Chennai Court December 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.
Sharof Ali Abdul Ali Shat Vs. Safiaboo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad432
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, dated 15th September 1930, dismissing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Mangalore dated 23rd January 1929, in O.S. No 549 of 1927 which was a suit for partition by one of the heirs of the late Abdul Ali Rajah Ali Shat who died on 30th January 1924. It was recited in the plaint that there was a gift-deed executed by the deceased Rajah Ali on 11th January 1924 by which he purported to give all his properties to defendants 1 and 3, that is to say, two of his heirs, and it was alleged in the plaint that this deed was void being a gift made during deathbed illness. The defendant 1 sided with the plaintiff and in fact he was the only witness on the side of the plaintiff and his case was that the deed was not valid for the reason given in the plaint. The suit was resisted only by defendant 3 so far as the validity of the deed was concerned, and it was found by both the C...
V.P.R.M.V. Muthaya Chettiar Vs. S.S. Rm. S. Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad506; 163Ind.Cas.713
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura dated 19th February 1931 dismissing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif, Madura Town, dated 20th December 1929, in O.S. No. 4 of 1927, a suit to recover the amount due under a hundi executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 and payable at Madras by the firm of Al. Vr. Ct. Ratnam Chettiar. Defendant 2 endorsed the hundi in favour of the plaintiff and it is not disputed that the endorsement was for valuable consideration. The plaintiff attempted to get payment from the Madras firm but payment was refused and the hundi was sent back to him. The plaintiff alleged that he sent notice of the dishonour to defendant 1 and that in reply defendant 1 sent a notice containing false and unfounded allegations and in particular setting up an agreement to the effect that there was to be no liability incurred by defendant 1 under the hundi and that the plaintiff was aware of this agreement when he t...
In Re: Rangappa Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ447
Cronish, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted of the murder of one Sinne Goundan on the 4th March last, and have been sentenced to death.2. The case for the Crown is that the man was murdered by the appellants near a hut in some cotton fields where the three had gone that night to watch their crops. All three men were cultivators.3. It is common ground that the two appellants called for the deceased at his house that evening, about 9 O'clock, to accompany them to the fields, and that he went away with them.4. In consequence of information given to the Police by the two appellants at 5 O'clock next morning, a constable arrived upon the scene and found the dead body of Sinne Goundan lying in the cotton field, about 50 or 60 feet away from the hut. It was also seen there by the village munsif P.W. 9 who arrived later.5. But an extraordinary thing happened at the trial. We are told that the medical witness, who had made a deposition before the committing Magistrate, was present in c...
Rangappa Goundan Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad426
Cornish, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted of the murder of one Sinne Goundan on the 4th March last, and have been sentenced to death. The case for the Crown is that the man was murdered by the appellants near a hut in some cotton fields where the three had gone that night to watch their crops. All three men were cultivators. It is common ground that the two appellants called for the deceased at his house that evening, about 9 o'clock, to accompany them to the fields, and that he went away with them. In consequence of information given to the police by the two appellants at 5 o'clock next morning, a constable arrived upon the scene and found the dead body of Sinne Goundan, lying in the cotton field, about 50 or 60 feet away from the hut. It was also seen there by the Village Munsif, P.W. 9, who arrived later. But an extraordinary thing happened at the trial. We are told that the medical witness, who had made a deposition before the committing Magistrate, was present in Court....
N.M. Roshan Umar Karim and Co., a Firm Carrying on Business in Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad508; 163Ind.Cas.493; (1936)70MLJ608
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit to recover damages in the sum of Rs. 4,500 for damage done to 37 bags of goat and sheep skins consigned on 17th June, 1927, by a firm of Messrs. B. Syed Sahib and Brothers at Cuddapah for delivery to the plaintiff firm at Trichinopoly. The consignment was sent under a risk note form A. The case for the plaintiff is that when the goods had to be transhipped at Arkonam on the 20th June, 1927, on opening the waggon it was found that the said skins were loaded along with four jars of a certain acid known as formal-de-hyde and as two of these jars had broken, the skins had become wet, that on the 29th June, 1927, the goods reached Trichinopoly, that, though open delivery was insisted on, the Railway Company declined to do so and the goods were taken delivery of and when they were taken to the plaintiff's tannery and the tanning processes were commenced it was found impossible to remove the hair from the skins and the goods had become valueless and ther...
Lakshmi alias Ammakutti Amma Vs. Kakkiyil Puthanpura Vettil Kalu alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ82
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit to set aside a summary order passed in M. P. No. 1103 of 1928 in O.S. No. 588 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Palghat and fora declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties belong in jenm to the tarwad of the 1st defendant. In 1918 the 1st defendant teased the properties to the 3rd defendant who was the anandravan of the same tarwad on a Verum-pattam lease with a Munpattom of Rs. 500. The 3rd defendant effected considerable improvements in the suit property and in 1920 he mortgaged his rights in the suit property to one Lakshmi Amma and her son, and subsequently executed a second mortgage over the same; on the 3rd June, 1926, he executed a mortgage with possession in favour of the plaintiff and got back from him on the same date a lease of the property; On the 9th March, 1927 the plaintiff gave a notice to the third defendant terminating th...
(Nagadevam) Venkatasubbamma Vs. Nagadeva Venkateswaralu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad429
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for maintenance by a Hindu widow. The plaintiff's late husband and another, deceased father of the defendant, were undivided brothers owning joint family property, moveable and immoveable. The immoveable property consisted of a house and site described in Schedule B to the plaint and the lands described in Schedule A there to which comprised certain purohit service inam lands in Anaparthi village. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit took into account the income from all the items of immoveable property and moveable property and gave a decree to the plaintiff fixing Rs 100 per annum from date of plaint and past maintenance at Rs. 30 per annum for six years prior to suit and provided also for her residence.2. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the income from service inam lands should not have been taken into consideration but nevertheless considered that the rate of Rs. 100 per annum was a proper rate having rega...
Lakshmi Vs. (Kakiyil Puthanpura Veettil) Kalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad422
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit to set aside a summary order passed in M. P. No. 1103 of 1928 in O.S. No. 588 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Palghat and for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties belong in jenm to the tarwad of defendant 1. In 1918 defendant 1 leased the properties to defendant 3 who was the anandravan of the same tarwad on a verumpattam lease with a munpattam of Rs. 500. Defendant 3 effected considerable improvements in the suit property and in 1920 he mortgaged his rights in the suit property to one Laksmi Amma and her son, and subsequently executed a second mortgage over the same; on 3rd June 1926 he executed a mortgage with possession in favour of the plaintiff and got back from him on the same date a lease of the property; on 9th March 1927 the plaintiff gave a notice to defendant 3, terminating the tenancy and asking him to surrender posse...
Nagadevara Venkatasubbamma Vs. Nagadevara Venkataesw Aralu, Minor by M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.292
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for maintenance by a Hindu widow. The plaintiff's late husband and the deceased father of the defendant were undivided brothers owning joint family property, movable and immovable. The immovable property consisted of a house and site described in the B Schedule to the plaint and the land described in A Schedule thereto which comprised certain purohit service inam lands in Anaparthi village.2. The learned District Munsif who tried the suit took into account the income from all the items of immovable property and movable property and gave a decree to the plaintiff fixing Rs. 100 per annum from date of plaint and past maintenance at Rs. 30 per annum for six years prior to suit and provided also for her residence.3. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the income from service inam lands should not have been taken into consideration but nevertheless considered that the rate of Rs. 100 per annum was a proper rate having regard to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›