Chennai Court February 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.
Sarada Vs. Nhattiyala Devaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad659
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry refusing to S9t aside an exparte decree passed by him on 5fch September 1932. The appellant here was defendant 2 in the suit being the daughter of defendant 1 who was sued on a mortgage. Defendant 1 did not defend the suit; defendant 2 did. The suit was filed on 11th July 1932; written statement was filed on 1st August 1932; issues were settled on 3rd August 1932 and the case was posted to 23rd August 1932 for trial. On that date an adjournment was asked for by defendant 2's advocate on account of defendant 2's illness. She was absent on that date. Apparently there was no evidence to support the application for an adjournment which was refused but, owing to the pressure of work, the case was not taken up on that date but was adjourned until 5th September 1932. On that occasion defendant 2 was still absent. An application for adjournment was put in and the learned Subordinate Judge passed the...
Pakiathammal Vs. Vaiyapuri Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad880; 160Ind.Cas.417
ORDERStone, J.1. In this case it is said there is a conflict of decisions on the question whether a person who is the real payee can sue on a note whereon the name of another person appears as payee.2. The cases cited in favour of this view are : Venkatarama Reddiar v. Valli Akkal 1935 Mad. 181. The observations of Varadachariar, J., at p 84 are relied upon. There however that learned Judge refused to express an opinion upon the question whether a person claiming to be real owner, though not named as payee in a promissory note, can under any circumstances maintain a suit on the note against the maker : Subramania Ayyar v. Subban Chettiar 1925 Mad. 1130. That case turns on the fact that the payee is described as 'N. Manager of S.C. & Co.' The view was taken that he was so named as agent for a disclosed principal, that the general principles of the law of agency applied, and therefore the disclosed principal can sue : Sowcar Lodd Gobind Doss v. Muniappa (1908)31 Mad. 534. There the payee...
Puthupadath Kochu Kutty Amma (Affected by Mental Infirmity and Idiocy) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad753; 160Ind.Cas.676
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The present suit was brought upon a mortgage and a decree was passed against defendant 1 described as the karnwastri and also against her daughter defendant 2. These two persons, it is alleged, are the only members of the tarwad. The revision petition arises out of an application made after the decree on behalf of defendant 2. It is said that, at the time of passing the decree and long previous to it, she was a lunatic and that the decree as against her should therefore be disregarded. On this ground the lower Court was requested to revive the suit and proceed with it after appointing a suitable guardian for her.5. The Subordinate Judge has misunderstood the nature of the application. The Court that passed the decree happened also to be the Court that was executing it. The learned Judge thought that the application was made to the executing Court, whereas in truth it was made to the Court that passed the decree. The ground of his decision that the executing ...
Gogineni Ankamma Vs. Alluri Sri Venkata Seshachalapathi and Two ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad783; (1935)69MLJ84
Cornish, J.1. The appeal is against the part of a restitution order directing interest to be paid on the sum ordered to be refunded. A mortgagor having become insolvent the Official Receiver made a payment to a first mortgagee, who is the appellant before us, on account of his mortgage debt. The second mortgagee, who is third Respondent in this appeal, objected to the rate of interest allowed by the Official Receiver to the prior mortgagee on his debt. He appealed to the District Court against the Official Receiver's decision without success. He then carried his appeal to the High Court with the result that the lower Court's order was modified by directing that the interest due should be recalculated at the rate of Re. 1 per cent, per mensem instead of Re. 1-9-0 per mensem. The excess payment made on this account amounted to Rs. 1,746 odd. On the petition of the present third respondent the lower Court has ordered this sum to be refunded to the third respondent with interest at 6 per c...
Kadir Mohideen Sahib Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad577
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner is the owner, of a motor lorry. The facts found are thus stated by the learned Joint Magistrate:On 18th August 1934 Sergeant checked the lorry. It had no G Permit. It contained furniture and boxes belonging to Inspector-General of Prisons, Madras, labelled for Madras. P.W. 2 says he took contract from Inspector-General of Prisons and took the accused's lorry. Accused would not take petrol charges as he had been charged by the Police, but when he took the lorry the accused asked for petrol charges. He sent him on four trips. This amounts to hire, There is no defence.The plea of the accused was:I did not take hire. Pitchamuthu Pillai (P. W. 2) asked me to take the lorry, I did not permit. The driver may have taken it. 2. The latter part of this plea was untenable. The accused as owner would be liable if his lorry plied or was let for) hire, whether he permitted it or not. The first part of the plea however is a good defence if the accused did not take hire....
Matam Lingayya Vs. Anumala Venkatapathy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad694; 157Ind.Cas.1002
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kurnool dated 9th August 1929 in appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Kurnool dated 26th November 1926 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for recovery of land on the preliminary ground that he had no title. The plaintiff claimed the lands under a sale-deed executed in his favour by defendant 8, Basi Lingayya. The preliminary objection made to the plaintiff's claim was that Basi Lingayya could not have conveyed any valid title to the plaintiff because on the date of the sale-deed, namely 3rd December 1925, he was an undischarged bankrupt and also when J the land in question devolved upon Basi Lingayya as reversioner some time in 1924; the contention of the contesting defendants 1 to 7, was that the land immediately vested on its devolution in the Official Receiver by virtue of the provisions of Section 16(4), Provincial Insolvency Act of 1907 or under Section 28(4), provincial Insolvency Act of 192...
Kosaraju Peda Subbayya and ors. Vs. Moravaneni Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad750; 160Ind.Cas.822
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants, against the decree of the Subordinate Judge who awarded a sum of Rs. 2,930 with further interest thereon, as damages caused to the plaintiffs by the joint acts of the defendants in unlawfully grazing their cattle on certain lands obtained by the plaintiff's permanent jiroyati patta from the Zamindar of South Vallur.2. The plaintiffs and the defendants belong to neighbouring villages and it would appear that some of the defendants have been trying to get the lands in question from the Zamindar, but ultimately the plaintiffs succeeded in getting jiroyati patta for them on 31st October 1923. The lands consist partly of cultivated land, but mainly of a large extent of forest land. The defendants on behalf of themselves and other ryots of their village asserted that they had a right to graze their cattle and sheep on the suit lands and to take brushwood and fuel from the forest and also to take wood for making agricultural implements....
In Re: Kadir Mohideen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.325
ORDERBurn, J.1. The petitioner is the owner of a motor lorry. The facts found are thus stated by the learned Joint Magistrate:On August 18, 1934, Sergeant checked the lorry. It had no G Permit. It contained furniture and boxes belonging to Inspector-General of Prisons, Madras, labelled for Madras, P.W. No. 2, says he took contract from Inspector-General of Prisons and took the accused's lorry. Accused would not take petrol charges as he had been charged by the Police, but when he took the lorry the accused asked for petrol charges. He sent him on four trips. This amounts to hire. There is no defence.2. The plea of the accused was:I did not take hire. Pitchamuthu Pillai (P.W. No. 2) asked me to take the lorry. I did not permit. The driver may have taken it.3. The latter part of this plea was untenable. The accused as owner would be liable if his lorry plied or was let for hire, whether he permitted it or not. The first part of the plea, however, is a good defence if the accused did not ...
(Nidadavole) Ramalingam Vs. (Nidadavole) Veerabhadradu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad914
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for possession of certain lands which are admittedly village service inam (for blacksmith's service) in the Pittapur Estate. The plaintiff admits that neither he nor his father was the holder of the office or was doing the service and that defendant 1 and after him defendants 2 and 3 are the holders of the office and have been discharging the duties; but he claimed that his father and after his death himself have been in possession of those lands for a long time and that he has acquired a title thereto by adverse possession as against the office-holders, though such possession might not affect the right of the Government to resume the lands.2. In view of the omission of the defendants in the written statement to deny the plaint allegations as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff's father came into possession of the suit lands, we may take it that as alleged in the plaint the plaintiff's father must have been ...
Nidadavole Ramalingam Vs. Nidadavole Veerabhadradu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.447
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal is by the plaintiff who sued for possession of certain lands which are admittedly village service inam (for blacksmith's service) in the Pittapur Estate. The plaintiff admits that neither he nor his father was the holder of the office or was doing the service and that defendant No. 1 and after him defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the holders of the office and have been discharging the duties; but he claimed that his father and after his death himself have been in possession of those lands for a long time and that he has acquired a title thereto by adverse possession as against the office-holders, though such possession might not affect the right of the Government to resume the lands.2. In view of the omission of the defendants in the written statement to deny the plaint allegations as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff's father came into possession of the suit lands, we may take it that as alleged in the plaint the plaintiff's father must h...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »