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.
(Neelam) Sitaramaswami Vs. (Thummala) Mahalakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad170
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question for determination in this second appeal is one of limitation. The appellant and the defendant's - husband were two of four brothers. They were divided. Their father died and left a will bequeathing his share to the plaintiff. This will was disputed and, in order to avoid loss to the family, there was a mediation which resulted in an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant's husband, whereby the latter, who was in possession of the property, should continue to collect and retain rents and other income and ultimately pay those amounts to the plaintiff if the will was held to be genuine by the Court, or, if it was held not to be genuine, divide the money into four equal 'shares to be paid to the four brothers. It is also alleged in the plaint that this agreement provided that the defendant's husband or his heirs should render an account of credit and debit with interest. Both the lower Courts have found these allegations in the plaint to be true...
A.P.N. Venkatachalam Chettiar and anr. Vs. Alagarswami Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad264; 162Ind.Cas.34
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the interesting question whether a purchaser from he judgment-debtor of property which has been actually sold in execution of the decree on a puisne mortgage can, by reason of his purchase after the Court auction sale but before its confirmation and by reason of the discharge of the prior mortgage on that property before the confirmation of the Court auction sale, claim to be subrogated to the rights of the prior mortgagee as against the Court auction-purchaser. The facts are simple. The appellant is the 7th defendant puisne mortgagee decree-holder and Court auction-purchaser. The plaintiffs are the sons of the private purchaser from the mortgagor. The first mortgage was to one Sami Chetty who is the brother of the plaintiff's father; next there was a mortgage to the 7th defendant; thirdly, there was another mortgage, to the 7th defendant on which third mortgage the 7th defendant sued and got a decree. In execution of that decree on the third mortgage...
In Re: Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad65; (1935)69MLJ835
ORDERKing, J.1. The six petitioners in this case have been convicted - petitioners 1 to 5 under Section 9 and petitioner No. 6 under Section 8 of the Madras Gaming Act (III of 1930) - and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. The learned Magistrate has also confiscated under Section 10 all the moneys found either in front of or on the persons of the various petitioners at the time and at the place searched by the police.2. Two points arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case. The first is whether the warrant under which the room in which the play was going on was searched is or not legal, and the second is whether the Magistrate was right in ordering the confiscation of the money.3. On the first point great emphasis is laid upon the words to be found in the warrant itself. The warrant begins as follows:Whereas information has been laid before me that certain premises are being used as a common gaming house and gambling is also going on there and it has been mad...
Barki Venkata Rao Chatram Charity Vs. S.V. Ramaswami Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad138; 160Ind.Cas.1003; (1936)70MLJ407
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on behalf of a charity, to set aside an order passed in claim proceedings in the course of the execution of a decree obtained against the trustee in his personal capacity. The plaint proceeds on the footing that the suit properties were dedicated to a charity and, being trust properties, are not liable to be attached in execution of a decree obtained against the trustee in his personal capacity. The contesting defendants, who are the decree-holder and the auction purchaser in the money suit, claim that the properties have all along been the private properties of the judgment debtors and their ancestors or at any rate have become so after certain resumption proceedings and the issue of an ayan patta in 1901. On these contentions the first issue was framed in the following words:Whether the plaint properties belong to the plaint charity or to the plaintiffs as their private properties.2. In paragraph 16 of the lower Court's jud...
J.K. Rau Vs. S.N. Davey
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad195
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mockett, J., in C.S. No. 402 of 1934. The appellant was the plaintiff and he sued for damages, alleging that he had been injured by the defendant's motor car, which was being driven rashly and negligently by the defendant. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff had not proved any negligence on the part of the defendant, and he found also that the accident was due to the plaintiff's own conduct in suddenly reversing his direction and so getting knocked down by the motor car. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs and he has preferred this appeal.2. The facts are very simple. The accident occurred a little before 7 a. m. on 27th August 1934. The plaintiff, an old gentleman of 65, was crossing the Mount Road at a place where it is 105 feet wide, He started to cross from the Vora Cycle Mart and had nearly got across to a point in front of the shop of one V.K. Venugopal, P.W. 3. The plaintiff was not able to give any descrip...
Subramania Ayyar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.32
ORDERKing, J.1. The six petitioners in this case have been convicted--petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 under Section 9 and petitioner No. 6 under Section 8 of the Madras Gaming Act (III of 1930)--and have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each The learned Magistrate has also confiscated under Section 10, all the moneys found either in front of or on the persons of the various petitioners at the time and at the place searched by the Police.2. Two points arise for consideration in this Criminal Revision Case. The first is whether the warrant under which the room in which the play was going on was searched is or is not legal, and the second is whether the Magistrate was right in ordering the confiscation of the money.3. On the first point great emphasis is laid upon the words to be found in the warrant itself. The warrant begins as follows:--'Whereas information, has been laid before me that certain premises are being used is a common gaming house and gambling is also going on there and it ha...
In Re: Doni Hampana Gowd and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ109
King, J.1. The appellants in this case have been found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge of Anantapur under Sections 193 and 471, Indian Penal Code. They were prosecuted upon a complaint laid by the learned District Judge of Bellary, in which specific reference is made only to Section 193.2. The facts are that the two appellants were being sued on a promissory note. They went to their vakil for the purpose of preparing a written statement and took to him a bundle of receipts. The Vakil accordingly prepared a written statement, in which a plea of part discharge was put forward and produced this written statement in Court along with the three receipts, Exs. C, D and E. Subsequently, however, the appellants remained ex parte and the suit against them was decreed upon the evidence of the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff was confronted by the Court with these receipts and asked to explain them. After some hesitation he contended that they were forged and subsequently the learned ...
Kannammal Vs. Muthukumaraswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad102; 160Ind.Cas.563; (1936)70MLJ120
Horace Owen Compton Beasley kt., C.J.1. This is not a very simple point but after hearing the argument of learned Counsel I am clearly of opinion that the lower court's order is wrong. I have been forced to take this view though I admit that upon the construction of Order 21, Rule 29 Civil Procedure Code other courts may take a different view.2. The respondent here is the assignee decree-holder and the petitioner is a woman. She is the plaintiff in a suit and it seems to me that, although the plaint is not artistically and definitely worded, her suit is for damages against the assignee decree-holder for having broken his agreement with her whereby he agreed to receive in satisfaction of the assigned decree certain bonds and to get satisfaction entered up. It is conceded that a suit of that nature will lie; and it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that such a suit as that is one which is contemplated by Rule 29 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. That rule reads as follows:Where a su...
In Re: Satti Subbi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad154; 160Ind.Cas.996
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought on a promissory note dated 20th February 1933 purporting to be executed by defendants 1 and 2. Defendant 1 is the father and defendant 2 is the son. The case for the plaintiffs is that there was a prior promissory note dated 20th February 1930 and when it was about to be barred defendant 2 came to the plaintiffs on 20th February 1933, the last day of limitation, and represented that his father would be coming later and asked him to prepare a, fresh pro-note in which both of them will join and make themselves liable for the amount due and accordingly he fixed his thumb impression on the pro-note that was then prepared. But as the father did not turn up, he first intended to take away the promissory note and have it executed by defendant 1 (the father), but subsequently at his request the word 'nisani' of defendant 1 was written by P.W. 1 across the stamp to indicate the execution by defendant 1. The firs...
(Doni) Hampana Gowd and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad280
King, J.1. The appellants in this case have been found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge of Anantapur under Sections 193 and 471 I.P.C. They were prosecuted upon a complaint laid by the learned District Judge of Bellary, in which specific reference is made only to Section 193. The facts are that the two appellants were being sued on a promissory note. They went to their vakil for the purpose of preparing a written statement and took to him a bundle of receipts. The vakil accordingly prepared a written statement, in which a plea of part discharge was put forward and produced this written statement in Court along with the three receipts, Exs. C. D. and E. Subsequently, however, the appellants remained ex parte and the suit against them was decreed upon the evidence of the plaintiff. It appears that the plaintiff was confronted by the Court with these receipts and asked to explain them. After some hesitation he contended that they were forged and subsequently the learned District Judge...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »