Chennai Court May 1935 Judgments
Hakim Khan Alias Sikkandar Khan Sahib and ors. Vs. A. Sahibjan Sahib a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1040; 159Ind.Cas.694; (1935)69MLJ722
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal relates to a durga or Mahomedan shrine known as the Sultan Sikkandar Badhusha Oulia durga at Tirupparankundram in the Madura district. The parties belong to a family to which the village Thanakkankulam was granted by the Nawabs of the Carnatic for meeting the expenses of the services and ceremonies in the durga and for their own support as ministrants. This family has also been entitled to receive the offerings at the shrine both in the ordinary course and on special festival occasions. In 1875 the family was represented by five brothers, each standing at the head of a family group, and these brothers entered into an agreement, Ex. I, which provided that the collections from the village of Thanakkankulam should be -divided between these five persons in certain shares and that the duties in the durga should be performed by each group in succession for one year in five. The senior member of each group was to be a Mahomaidar and had the right to be regis...
Tag this Judgment!Sambasiva Ayyar Vs. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad70
ORDER - It is hereby agreed between the parties, that a sum of Rs. 3,800 (Rupees three thousand eight hundred) only should be paid into the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore by respondent 3 herein on or before 10th January 1936 in full satisfaction of the decree including all costs incurred up to date. The appellant is at liberty to draw the amount. If such deposit of the entire amount is not made by respondent 3 as aforesaid the decree as it stands will be operative and enforceable....
Tag this Judgment!Thoppa Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad82
1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. of the murder of Muthu Vannan, a washerman, by stabbing him with a spear and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. He has also been convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. of causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon to Veerammal, the wife of Muthu Vannan, and sentenced to rigorous, imprisonment for three years. Vellathayi, the daughter of the deceased, was divorced by her husband, and it was settled to marry her to P.W. 3, the husband of Chinnammal, the mistress of the appellant. P.W. 3 would not drop the idea in spite of the requests of the appellant at the instance of his mistress, and the appellant and his friend, Vannimuthu, tried to prevent the marriage by insulting and intimidating:. Vellathayi. They were not successful and the marriage was fixed for 17th October 1934. The deceased and Veerammal were as usual sleeping on the pial of their house, with their bundle of soiled clothes on the night of 15th...
Tag this Judgment!(Sathuragiri Kattari) Nagaya Kama Rajendra Ramaswami Kamya Naicker Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad995; 160Ind.Cas.471
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In both these second appeals the plaintiff, the Zamindar of Sapthur, is the appellant. In Second Appeal No. 355/33 defendant 2 in the suit, the only contesting defendant, has filed a memorandum of objections to the lower appellate Court's decree. These second appeals arise out of two suits, O.S. Nos. 420 and 421 of 1928. Both the suits were tried together for the sake of convenience and also for the reason that in both the suits the questions raised are the same. Both relate to inams which are situate inside the limits of the zamindari. In the first suit defendant 1, who is ex parte, is the holder of a pre-settlement nattamai service (village service) inam. It was enfranchised in his favour in 1908 and subsequently he sold it to defendant 2 under Ex. II, In the second suit, tfiat is O.S. No. 421 of 1928, the lands concerned are called josyam manibam and were granted in inam to a predecessor of the defendant by a predecessor of the plaintiff under Ex. III of the year...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Thoppa Alias Sheik Abdul Kadir
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.30
1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, of the murder of Muthu Vannan, a washer-mar, by stabbing him with a spear and sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this Court. He has also been convicted under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, of causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon to Veerammal, the wife of Muthu Vannan, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years.2. Vellathayi, the daughter of the deceased, was divorced by her husband and it was settled to marry her to P.W. No. 3 the husband of Chinnammal, the mistress of the appellant. Prosecution witness No. 3 would not drop the idea in spite of the requests of the appellant at the instance of his mistress, and the appellant and his friend Vannimuthu, tried to prevent the marriage by insulting and intimidating Vellathayi. They were not successful and the marriage was fixed for October 17, 1934. The deceased and Veerammal were as usual sleeping in the pial of their house, with their bundle...
Tag this Judgment!Sambadiva Ayyar Vs. Subramania Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1935
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.856
ORDER71. It is hereby agreed between the parties, that a sum of Rs. 3,800 (Rupees Three thousand eight hundred) only should be paid into the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore by the 3rd respondent herein on or before January 10, 1936, in full satisfaction of the decree including all costs incurred up to date. The appellant is at liberty to draw the amount. If such deposit of the entire amount is not made by the 3rd respondent as aforesaid, the decree as it stands will be, operative and enforceable....
Tag this Judgment!Parepalli Veeraraghavamma Vs. Parepalli Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1043
Stone, J.1. As regards the Civil Miscellaneous appeal, a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal does not lie. The learned Counsel for the appellant relies upon Order 43, Rule 1(a), and says that the order now appealed against falls within that rule. That rule relates to an order under Rule 10, Order 7, returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court. The order under appeal is concerned not with the return of a plaint but with the return of a petition for permission to sue in forma pauperis to which as usual the plaint is appended. I am of the opinion that the preliminary objection is well founded and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Costs to abide the event. A revision petition is also filed doubtless because of a doubt in the appellant's mind as to the maintainability of the appeal. No preliminary objection is raised to the Civil Revision Petition. The question is whether the learned District Judge was right in refusing to permit the plaintiff to file a plaint in fo...
Tag this Judgment!Sait Madan Gopal Trading Under the Name and Style of Sait Lakshminaray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad25; 159Ind.Cas.872; (1935)69MLJ716
King, J.1. Defendant 1 in this case sent a consignment of Cocoanuts by rail on the 6th October, 1930 from East Godavari to Jalna, a station on the Nizam's Railway. The railway receipt was made out to the consignor himself, but it was intended that Defendant 3 a merchant of Jalna should receive the goods. A hundi was drawn against Defendant 2 a merchant in Bombay to the debit of the account of Defendant 3 to provide for payment. On the 8th October Defendant 1 assigned the hundi and railway receipt to the plaintiff. Sometime after this-the exact date is not available from the records--Defendant 1 sent a telegram to the Jalna Railway Station to deliver the Cocoanuts to Defendant 3 and the Cocoanuts were duly delivered to him although he did not produce the railway receipt which was of course in the hands of Plaintiff. The hundi was dishonoured and the plaintiff brought the present suit against Defendants 1 to 3 and the Railway Company to recover the costs of the goods. The suit was decree...
Tag this Judgment!Javvadi Venkayya Vs. Dwarampudi Basivireddi Minor by Mother and Next F ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.420; (1936)71MLJ238
ORDER1. Counsel agree that a slip has occurred and the decree should be modified by deleting the clause 'that eleventh defendant do pay plaintiff Rs. 173-2-11 for item 12'....
Tag this Judgment!Gutta Ramayya Vs. Manipalli Satyanarayanamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad495; 165Ind.Cas.63
ORDER6. The direction in the lower Court's decree, that defendant 1 do pay to the trust sums found due on the taking of the accounts ordered to be taken ' by the lower Court, will be applied also to the sums found due on the taking of the wider accounts now ordered by us....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »