Chennai Court February 1935 Judgments
Langoju Tavudu and anr. Vs. Veerini Venkataratnam and Five ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad555; (1935)68MLJ623
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that arises is, whether a party's initials are equivalent to his signature under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which says that an acknowledgment of liability in respect of property or right should be made in writing, signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. On principle there seems to be no reason for holding that the word ' signed' should be construed as meaning ' signed in full '. The object of the Act, as I understand it, is to regard as sufficient what the writer intends to be equivalent to his signature, the form being immaterial so long as it verifies the acknowledgment. To ignore the substance and attach importance to the form, would be to defeat the plain intention of the Statute, which makes no distinction between ' signing ' and ' signing in full '. The word ' initial', according to the Oxford Dictionary, means ' sign with initials '. The question arose under the Indian Succession Act, which enacts that each o...
Tag this Judgment!(Mullangi) Ramayya and ors. Vs. (Thondapu) Bapanamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad16
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They sued for possession of certain properties as reversioners to the estate of one Gangaraju whose widow Sitamma died in March 1924. The widow had by a registered document (Ex. 1), dated 30th October 1906, surrendered the properties to her pre-deceased daughter's son, one Venkatarayudu (or Venkanna). This Venkatarayudu also happened to predecease the widow and the plaintiffs have thus become the actual reversionary heirs to the estate. Defendant 1 is the widow of Venkatasayudu and she relied on the deed of surrender as a defence to the claim of the plaintiffs as reversioners. The validity of this deed of surrender was attacked before the Court of first instance on three grounds : (vide para. 14 of the 1st Court's judgment) viz. (1) that it was not a bona fide document, (2) that it was not a complete surrender of all the properties inherited by her from her husband and (3) that Venkanna was a minor on the date of the surrender and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Inuganti Raja Gopala Venkatanarasimharayinim Bahadur Varu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1935
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ625
Madhavan Nair, J.1. As a result of the decision of the High Court in S.A. No. 904 of 1926 the plaintiff has instituted the suit out of which this Second appeal arises, for the recovery of water-rate claimed for faslies 1328, 1330, 1334 and 1336 from defendants 1 and 2. The facts of the case are clearly-stated in the lower court's judgment and there is no need to restate them here.2. The question arising for decision in this case is whether the decision of the Deputy Collector on issue 6 in S.S. No. 132 of 1917 is res judicata in the present suit with regard to the plaintiff's claim. In that suit the present plaintiff's predecessor asked for recovery of arrears of rent for faslies 1324 and 1326. Various issues were framed with respect to the claim. Two of them were: (1) 'Whether there is any tank in No. 314'; (2) 'Whether plaintiff is entitled to any water-rate at Rs. 8 an acre on the extent of No. 314'. Issue 6 in that suit ran in these terms; 'Whether the suit is maintainable in its p...
Tag this Judgment!C.K. Krishna Rao Vs. R. Krishna Dos Lalah and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad556
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 28th October 1931. This was the final decree but the appeal is in substance directed against an earlier order dated 29th September 1931 which refused the appellant's prayer to be allowed to purchase the land under Section 9, Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. The suit was filed by the owner for ejectment and for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The original tenant died, and defendants 1 to 3 are his heirs. Before his death, the original tenant executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant 4, who is the appellant in this appeal. Defendant 1 was absent, and the Court guardian for the minor defendants 2 and 3, though claiming in the written statement that they were entitled to purchase the lands at a valuation to be fixed by the Court does not seem to have actually put in an application for this purpose. On the other hand, it would appear that the lower Court asked the guardian whethe...
Tag this Judgment!Amara Seshayya and Bros. Vs. Chalavadi Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad619; 157Ind.Cas.751
ORDERKing, J.1. The parties in this case are two firms of groundnut merchants, plaintiffs doing business in Guntur and defendants in Ongole. On 1st January J931 they entered into a contract by which plaintiffs were to purchase from defendants 318 bags of groundnuts at Rs. 6-12-0 per bag to be delivered on the 25th January. It is common ground that the time for delivery was subsequently extended to 20th February. Delivery however was not to be made to the plaintiffs themselves, but to one of four exporting companies referred to in the contract, and plaintiffs had to send to the defendants at least six days before the due date what is known as a transfer form.' On this transfer form would be intimated the name of the firm to which the groundnuts were to be delivered.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they sent on the 12th February a registered letter to the defendants in which they intimated that delivery was to be made to Strauss & Co. at Guntur, and that that letter was refused by t...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Inuganti Raja Gopala Venkatanarasimharayanim Bahadur Varu Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad551; 156Ind.Cas.1033
Madhavan Nair, J.1. As a result of the decision of the High Court in S.A. No. 904 of 1926, the plaintiff has instituted the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for the recovery of water rate claimed for Faslies 1328, 1330, 1334 and 1336 from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The facts of the case are clearly stated in the lower Court's judgment and there is no need to re-state them here.2. The question arising for decision in this case is whether the decision of the Deputy Collector on issue No. 6 in S.S. No. 132 of 1917 is res judicata in the present suit with regard to the plaintiff's claim. In that suit the present plaintiff's predecessor asked for recovery of arrears of rent for Faslies 1324 and 1326. Various issues were framed with respect to the claim. Two of them were:(1)Whether there is any tank in No. 314; (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any water rate at Rs. 8 an acre on the extent of No. 314.3. Issue No. 6 in that suit ran in these terms: 'Whether the suit is maintainab...
Tag this Judgment!Dasari Polayya Dora Vs. Onarasi Anantha Patro and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad61; 160Ind.Cas.757; (1935)69MLJ903
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on foot of a mortgage (Ex. A) dated the 9th January 1912 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,800. The mortgagors are five brothers. They are the eighth and eleventh defendants, the father of the twelfth defendant, and the thirteenth and eighteenth defendants. Ninth and tenth defendants are the sons of the eighth defendant. Defendants 14 to 17 are the sons of the thirteenth defendant. The interests of these five mortgagors in the family property will be hereafter referred to as the shares of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th branches respectively. On the 27th May, 1913 these five branches mortgaged their properties. The 1st and 5th branches executed Ex. I in favour of the seventh defendant (a sister of the first defendant) for Rs. 900, the 3rd branch executed I(a) for Rs..400 in favour of the same person and the 2nd and 4th branches executed Ex. II in favour of the first defendant. On the same day the five branches leased the properties...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chakka Jagga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad563; (1935)68MLJ660
Mockett, J.1. In this second appeal the only question that arises is whether the defendant committed assault on the plaintiff. The defendant was prosecuted and was convicted of the assault and the District Munsif thereupon took the remarkable view that the question of whether the assault had or had not been committed was concluded in the Civil Court. He says that the issue 'Whether the assault complained of is true' was unnecessarily framed because the defendant had been convicted by a competent Court and the conviction had been upheld in appeal. He expressed the view that the finding of the Criminal Court and the consequent conviction of the defendant was conclusive proof of the assault.2. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge does not appear to have expressed any definite view regarding the correctness of the holding of the Munsif but decided the case on the merits in favour of the defendant. The question raised is of some importance and I think it right to express my view. In a ci...
Tag this Judgment!Taluq Board and anr. Vs. Volkart United Press Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad571; 157Ind.Cas.1030
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This case seems to be directly covered by the decision of Deva-doss, J., in Municipal Council Rajahmundry v. Prasarayadu 1926 Mad 800, where he stated that when a Municipal Council proposes to levy a tax it must make the people understand at what rate it is going to collect the tax and should not simply say it is going to collect the tax as provided for by the District Municipalities Act in Schedule 4 or anything of the kind. Though the question arises in this case under the Madras Local Boards Act (14 of 1920), the principle is the same. In the present case the District Board passed a resolution to levy company tax and subsequently issued a notification stating that company tax would be levied 'at the rate specified in Schedule 4 of the Act.' The point taken in the lower Court was that the notification was not a sufficient compliance with Section 77 of the Act which provides that when the District Board shall have determined in accordance with the provisions of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. N. Suppiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.1; (1935)69MLJ98
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question is whether the lower Court's decree granting the plaintiff exemplary damages in respect of the trespass complained against, is wrong. It is settled law that in an action for trespass to land, substantial damages may be recovered, though no loss or diminution in value of property may have occurred. (Pollock on Torts, 13th Edition, p. 194.) The learned author points out that in action for a wanton trespass on land persisted in with violent and intemperate behaviour, the Juries are, with the open approval of the Courts in the habit of allowing exemplary damages (ibid.). In such cases the principle of restitutio in integrum does not apply, for, the damages that are awarded, are intended to express indignation at the defendant's wrong rather than to recompense the plaintiff for his loss. (10 Hals Hailsham Edition, p. 87.) On the evidence there can be no doubt that the conduct of the defendant must be held to have been highhanded and his trespass wanton an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »