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.
Rajaratnam Pillai Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad341
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been prosecuted by the police on a charge sheet in which it is alleged that he had interfered with a certain station master in the exercise of his duty and in the course of that interference had slapped him on his cheek. The charge sheet specifically referred to his offence as falling simply within Section 121, Railways Act 9 of 1890, the maximum punishment for which is a fine of Rs. 100. The second class Magistrate of Tiruvadaimarudur on receiving this charge sheet took cognizance of the case as involving an offence under that section of the Railways Act, and as he was bound to do he proceeded with the trial of the case under the procedure laid down for the trial of summons cases. After he had taken the evidence of the prosecution in full, it occurred to him that evidence also established an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. for which offence the maximum punishment awardable is imprisonment for one year.2. The trial of an offence under S...
In Re: Rajaratnam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1936
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.846; (1936)70MLJ340
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been prosecuted by the Police on a charge sheet in which it is alleged that he had interfered with a certain Station Master in the exercise of his duty and in the course of that interference had slapped him on his cheek. The charge sheet specifically referred to his offence as falling simply within Section 121 of the Railways Act, IX of 1890, the maximum punishment for which is a fine of Rs. 100. The Second Class Magistrate of Thiruvadamarudur on receiving this charge sheet took cognisance of the case as involving an offence under that section of the Railways Act and as he was bound to do he proceeded with the trial of the case under the procedure laid down for the trial of the summons cases. After he had taken the evidence of the prosecution in full, it occurred to him that that evidence also established an offence under Section 323, Indian Penal Code, for which offence the maximum punishment awardable is imprisonment for one year. The t...
Addala Chinna Venkatraju and ors. Vs. Sri Kanchumarti Venkataseetha Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad504; 163Ind.Cas.607; (1936)71MLJ218
Pandrang Roa, J.1. These are appeals trom the decrees oi the District Judge of West Godavari dated 23rd January, 1931, affirming on appeal the decrees of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Nidadavole dated 29th June, 1929, in certain suits instituted under Section 30, Clause (1) of the Madras Estates Land Act for enhancement of rent on the ground of a rise in the prices of food grains. The enhancement claimed was two annas in the Rupee of the rent till then payable, and not two annas per putti as stated in the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the enhancement claimed being the maximum allowed by the Act. This enhancement has been allowed by both the Courts below. On the merits of this enhancement nothing need be said as the question is one of fact and there are concurrent findings thereon.2. The only point argued in these appeals is whether the suits for enhancement of rent are maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Madras Estates Land Act which runs as foll...
Ramaswami Chetti Vs. Anaiya Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad545; 165Ind.Cas.737
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond dated 15th September 1900. It was executed by one Karuppa Padayachi, the late undivided father of defendants 1 to 3 in favour of one Devantha Chetty for Rs. 1,000. The plaintiff obtained an assignment for the mortgage on 21st August 1908. The mortgaged properties were sold in Court auction between 9th October 1918 and 31st December 1918, in execution of simple money decrees against the mortgagor and was purchased by one Krishnadesikachariar from whom the plaintiff purchased in 1924. Prior to his purchase defendant 4 was also a puisne mortgagee under two mortgages dated 1904 and 1911. As puisne mortgagee, in O. P. No. 37 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Cuddalore, defendant 4 deposited a sum of Rs. 2,707 into Court under Section 83, T.P. Act, in redemption of and full discharge of the suit mortgage.2. The plaintiff contended that more was due to him but a consent memo seems to...
(Samanthan Karakkattitathil) Chandukutti Nambiyar Vs. (Kaniyarakkal Th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad616; 163Ind.Cas.803
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 4,177-7-4, as being due under a promissory note dated 28th November 1925, executed by one Rayarappa Nambiar and then karnavan of the defendant tarwad. This suit was instituted after the death of Rayarappa Nambiar against the succeeding karnavan who also died during the pendency of this suit, and his legal representative is the appellant in this second appeal. The defendant denied execution of the promissory note and also contended that there was no necessity to borrow the amount under the note, that the suit was barred by limitation;' and in any event a decree could not be passed against the tarwad. Both the lower Courts have found that the promissory note was genuine and there was necessity for the tarwad to borrow and the-endorsement on the promissory note saved the plaintiff's claim from being barred by limitation.2. Four points have been raised before me by Mr. Govinda Menon on behalf of the appellant. The first poi...
Chinnathayee Alias Kondammal Vs. Lakshmi Achi (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ511
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decrees in O.S. Nos. 16 of 1922 and 11 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Dindigul obtained by defendants 1 to 3 and the subsequent execution proceedings are not binding on her and on the suit property. The facts are briefly these: The suit property along with other properties had been mortgaged on 5th March, 1914, by the son of the original owner and on that mortgage the present defendants 1 and 2 instituted a suit against the mortgagor, first defendant in that suit. The present plaintiff's husband was defendant No. 9 in the suit. He was impleaded as a party as he was a subsequent purchaser of a portion of the hypotheca included in that suit. Item 10 in the schedule to the plaint is the present plaint item. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit and subsequent to that decree the plaintiff's husband died and the present p...
V.K.R.N.S.M. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. V.K.R.N.P.S.S.M. Somasundaram Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad642; (1937)1MLJ60
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal raises some questions of law and custom relating to adoption in the Nattukottai Chetti community. They arise in the following circumstances:2. There were two brothers Pichappa and Somasundara. The defendant is Somasundara's adopted son; Pichappa left a son named Pichaikutti. The two branches had become divided, but, continued to hold some immoveable properties in common, according to the plaintiff's case.3. Pichaikutti died in 1911 leaving a widow Valliammai who, in 1916, adopted one Arunachala. Arunachala enjoyed Pichaikutti's properties whatever they were, married one Egamai and died in June, 1930, leaving Egamai him surviving. On 7th June, 1931, Valliammai adopted the plaintiff who was admittedly an orphan,) aged about 27 years at the time. As usual amongst Chettis, a Muri (Ex. A) was executed at the time of the adoption and it is attested by the defendant, a circumstance which according to Chetti usage not merely signifies proof of the execution of t...
Mannava Rama Rao Vs. Mannava Venkata Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad274; 173Ind.Cas.347
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for partition. The plaintiff is the son of defendant 1 by his first wife. Defendants 2 and 60 are his sons by the second wife. The plaintiff was born on 4th August 1908. He instituted the suit through his next friend on 3rd October 1922. He attained his majority on 4th August 1926, and elected to continue the suit on 20th August 1926. Defendant 60 was born to defendant 1 on 4th August 1925 and was added as a party to the suit.2. One of the questions in this case is, what is the share which the plaintiff is entitled to? If the rights of the plaintiff are to be determined as on the date of the plaint he would be entitled to one-third, but if it is to be determined as on the date when he elected to continue the suit or as on the date of the preliminary decree for partition in this case, he would be entitled to one-fourth. The lower Courts took the view that the plaintiff must be deemed to have been a member of an undivided family till he attained maj...
Secy. of State Vs. Duvvuri Somayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad550; 163Ind.Cas.87
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Sub-Judge, Amalapuram, dated 24th February 1931 allowing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Amalapuram dated 16th April 1928 in O.S. No. 91 of 1925, a suit against the Secretary of State for India in Council for refund of Rs. 20-9-0 alleged to have been illegally levied as irrigation cess in respect of the land described in the plaint schedule for Fasli 1333. It is common ground that the land was irrigated by water from a madugu or lake which adjoins the land; the plaintiff's case was that the madugu and the water therein belong to the Zamindars of Mukkamala, and that the plaint land is mamool wet land. The defendant however denied these allegations and claimed that the madugu is communal property over which the Public Works Department has been exercising control and rights of ownership for a long time. Both the Courts below proceeding on the basis that the plaint land belongs to the plaintiff, foun...
S. Varada Chettiar Vs. P. Duraiswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad673
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This was a suit by the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes claiming an amount of money from the respondent in the following circumstances: It is alleged in the plaint that on 1st June 1931 it was agreed orally at Madras between the plaintiff and the defendant that each of them should contribute the sum of Rs. 700 and purchase a motor bus under the hire purchase system and also run it between Madras and Periapalayam or such other places as might be agreed to from time to time, the necessary permits, licenses, etc., being obtained in the name of the defendant. It was further agreed that the monthly net profits realised by such plying were to be shared by the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares. In pursuance of this agreement the plaintiff paid Rs. 305 towards the purchase of the motor bus in question. The plaintiff's case was that half of this sum, namely Rs. 152-8-0, represented his contribution towards the capital of the partnership, and the other Rs. 1...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »