Chennai Court April 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.
Vavarthar Abdul Wahab Saheb Vs. Pallapotha Kanaka Anjaneyalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad888; 159Ind.Cas.23
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Kistna dated 29th August 1932, in appeal reversing the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dated 27th April 1931, in O.S. No. 13 of 1929 and remanding the suit for fresh disposal. The suit was one to recover Rs. 4,130 due under a hundi. The only point decided by the trial Court was that covered by the additional issue framed in the case on; 29th October 1930, viz., whether the suit hundi is unstamped and hence the suit is not maintainable. The trial Court found this issue in the affirmative and accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the District Judge was of opinion that it was not open to the Subordinate Judge to consider the question of the admissibility of the hundi in view of its previous admission in evidence by the Commissioner appointed by the trial Court. The only point for determination in this appeal therefore is whether the hundi in question was admitted in evidence within the meaning of S...
A.H.S. Kuppuswami Ayyar Vs. Rathilal Somabhai and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad926; 158Ind.Cas.907
Menon, J.1. The appellants obtained a decree for rent in O.S. No. 200/21 on the file of the District Munsif, Madura Town, against the firm of Rathilal Somabhai & Co. represented by its agent Ramsooke Das. They now seek leave to execute that decree against two persons, Somabhai Purushotham and Rathilal Purushotham on the ground that they were partners of the firm. For that purpose the appellants filed an application under Order 21, Rule 50, Clause 2, Civil P.C. Both the lower Courts dismissed it on the ground that it was barred by limitation, having been made more than three years after the decree. The only question therefore for decision is whether the application is barred by limitation. The appellant contends that Article 182, Lim. Act, governs applications of this kind, whereas the respondent says that it is Article 181 that should be applied. The lower Courts relied on the decision in Vishinji Goverdhandas v. Vassumal Wadhaumal 1930 Sind. 180, in which it was held, that Article 181...
Thyammal Vs. Subramania Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad86; 159Ind.Cas.165
Vardachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought to set aside a rent sale under the Estates Land Act. The plaintiffs are admittedly entitled to a one-fourth share in the holding, defendants Nos. 1 to 3, being entitled to the remaining shares. It is not necessary for the purpose of this second appeal to decide what exactly the arrangement was between the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 as to the way in which they should pay the rent due to their landlord, during the time that the lease Ex. A, was in force and who as between them was really liable to pay the amount for the year in respect of which the rent sale took place. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 admit that they were personally served with the notice of sale. Beyond filing a written statement jointly with defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the third defendant has put forward no specific case. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiffs were not served with notice of the sale and no attempt was made to serve them pe...
Sri Tripura Sundari Cotton Press Co., Ltd. and anr. Vs. Addepalli Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad784; 158Ind.Cas.601; (1935)69MLJ239
Mockett, J.1. This is a matter of some importance to companies and it has been dealt with very summarily in the lower Court. The action is by the plaintiff against the defendant company in respect of the non-registration of a transfer in which he was interested. Under Article 6 of the Company's Articles of Association it is stated that the company reserves to itself the right of refusing any transfer if it appears to be against the interests of the company. The plaintiff by his plaint alleges that the defendant company refused to recognise the transfer under the evil advice and guidance of the second defendant. The company justified its refusal for reasons given and also because under Article 6 of the Articles of Association it claims to have unfettered discretion. The issues as originally framed were:(3) Are defendants entitled to refuse to recognise the transfer of shares as stated by them in their written statement?(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable for reasons alleged by the ...
Ponnu Nadar and 4 ors. Vs. Kumaru Reddiar and 10 ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ739
Curgenven, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit brought by three Nadars, who are brothers, to establish their own right and the right of their castemen to pass in procession over a certain route in their village of Mela Seithalai. The defendants are other castemen of the village, such as Nayagars, Reddis and Assaris, who deny that the plaintiffs enjoy this right. The occasion for the suit was provided by two attempts, on the 8th November and 13th December, 1918, made by the plaintiffs to take marriage processions over the route in question, these attempts, it is said, being met by obstruction and intimidation on the part of the defendants' party. The route over which it is claimed to exercise the right has been found by the lower Appellate Court to be composed of public streets.2. The question which we have to decide is one of limitation. The dispute has had a somewhat long history, and we have to go back to 1900, when the Nadars of Mela Seithalai village attempted to carry a c...
Vattar Krishna Ayyangar Vs. Janaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad878; 158Ind.Cas.790
ORDERStone, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition, is brought against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura, dismissing an application for leave to file a suit in forma pauperis. The learned Judge found that the application was not bona fide, that the applicant had sufficient property, and that shortly before he had filed the application he had disposed of other properties. With regard to one transaction the learned Judge says:The petitioner wants the Court to believe that this was an honest transaction and was not the one intended to defraud the Government and to escape payment of court-fee.... The othi has been executed just an the eve of filing this petition just for the purpose of enabling him to file this application.2. I take that to be a finding that that transaction was not put through bona fide but was put through to enable the applicant to pretend that he was a pauper when in fact he knew he was not. In the result the petition was dismissed with costs. No applica...
Ponnu Nadar and ors. Vs. Kumaru Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad967
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They are Nadars by caste living permanently in the village of Mela Seithalai situated within, the Zemindari of Ettiyapuram. In the' suit out of which this second appeal arises, they claim for themselves individually and for their castemen the right to take marriage procession along the streets marked A, C, D, E, E, F(1), F(2) and G in the plaint plan. The defendants who are other eastemen of the village, namely, the Naickers, Reddies and Acharies, denied them such right and stated that the exercise of the right is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs allege in the plaint that when they attempted to take a procession they were threatened that they would be murdered, and it may be taken for the purposes of this case that the procession did not start owing to the defendant's hostile attitude. The streets in question have been found by the lower appellate Court to be public streets. In 1900, when the plaintiffs' castemen living in the...
Patruni Lakshmu Naidu and anr. Vs. Gandham Venkayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad943
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit out of which the Civil Revision Petition arises, was brought virtually for the recovery of rent for the years 1922 to 1924. The lands in question were service imams held by the plaintiffs under the Madgole zamindar; the defendants were in actual possession as the plaintiffs' tenants. The zamindari was being managed by the Court of Wards and it was alleged that the plaintiffs committed default in the rendering of the service. After some correspondence between certain officers to which I need not refer, the lands were resumed by Ex. 12, an order made by the Board of Revenue on 24th September 1925. Subsequently on 11th October 1925 patta was issued to the defendants and they paid to the estate the rent due for the suit period. The following passage from the learned District Judge's judgment clearly sets out the true position:The respondents were not informed that the resumption of this inam was to take effect from any earlier date than the Board's order, an...
(Chathurvedula) Subbayya Vs. Simha Venkata Subba Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1050; 159Ind.Cas.224
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application put in by a judgment-debtor under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C. The petitioner here was respondent 2 in the lower Courts and was the auction-purchaser of one of the items of property brought to sale in pursuance of a decree. The decree-holder, respondent 1, in the lower Courts, purchased another item of property. The applicant under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P.C., was the judgment-debtor. He deposited the required five per cent of the purchase money for payment to the petitioner here, respondent 2. He however made no deposit under Rule 89(1)(b), namely,for payment to the decree-holder the amount specified in the proclamation of salefor the reasons that he came forward with an arrangement whereby the decree-holder, who was respondent 1, in the application, agreed to accept a mort gage for Rs. 600 from the applicant, the judgment-debtor, in satisfaction of the amount owing to him under the decree. The petitione...
Sree Rajah Uppalapati Suryanarayaneswara Jogi Jagannadharaju Garu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ269
King, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit was a Zamindar who King, J. owned the villages of Bellampudi and Pedapudi in the East Godavari District. In those villages are certain 'puntas' or village tracks, and in 1923 the Taluk Board of Rajahmundry sold certain trees growing on those puntas and sold the usufruct of certain other trees so growing for a sum of Rs. 146-14-0. In 1926 the Zamindar, claiming title in the trees in himself, brought this suit to recover that sum from the Taluk Board, and for a declaration and perpetual injunction. Both the Courts below have dismissed his suit.2. Though this was contested originally by the Zamindar it is common ground in this appeal that the 'puntas' in question are 'public roads' within the meaning of Section 60 of the Local Boards Act, and that they therefore vested in the Taluk Board under the provisions of that section. But the trees growing upon a public road are nowhere specifically vested in the Board, and what we have to decide is whether the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »