the stay order would enure only for a period of...
Tag this Judgment!Neelikandi MoidIn Vs. Kunhayissa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad158
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge at Calicut permitting two minor plaintiffs to continue O.S. No. 9 of 1934 on that Court's file as paupers. The suit was one for partition, and in the first instance the plain-tiffs paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 on it under Article 17(b), Schedule 2, Court-Fees Act. On objection taken by the defendants, the Court held that ad valorem Court-fee was payable on the value put by the plaintiffs themselves on the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and according to this ruling they had to pay about Rs. 376 in addition. Within the time fixed by the Court below for payment of this additional fee, an application was made on behalf of the plaintiffs for permission to continue the suit in forma pauperis. The lower Court granted permission accordingly. At the time that the petition came on for admission, King, J., made a note that the right of the lower Court to declare the plaintiffs pauper...
Tag this Judgment!Fatma Kani Ammal Vs. Shaikh Dawood and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad197; 160Ind.Cas.733
Menon, J.1. Plaintiff 1 is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition of the properties left by one Haji Muhammad Esuff, husband of plaintiff 1. Defendant 2 is a sister of the deceased Haji Muhammad Esuff and defendant 1 is the husband of defendant 2. Defendant 3 is the son of plaintiff 1.2. Haji Muhammad Esuff went to Singapore about four years before the date of the plaint and died there on 18th July 1928. The case of plaintiff 1 is that she is entitled to l/8th share and her son, defendant 3, to the remaining 7/8ths share in the plaint properties which belonged to her husband. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that Haji Muhammad Esuff left a will under which he bequeathed the plaint properties to defendant 2; they also raised the plea that the suit was bad for non-joinder of another widow of Haji Muhammad Esuff and the children by her at Singapore. Both the lower Courts upheld the contentions of the defendants that the will alleged to have been executed by Haji ...
Tag this Judgment!Veerana Goundan and ors. Vs. Sellappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad262; 162Ind.Cas.325
Pandrang Row, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the alienation of the plaint properties in 1894 by the former manager of the temple of which the plaintiff is the present pujari and manager is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff and for recovery of possession of the suit properties with mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff declaring that the alienation referred to in the plaint is not binding on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff as the present pujari-manager of the temple-is entitled to recover possession of the plaint properties, and also that the defendants are entitled to get Rs. 750 from the plaint properties with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum. This decree of the trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The present second appeal was by defendant 4, and on his death during the pendency of the appeal his legal representatives have been brought on record as appe...
Tag this Judgment!Gudur Manga Reddi Vs. P. Venkataraghava Ayyangar Alias P.V. Raghavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad250; (1936)70MLJ255
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of limitation. The plaintiff who is a Shrotriemdar seeks to recover a sum of Rs. 9-10-11 as and for damages from the defendant who is his tenant for the unauthorized use of the shrotriem tank water His case is that under the terms of a muchilika executed in his favour the defendant shall raise second crop on lands that are fit for the second crop and pay half the assessment therefor and therefore he can utilise the tank water only for the said purpose and any user other than that would be illegal and that the defendant took water not for the second crop but for the purpose of watering the field to facilitate ploughing for the next season, and wasted the water of the tank thereby causing loss and diminution of water supply to the second crops already planted by other ryots of the village. The rinding of the lower appellate Court is thatthe defendants did not take water for the purpose of raising second crop. They are therefore...
Tag this Judgment!Pegatraju Krishna Rao Vs. Yanati Subba Reddi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.154; (1936)70MLJ570
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff was the proprietor of Sree Scetharama and Co., which carried on its business at Nellore between 1923 and 1925. Defendants 1 to 3 were carrying on business at Ananthapuram under the name of Sree Lakshmi prasanna Venkateswara Rice Mills. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 1,900 in respect of articles supplied to the defendant firm by the plaintiff firm. The plea of the defendant is one of discharge by payment to the fourth defendant who was according to them acting as the agent of the plaintiff.2. The main question in this case is whether the fourth defendant had authority to receive any moneys on behalf of the plaintiff and payments made to him would be a valid discharge of the obligation of the defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff's contention is that under the terms of Ex. A, a letter written by the fourth defendant to the plaintiff on the 22nd December 1923, he was only appointed as a commission agent to canvass orders for them on payment of certain...
Tag this Judgment!Varadachari Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ601
Varadachariar, J.1. This Revision petition raises a question of some importance but as there is practically no authority in favour of the petitioner's contention I do not feel called upon to refer it to a Division Bench, especially in view of the fact that the principle of the decision in Gayanoda Bala Dassee v. Butto Kristo Bairagee I.L.R. (1906) 33 Cal. 1040 and of the decision by Cornish, J., in Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Vedantam : AIR1936Mad132 has been accepted by a Division Bench in C.M.P. No. 2083 of 1935.2. In O.S. No. 71 of 1928 on the file of the Madura sub-Court, defendants 11 to 15 were directed to pay to the Government a portion of the court-fee which would have been payable by the pauper plaintiff. In another suit, O.S. No. 97 of 1930, the present petitioner obtained a money decree against the same defendants and brought certain properties to sale. This Revision Petition arises out of an application made on behalf of the Government that out of the proceeds realised...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »