Chennai Court August 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.
Vuluchi Bashyakarlu and anr. Vs. Ponnuri Perumallu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.761
Venkatramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiffs and defendants are ryotwari holders. The question in this case is whether the right of the plaintiffs to the water in channel C marked in the plan Ex. C-1 has been interfered with by raising and altering the width of the bund D by the defendants. The District Munsif was of opinion that the plaintiffs' right was infringed and the act of the defendants was such as would cause damage to the plaintiffs in seasons of drought. He accordingly gave a decree to the plaintiffs for the relief claimed by them. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed that decree, and in so doing, he observes that the plaintiffs have no cause of action, whatever the interference of the defendants might be, relying on a case reported in Mahankali Lakshmiah v. Karnam Narayanappa (1918) M W N 276 : 45 Ind. Cas. 80 : 34 M L J 425 : 23 M L T 337. The learned Judge has not correctly understood the law which regulates the rights inter se of ryotwari holders in regard to the supply of wa...
Kavanna Vana Kowndappa Mudali Vs. Vanjammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad278; 159Ind.Cas.191; (1935)69MLJ707
Wadsworth, J.1. The Appellant was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note, dated 11th July, 1930 and pleaded two payments, one of Rs. 60, dated 6th August, 1931 and another of Rs. 280 alleged to have been made by his brother on 7th August, 1931. The first Court accepted the defendant's plea of discharge. In the course of the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses a suggestion was made on behalf of the plaintiff that the motive for a false plea of discharge and the falsification of accounts in support thereof was a previous quarrel between one Sundaram Pillai, the accountant of the defendant's father, and the husband of the plaintiff. The first Court discredited this suggestion remarking that there was no document any evidence in support of the allegations made. When the matter came up in appeal the plaintiff filed a petition in the lower Court praying for the admission in evidence of a long series of-documents mostly relating to the year 1927, that is to say, 3 years befor...
Stanes Motors, Ltd., by Managing Directors T. Stanes and Company Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad247; (1936)70MLJ155
Cronish, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act. The plaintiffs are the widow and the infant son of the deceased whose death was caused by the alleged negligence of the appellant's motor-driver, one Babjee. At the time of the accident the car was being driven by a fitter in the employment of the appellants, Babjee being in the car reclining in the back seat. He says he was asleep at the. time of the accident and had no knowledge that the fitter was driving the car, until he was aroused by the shock of the impact. This very improbable story has been disbelieved by the lower Court. There can be no doubt that Babjee entrusted the driving of the car to the fitter who was not authorised by his employers to drive their car and 'who, on his own admission, had no experience as a driver. Indeed the learned Counsel for the appellants does not dispute that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver. The substantial question argued is ...
Bollapragada Lakshmidevamma Vs. Godicherla Kesawarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1066
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question now remaining in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a one-third share in items 10 to 15 of the property specified in the schedule to the plaint. These items were purchased in 1886 in the name of the plaintiff's mother Manikyamma under Ex. B which recites that the consideration proceeded from the stridhanam assets of Manikyamma. Manikyamma's husband Krishnamurty executed a whole series of wills. In the first three of these wills he treated the properties purchased under Ex. B as the stridhanam property of his wife. In the six subsequent wills he treated them as his own property and disposed of them as such. The last will is that with which we are now concerned, viz. Ex. I executed in the year. 1912. That will gave the properties purchased under Ex. B to the five daughters to be divided equally. The plaintiff and the other married daughters contested the will when it was presented for registration by the widow Manikyamma but it was event...
Bellapragada Lakshmideviamma Vs. Godicherala Kesawarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.943
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question now remaining in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a one-third share in items Nos. 10 to 15 of the property specified in the schedule to the plaint These items were purchased in 1886 in the name of the plaintiff's mother Man kayamma under Ex. B which recites that the consideration proceeded from the stridhanam assets of Manikyamma, Manikyamma's husband Krishaamurthy executed a whole series of wills. In the first three of these wills he treated the properties purchased under Ex. B as the stridhanam property of his wife. In the six subsequent wills he treated them as his own property and disposed of them as such. The last will is that with which we are now concerned, viz., Ex. I, executed in the year 1912. That will gave the properties purchased under Ex. B to the five daughters to be divided equally. The plaintiff and the other married daughters contested the will when it was presented for registration by the widow Manikyammal but it w...
Alluri Krishnamaraju Vs. Sri Alluri Venkatapathiraju, Receiver of Chan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad10; 159Ind.Cas.594; (1935)69MLJ809
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the defendant in a suit for rent under the Madras Estates Land Act. After issues had been framed in the suit and after the defendant had contended that the rate of rent claimed was excessive, the plaintiff (the land-holder) filed an application under Section 42(2) of the Act praying for an alteration in the rate of rent due under the patta with reference to the excess area in the defendant's holding and asked that that alteration should have effect for the fasli years in respect of which rent was being claimed in the suit. The alteration prayed for was in fact an alteration of the rent in the patta to the rent claimed in the suit. The learned Sub-Collector instead of disposing of this application separately allowed it to go along with the suit and passed orders on it in one sentence embodied in the judgment in the suit, which judgment however is not superscribed as a judgment in the application though undoubtedly it was intended to terminate the applic...
G.V. Narayanaswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ673
Cornish, J.1. A few facts may be stated. The petitioners who were plaintiffs in the suit obtained an ex parte decree against defendant on 27th July, 1933. This, as the lower Court has found, was after due service of summons upon the defendant. The defendant made application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree on 15th June, 1934, that is to say, nearly one year afterwards. The application was therefore clearly out of time unless the defendant was able to satisfy the Court that he had only come by knowledge of the decree within thirty days before filing his application. But the lower Court has found that the defendant had knowledge of the decree on the date when it was passed, viz., 27th July, 1933. The application was, therefore, hopelessly time barred and should have been dismissed. But the lower Court for the reason that defendant said he had a good defence, set aside the decree on terms that defendant paid the taxed costs into Court by a spec...
Aka Venkata Sivayya Vs. Prattipad Panchayat Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad18; 159Ind.Cas.632
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioner sued the Prattipad Local Board to recover a sum which he alleged had been illegally distrained for non-payment of house-tax. The lower Court dismissed the suit. The question whether the distraint was legal or not depends on a construction of the material provisions of the Madras Local Boards Act and in particular of Rules 32 and 33, Schedule 4 of the Act. Act 14 of 1920 was repealed and re-enacted by the Madras Local Boards Act of 1030. The new Act by Section 100 prescribes that the house-tax should be levied every half-year and should, save as otherwise prescribed in Schedule 4, be paid by the owner within 30 days after the commencement of the half-year. This provision is not substantially different from Section 100 of the old Act. But the old Act contained no rules regarding the period in which the Local Board could recover the tax due; whereas Rules 32 and 33, Schedule 4, contain provisions for recovering the tax by a distress and fixes the limit wi...
G.V. Narayanaswami Ayyar and ors. Vs. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad49
ORDERCornish, J.1. A few facts may be stated. The petitioners who were plaintiffs in the suit obtained an ex parte decree against defendant on 27th July 1933. This, as the lower Court has found, was after due service of summons upon the defendant. The defendant made application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C., to set aside the decree on 15th June 1934, that is to say, nearly one year afterwards. The application was therefore clearly out of time unless the defendant was able to satisfy the Court that he had only come by knowledge of the decree within thirty days before filing his application. But the lower Court has found that the defendant had knowledge of the decree on the date when it was passed, viz., 27th July 1933. The application was, therefore, hopelessly time barred and should have been dismissed. But the lower Court, for the reason that defendant said he had a good defence, set aside the decree on terms that the defendant paid the taxed costs into Court by a specified date ...
G.V. Narayanasawmy Ayyar and ors. Vs. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.1028
Cornish, J.1. A few facts may be stated. The petitioners who were plaintiffs in the suit obtained an ex parte decree against defendant on July 27, 1933. This, as the lower Court has found, was after due service of summons upon the defendant. The defendant made application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the decree on June 15, 1934, that is to say, nearly one year afterwards. The application was, therefore, clearly out of time unless the defendant was able to satisfy the Court that he had only come by knowledge of the decree within thirty days before filing his application. But the lower Court has found that the defendant had knowledge of the decree on the date when it was passed, viz., July 27, 1933. The application was, therefore, hopelessly time-barred and should have been dismissed. But the lower Court for the reason that defendant said he had a good defence, set aside the decree on terms that defendant paid the taxed costs into Court by a specif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »