Chennai Court November 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.
Seethamraju Ramanarayana Alias Ayyadevara Siva Rao Vs. Seethamaraju Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.161
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an order recording a compromise.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. It has been held in the case, Onkar Bhagwan v. Gamna Lakhaji & Co. 57 B. 206 : 144 Ind. Cas. 418 : A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 205 : 35 Bom. L.R. 127 : Ind. Rul. (1933) Bom. 306, that in spite of the terms of Order XLIII, Rule 1(m) no appeal lies against an order recording a compromise unless there was a contest before the Court at the time when the compromise was recorded, the reasoning being that if the compromise was recorded by consent, that consent order itself is practically tantamount to a consent decree which is not appealable with reference to Section 95(3), Civil Procedure Code. With very great respect I must say that I find some difficulty in accepting the view laid down by the learned Judges who decided that case. Order XLIII, Rule 1(m) gives a right of appeal against an order recording a compromise without any restriction as to the nature of that order, w...
Rajagopala Konar and ors. Vs. Minor Ramanuja Alias Nayina Servai and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.448
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Trichinopoly, dated December 18, 1929, which allowed an appeal preferred by the plaintiff from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dated September 28, 1923, in O.S. No. 137 of 1921. That was a suit brought by the plaintiff, a minor represented by his next friend for recovery of possession of the plaint properties on the basis that they were trust properties belonging to a certain charity of which the plaintiff claimed to be the sole hereditary trustee. There was also an alternative prayer in the plaint to the effect that, if delivery of possession could not be given during the lifetime of the plaintiff's mother who was impleaded as the 4th defendant, possession should be delivered to the 4th defendant, and a further alternative prayer to the effect that, if this course not be done, there should be a declaration made that the four sale-deeds referred to in para. 7 of the plaint are not valid a...
Gokavarapu Swami Vs. Manda Sateyya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ266
1. The question that arises for decision in this petition is whether the attachment of the standing crop on the potter service inam land in execution of the decree obtained by the decree-holder in a small cause suit is contrary to law in view of Section 5 of Madras Act III of 1895. There is no doubt that the land is potter service inam land and that the office of village potter is one of the offices included in Section 3 of Madras Act III of 1895. The point was decided definitely so long ago as 1899 in Kannan Naidu v. Latchanna Dora I.L.R.(1899) 23 Mad. 492 and the learned Judges who laid down the law in that case were judges to whose opinion a great deal of weight must be attached and one of them was a Judge of great revenue experience. The correctness of that ruling has not been questioned so far as we are aware up till now though more than 35 years have elapsed. The two decisions by single Judges which have been referred to in the course of argument do not seem to have anything to d...
Adhikari Venku Naidu Vs. Mahadevu Sanyasi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ204
Pandrang Rao, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the Agency District Munsif of Rayagada dated 31st December, 1932, in O.S. No. 62 of 1931, a suit for settlement of partnership accounts between the plaintiffs and the defendants and for recovery of the amount due to the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit both parties agreed to refer the suit to arbitration under Rule 46 of the Agency Rules. The Panchayat that was constituted passed an award for a certain amount in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants filed certain objections to this decision but the objections were overruled and a decree was passed in terms of that decision.2. A preliminary point is raised by the respondents in this revision petition to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision Petition. This objection is apparently based on the ground that the Agency Rules themselves contemplate revision petitions being entertained by the Agent, any further revision petitions bein...
Gokavarapu Swami Vs. Manda Satheyya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad283
ORDER1. The question that arises for decision in this petition is whether the attachment of the standing crop on the potter service inam land in execution of the decree obtained by the decree-holder in a small cause suit is contrary to law in view of Section 5, Madras Act 3 of 1895. There is no doubt that the land is potter service inam land and that the office of village potter is one of the offices included in Section 3, Madras Act 3 of 1895. The point was decided definitely so long ago as in Kannam Naidu v. Latchanna Dora 1899 in 23 Mad 492, and the learned Judges who laid down the law in that case were Judges to whose opinion a great deal of weight must be attached and one of them was a Judge of great revenue experience. The correctness of that ruling has not been questioned so far as we are aware up till now though more than 35 years have elapsed. The two decisions Eleswarapu Kamayya v. Jaharazi Jasrazi Appeal No. 175 of 1927 of Madhavan Nair, J., and C.R.P. No. 1419 of 1927 of Ja...
Zeebunnissa Begum Vs. Mrs. H.B. Danagher and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.384; (1936)70MLJ477
Cronish, J.1. The appellant is a Mahomedan lady. She was the plaintiff in the suit, and being then a minor was represented by her father and guardian as next friend. The suit was against first defendant for rent due by her as lessee upon her covenant, and against second defendant as guarantor of the due performance of her convenants by the first defendant.2. The lease is dated 2nd November, 1932. It purports to be given by the plaintiff acting by her father and guardian. The lease demises premises known as Megan House t.o the first defendant for a term of 5 years at a rent of Rs. 1055 per mensem; and it contained a number of covenants by lessor and lessee. The lessee covenanted inter alie, to pay the rent. The lessor's covenants included stipulations (a) not to construct any building on the vacant land comprised in the demise, (b) to pay all taxes in respect of the premises and to keep the lessee indemnified against any claims thereon; (c) to repair the premises both inside and outside...
Siva Bushana Mudaliar Vs. the President, Panchayat Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad204; (1936)70MLJ113
ORDERKing, J.1. It seems to me that the principle of the ruling reported in Alampelh Krishnan v. Municipal Prosecutor : AIR1926Mad430 and Municipal Council, Cannanore v. Anandam I.L.R.(1927) 51 Mad. 601 : 54 M.L.J. 454 where it is held that hand looms are not 'machinery' requiring the issue of a license can easily be extended to the present case where there is a printing press worked entirely by hand. Clause (p) of Schedule VII of the Madras Local Boards Act therefore will not apply. It is argued that Clause (q) applies as the running of this printing press is 'dangerous to human life'. Such a contention seems to me an absurd exaggeration. Clause (q) also does not apply. This petition is therefore allowed, and as the Local Board had in my opinion no authority to demand any license fee from the petitioner the order requiring him to pay it is set aside....
Raju Goundan Vs. Kuppu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad402
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for possession of the suit properties on the ground that he purchased them from one Subba Reddi who purchased them at a rent sale. The suit lands are comprised in Morappathangal village which belongs to two Mokkasadars, Sundararaja Rao Saheb and Ramachandra Rao Saheb. They owned and possessed the same in two undivided halves. From the evidence in the case it appears that these two Mokkasadars were issuing separate pattas to the same tenant each for his undivided half: vide the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The pattas mention the entire survey numbers which are owned by the two mokkasadars jointly and the amount of rent which the various survey numbers will have to bear and the total rent, and in the end it is stated that the amount due in respect of the pattadar's half is Rs. 19-4-7. For arrears due to Sundararaja Rao Saheb as per the patta issued by him for fasli 1331 the suit properti...
In Re: R.R. Gopalchari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad420
Beasley, C.J. 1. This is a reference made by the District Munsif of Madura Town under Order 46, Rule 1, Civil P.C. and raises a question of court-fees in relation to the plaints in two Small Cause Suits there (S.C.S. No. 2508 of 1934 and S.C.S. No. 2509 of 1934). In each of the two cases the plaintiff claims a sum of money as being due from the defendant in respect of dealings, those dealings being the sale and delivery of goods which the plaintiffs in the suits claim have not been paid for. In the particulars filed with the plaints the various dealings are set out and also the amounts due in respect of them. In S. C. No. 2508 of 1934 there is in addition a claim in respect of the following matters:6th February 1933. Debit to Vakil's clerk for sending lawyer's notice, As. 6.25th. February 1935. Debit Re. 1, as fee for sending lawyer's notice through Vakil P.S. Nagaswami Iyer, registration charges for the same As. 5-3 out of Re. 1-5-3, in all deducting As. 6 paid to the Vakil's clerk on...
Fraser and Ross Vs. Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad624
Beasley, C.J.1. The answer to the reference before us which is made by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes is that Messrs. Eraser & Ross cannot themselves be made liable to pay the profession tax out of their own income. They are chartered accountants and as chartered accountants have been duly charged with profession tax on their income and at its highest rate. It is in the course of the exercise of the profession of chartered accountants that they are carrying on as Receivers appointed by this High Court the affairs of the Nadar estate and this arrack business on its behalf in Madras. The remuneration which they receive as Receivers in respect of this estate and of this business forms part of their total income upon which profession-tax has already been paid. Clearly they are not liable to pay any further profession tax themselves out of their income; but if this business is earning a profit profession-tax upon it can and should be levied Who is to be responsible for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »