Chennai Court January 1936 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.
A.B. Gurumurthi Chetty Vs. Sella Perumal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad651; 165Ind.Cas.747
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an order passed by the District Munsif of Trichinopoly, directing the arrest and imprisonment of the petitioner for a period of two months. The circumstances which led to that order are as follows : The petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No. 728 of 1933 which had been instituted against him for the recovery of a sum of money. Soon after the filing of the suit, the plaintiff applied for attachment before judgment of a certain sum of money lying with the Public Works Department to the credit of the defendant. In that connexion the defendant filed an affidavit on 29th November 1933 undertaking to draw the bill amount and to deposit the same in Court pending disposal of this petition without utilising it for his other purposes. The plaintiff was not prepared to accept this under-taking because he was not sure what the defendant would do once he drew the money. That this apprehension was well-founded is shown by the events that...
Chinnu Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad628; 165Ind.Cas.192
Menon, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of one Nachammal and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. The husband of the deceased died about five years ago leaving some property. The deceased leased it to P.W. 5. The appellant, who was intimate with the deceased even during the life-time of her husband, prevailed upon the deceased to ask P.W. 5 to surrender possession of the property. The latter, it is said, at the instigation of P.W. 4, a brother of the deceased, who was not on good terms with the decreed because the daughter of the deceased was not given in marriage to him, refused to surrender possession. It is alleged that, in order to get possession of the property, free from the obstruction of P.Ws. 4 and 5, the appellant took the deceased in the evening of 25th August 1935 towards Pannaikinar and killed her on the way at about 8 p. m. at a place about six furlongs from their house and at once made report to the Village Munsif, foisting the murde...
V. Sundararaja Ayyangar and anr. Vs. Raghava Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad654
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of three fourths of the profits received by defendant 1 in respect of property which was declared by the Court to belong in common to defendant 1 and to the plaintiffs as well as the deceased husband of defendant 2. Defendant 1's father had purchased the entire property from the father of the plaintiffs, and the sons objected to the alienation and it was finally held that the alienation was not binding against them and the result was that defendant 1 became entitled to a one- fourth share in the property purchased by him, the remaining being declared to belong to the sons. The present suit was for profits from the date of the preliminary decree in the previous suit, i.e., 30th March 1920, for a period of seven years. The District Munsif allowed the claim but only at the rate of Rs. 180 a year, the claim being made at Rs. 300 per annum. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the suit was governed by Article 1...
Manakkat Tekkepeedikayil Kooleri Naduvile Purayil Abdulla and Eleven o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ383
Cornish, J.1. This Revision Petition raises the question whether court-fee on a plaint is governed by Article 17-A of Schedule II or by Section 7 (IV-A) of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs paid court-fee in accordance with Article 17-A. The lower Court has held that the fee must be paid in accordance with Section 7 (IV-A) which means an additional sum of Rs. 300 odd. Now the principle to be followed in determining the question of proper court-fee is that the substance of the relief claimed and not the form and language of the plaint, must be looked at : The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Lakhanna (1932) 64 M.L.J. 24. In the case before me the relief asked for is that a razinama decree passed against members of a tarwad, of which the present plaintiffs and defendants were members - the plaintiffs then being minors represented by defendants--may be declared null and void. The word 'declaration' in Article 17-A has a different meaning from 'cancellation' in Section 7(IV-A) a...
Nanakkat Tekkapeedikayil Kooleri Naduvile Purayil Adulla and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1936
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.203
Cronish, J.1. This revision petition raises the question whether court-fee on a plaint is governed by Article 17-A. of Scheduled II or by Section 7-IV-A of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiffs paid court-fee in accordance with Article 17-A; the lower Court has held that the fee must be paid in accordance with Section 7-IV-A which means an additional sum of Rs. 300 odd. Now the principle to be followed in determining the question of proper court-fee is that the substance of the relief claimed and not the form and language of the plaint must be looked at: Secretary of State v. Lakhanna 61 M.L.J. 24 : 141 Ind. Cas. 80 : Ind. Rul. (1933) Mad. 67 : (1933) M.W.N. 144 : A.I.R. 1933 Mad. 430 : 37 L.W. 806. In the case before me the relief asked for is that a razinamah decree passed against members of a tarwad, of which the present plaintiffs and defendants were members--the plaintiffs then being minors represented by defendants--may be declared null and void. The word declaration in Article 17-A...
Devineni Venkayamma Vs. Ghanta Surayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.88; (1936)71MLJ396
Cornish, J.1. This petition is brought by the mother of a minor girl against the order of the District Judge of Guntur purporting to be made under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act. The respondent is the husband of the minor girl. It appears that in 1932 an order was made by the Court under this section for the return of this girl to her husband. But no steps were taken to enforce this order until June 1935 when the order--the subject of this revision petition--was made. The order itself is extremely brief and not very easy to understand. It is these terms:No adjustment was possible. It is said for Respondent that some more attempts were likely to be made. Warrant of arrest will issue against the minor girl, with returnable date 19th July. But issue of warrant will be stayed till 10th July, to see if any amicable adjustment is possible.2. This order is founded upon the affidavit filed by the husband for the arrest and delivery of the minor to him. The affidavit sets out the hist...
K. Jagannatha Kone Vs. Ramachandra Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad589; 165Ind.Cas.453
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises has been filed to impeach the validity of a Court sale in execution of a decree for mesne profits in O.S. No. 75 of 1911 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court of Madura. O.S. No. 75 of 1911 was filed by six plaintiffs, defendant 5 in this case being plaintiff 6 in that case, for recovery of possession of certain lands from defendants 1 and 2 therein. During the pendency of the suit an application for the appointment of a receiver was made being I. A. No. 235 of 1911 to manage the suit properties or to direct the said defendants to furnish security in the sum of Rs. 700, the probable amount of mesne profits and costs. By an order dated 20th March 1911 it was directed that defendant 1 in the said suit should give security for Rs. 700 within three weeks from the date of the order or in default a receiver should be appointed. In pursuance of the said order the said defendant 1 executed a security bond d...
Muthusami Pillai Vs. Arasayee Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad901
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of two items of immoveable property under the maintenance deed dated 13th February 1920 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in her favour. She was the widow of one Muruga Pillai who died undivided from defendants 1 and 2. The deed purports to be in satisfaction of her right to maintenance and residence which she had against them. In and by the said deed defendants 1 and 2 purport to give her the suit properties which consist of 50 cents of nanja lands, 7 1/2 cents of dry land, a house and some jewels. She was directed to enjoy the said, property for her life. The deed recites that the said properties were subject to a mortgage along with other properties for a sum of Rs. 4,500 in favour of one Narasimha Iyer under Ex. 2, a usufructuary mortgage deed dated 14th August 1919, and that until they redeem the said mortgage and give her possession of the same, they...
S. Hari Rao Vs. the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1936
Reported in: 94Ind.Cas.642; (1926)50MLJ358
Murray Court Trotter, C.J.1. The Chief Justice: The question raised here is whether the insolvent has a right of appeal against an order confirming a sale of part of the estate which was originally his and subsequently vested in the Official Assignee, ah order which he sought to oppose. The matter was referred to a Full Bench in view of what were represented to be the directly conflicting decision of this Court in Sivasubramania Pillai v. Theethiappa Pillai (1778) 2 Cowper 833 and of the Allahabad High Court in Sakhawat Alt v. Radha Mohan (1857) 119 ER 1256 . We observe that the English decisions on the subject were not cited so far as appears from the report to the Madras Court. We have examined those decisions and come to the conclusion that they ought to be followed.2. The only ground' on which the Insolvent's right to appeal can be based is that he is a person aggrieved because, his estate having vested in the Official Assignee, he is nevertheless entitled to say that, if all the c...
(Sree Rajah) Sobhanadri Apparao Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Mullupudi Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad831
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by him to recover possession of the suit land from the defendants on the ground that it was granted to the defendants' predecessor-in-title one Kotadu as service inam for the purpose of supplying country shoes to the Zamindar every year, that the service was not properly rendered by the defendants and that the plaintiff is no longer in need of it.2. The grant was made in September 1871. The case of the defendants is that it was made in consideration of past services rendered by their ancestor Kotadu and also for rendering future service, that the grant is thus burdened with service and that the plaintiff is not therefore entitled to resume the land. Kotadu, the grantee, died in the year 1922. On 7th May 1926 the plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice to Kotadu's wife Achi and defendants 1 and 2, his grandsons, telling them that they were not doing the service properly, that he has deci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »