Chennai Court October 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.
Rahima Bee Vs. Amathul Mannan Bee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad140
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Mahomedan woman for a declaration that a sale deed executed by her mother, defendant 1, is void as against the plaintiff and for possession of the properties from the alienees with mesne profits.2. Before going into the merits of the case I am constrained to remark that the way in which the appeal was dealt with in the lower appellate Court leaves something to be desired. The case was heard on 28th September 1929 and judgment was reserved. No judgment was however pronounced for nearly two months. On 25th November 1929 it was posted for being spoken to and after further consideration the judgment was eventually pronounced on 9th December 1929. It is unnecessary to point out that a Judge can have very little recollection of the arguments in an appeal two months after these have been heard and that it is eminently undesirable when judgment has been reserved that there should be such a long delay before the judgment is written.3. The pr...
Mahaboob Khan Sahib Vs. B. Govindarajulu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad142; 160Ind.Cas.955
Pandrang Row, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a right of way along a lane and also to a right to receive light and air from the lane through the windows and ventilators into his house-newly built in the adjoining site and for an injunction directing defendant 1 to remove the wall constructed by him blocking up the passage and the windows and the ventilators in the plaintiff's building. Defendant 2 is the Municipal. Council, Vellore, represented by its Chairman. The site on which the plaintiff's house was built as well as the lane and a number of other pieces of land included in a block known as Pakkali-block were part of a scheme to relieve congestion in the Vellore Town. In the site on which the plaintiff built his house there was an old house but that was demolished before the site was sold to the plaintiff by the Municipality. As regards the lane a part of it was sold to; the plaintiff himself, the other portion remain...
Koya Ankamma Vs. Konaganchi Kameshwaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad346
Beasley, C.J.1. The facts here are that there were two undivided cousins and at a time when both of them were minors their mothers acting as guardians alienated certain properties belonging to them. One of the minors died later on and the suit under appeal was brought by the surviving minor to recover the property from the alienee on the ground that the alienation was beyond the power of the guardians to make. The suit was instituted within twelve years of the alienation but more than three years after the plaintiff attained majority. The point is whether Article 44, Limitation Act, applies to this case. Both the lower Courts and the second appellate Court dismissed the suit as barred by Article 44. The important facts in the case are that at the time of the alienations there were no adult co-parceners and, in spite of the contention in the lower appellate Court which was not accepted there that it is not correct to speak of the mothers who alienated the property as guardians in any le...
(Pegatraju) Krishna Rao Vs. (Yenati) Subbareddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad379
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff was the proprietor of Sree Seetharama & 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 Lakshmiprasanna 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 defendant 4 who was according to them acting as the agent of the plaintiff. The main question in this case is whether defendant 4 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 defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff's contention is that under the terms of Ex. A, a letter written by defendant 4 to the plaintiff on 22nd December 1923 he was only appointed as a commission agent to canvass orders for them on payment of certain percentage of commission on the value o...
O.S. Varadachari Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad602
ORDERVaradachariar, 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 Dasse v. Butto Kristo Bairagee (1906) 33 Cal 1040 and of the decision by Cornish, J., in Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madras v. Vedantam 1935 MWN 1263, has been accepted by a Division Bench in C. M. P. No. 2083 of 1935. 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 reali...
Koya Ankamma Vs. Konaganchi Kameswaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1; 161Ind.Cas.797; (1936)70MLJ352
Besaley, C.J.1. The facts here are that there were two undivided cousins and at a time when both of them were minors their mothers acting as guardians alienated certain properties belonging to them. One of the minors died later on and the suit under appeal was brought by the surviving minor to recover the property from the alienee on the ground that the alienation was beyond the power of the guardians to make. The suit was instituted within twelve years of the alienation but more than three years after the plaintiff attained majority. The point is whether Article 41 of the Limitation Act applies to this case. Both the lower Courts and the second Appellate Court dismissed the suit as barred by Article 44. The important facts in the case are that at the time of the alienations there were no adult co-parceners and, in spite of the contention; in the lower Appellate Court which was not accepted there that it is not correct to speak of the mothers who alienated the property as guardians of ...
O.S. Varadachari Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-29-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.868
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, 1 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 33 C 1040 and of the decision by Cornish, J., in C.R.P. No. 1546 of 1913, 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 Nos. 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 by the sale of the properties of defend an i...
V.G. Venugopal Naidu Vs. Lakshmi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ288
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of Butler, J. The facts are that the appellant here was the plaintiff in a suit in the Vellore District Munsif's Court. He there sued his wife, the first respondent here, for restitution of conjugal rights and he also claimed an injunction against the second defendant, her father, restraining him from instigating the first defendant to stay away from her husband and from preventing her returning to him. In the District Munsif's Court five issues were framed one of which Was whether that Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned District Munsif held that he had jurisdiction to try it. The defendant's vakil had no instructions to go on with the case so far as the other issues which dealt with the merits were concerned and the learned District Munsif took ex parte evidence on behalf of the plaintiff and gave him a decree as prayed for. There was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Vellor...
Payidimarri Madhava Sarma and ors. Vs. Veluri Seshagirirayadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.935; (1936)70MLJ292
Varadachariar, J.1. This is a Revision Petition against the order of the lower Court calling upon the plaintiffs to pay court-fee upon a sum of Rs. 3612 in the following circumstances:2. The first defendant is the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs and was in management of their property for a number of years. The suit is substantially one calling upon him to render an account of his management. It has been valued as a suit for accounts and court-fee paid on that basis. The question, now for consideration arises with reference to certain allegations made in paragraph 5 and an alternative prayer (d) in paragraph 17 of that plaint.3. Paragraph 5 of the plaint relates in particular to one item of mismanagement or improper conduct on the part of the first defendant, namely, in respect of a pro-note for Rs. 2,100 said to have been executed by the 5th defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the first defendant practically misappropriated this amount by destroying the genuine ...
N. Subramanian Namboodripad and ors. Vs. K. Vasudevan Namboodiripad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad151
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the lower Court refusing an amendment of the plaint. In view of the facts appearing from the judgment of the lower Court itself, I am unable to see that there is any lack of good faith in the matter of the application for amendment. There is, if I may say so, even less justification for the view that an inconsistent claim is sought to be introduced by the amendment. The suit was admittedly on a particular document. The plaint as originally presented no doubt read that document in a particular way and the written statement seems to have been filed with reference to that reading of the document. The application for amendment was made not with reference to anything de hors that document but with reference to the contents of the document itself. Whether the original reading of the document is correct or the reading suggested later is the proper reading, is not a matter to be decided at this stage. When the claim is made on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »