Chennai Court October 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.
Secretary of State Vs. Thayammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad267
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application by the Secretary of State for India in Council through the Collector of Madura for an order directing the appellants in Appeal No. 146 of 1934 to furnish security for payment of court-fees due by them to the Government in the lower Court and in this Court. Admittedly, this is an unusual application. The application purports to be made Under Order 33, Rule 13, Civil P.C., which certainly does not refer to the question of taking security from appellants. It merely provides that:All matters arising between the Government and any party to the suit Under Rule 10, Rule 11 or Rule 12 shall be deemed to be questions arising between the parties to the suit within the meaning of Section 47.2. No question has now arisen in this Court about court-fee, and I fail to see how the Government can come in at this stage in the present appeal with an application like this. This appeal was permitted to be filed in forma pauperis. That was the occasion when, no...
Ambalathilakath Kuttoossa and anr. Vs. Mundayatan Korothveetil Kunhamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad285
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application Under Order 41, Rule 10, Civil P.C., to require the appellants to furnish security for the balance of costs in the lower Court awarded to the petitioners, who are respondents 9 and 10 in the appeal, and also for costs of the appeal now pending in this Court, namely Appeal No 292 of 1931. The application was made in July 1936, that is to say, more than a year and a half after the appeal had been filed. The balance of costs in the Court below which the petitioners claim is about Rs. 109 and they estimate their costs in this Court at Rs. 400. It is contended by the appellants that this application is not bona fide but has been made merely because another application by one of the respondents for an order requiring the appellants to furnish security was allowed and as the security was not furnished, the appeal was dismissed as against that respondent, and that the present application is dictated by the desire to see the same result happen as r...
Kannathazha Pakran and ors. Vs. Puthalath Amina Umma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad339
Burn, J.1. There is little that I can find to add to the judgment of the learned District Munsif and the judgment of the District Judge in this case. The points taken on behalf of the appellant are the same as were taken by him in both the lower Courts. The third point depends upon the definition of 'Kanam' in Section 3(L), Malabar Tenancy Act. In that definition it is stated that the fifth incident of the transfer described as kanam is the liability of the transferee to pay the renewal fee to the transferor if the transferee is permitted to enjoy the said property for a further period after the termination of the original period. In the present case the renewal fee calculated according to the provisions of the Act comes to less than nothing, and the contention is therefore that the transferee is not liable to pay any renewal fee at all and consequently there is no kanam. This is not a contention which I can accept. It would make the document a kanam at one time and no kanam at another...
M. Shanmuga Mudaliar and anr. Vs. P.K.A.C.T. Veerappa Chettiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad594
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for some modification in the scheme framed by this Court in 1920 in respect of the management of Sri Arunachalaswaraswamy Devasthanam at Tiruvannamalai. The only question raised by the appellants relates to one of the points dealt with by the learned Judge in para. 12 of his judgment. The persons who are said to have raised that question before the learned Judge do not appear before us. We have examined the pleadings in the lower Court and they do not give any indication that the point dealt with in that paragraph was intended to be raised. It is however represented that towards the end of the argument before the learned District Judge suggestions of the kind referred to in para. 12 were made by certain persons. While as regards two of these suggestions the learned Judge contented himself with leaving the matter to the discretion of the Board, he went further as regards the third suggestion, namely that no member of the Reddi...
Ambalathilakath Kuttoosa and anr. Vs. Mundayatan Korath Vettil Kunhamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.924
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application made under Order XLI, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, to require the appellants to furnish security for the balance of costs in the lower Court awarded to the petitioners) who are respondents Nos. 9 and 10 in the appeal, and also for costs of the appeal now pending in this Court, namely Appeal No. 292 of 1934.2. This application was made in July 1936, that is to say, more than a year and a half after the appeal had been filed. The balance of costs in the Court below which the petitioners claim is about Rs. 109 and they estimate their costs in this Court at Rs. 400. It is contended by the appellants that this application is not bona fide but has been made merely because another application by one of the respondents for an order requiring the appellants to furnish security was allowed and as the security was not furnished, the appeal was dismissed as against that respondent, and that the present application is dictated by the desire to see th...
Udaya Pratapa Singh and ors. Vs. Gourachendra Dyano Sumanto and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad656
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from the decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Berhampore dated 21st December 1931 in A.S. Nos. 74, 77 and 122 of 1929. These decrees in effect dismissed two of the three suits instituted by the Zamindar of Sherugada and in the third suit the Subordinate Judge's decree allowed only a very small portion of the claim and dismissed the rest of it. The trial Court had passed decrees in all the three suits in favour of the plaintiff. It may be mentioned in this connexion that the original plaintiff died before the appeals were preferred to the Subordinate Judge and his legal representatives were brought on record in the lower appellate Court. The suits were in substance for recovery of rent reserved under certain leases or in the alternative for recovery of damages for use and occupation. The leases were of the kind described as mustajari leases and the amount of Tent due thereunder is referred to as the mustajari Gutta.2. According to the practice followe...
Elukuri Seshapani Chetty Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.917; (1937)1MLJ154
ORDERMockett, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 266, Indian Penal Code, for being in possession of a false weight knowing it to be false. The facts are slightly unusual. It appears that the police were investigating in Kurnool a case relating to the receipt of stolen goods. In the course of that investigation they went to the shop of the petitioner who is a shroff. They did not find any stolen goods but the cupboard was not wholly bare. In a tin which I think may be said to be in the possession of the petitioner was found a rupee which has been produced. While having the appearance of a single rupee it is in fact two sides of two rupees joined together and it weighs more than an ordinary rupee. In order to convict the petitioner the prosecution were bound to prove the possession of a false rupee known to be false and intended to be fraudulently used. They proved it as follows: Before the Magistrate the prosecution called as their principal witness the police officer ...
V. Lalithambal Ammal Vs. the Guardian of India Insurance Co., Ltd. and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad645; (1937)1MLJ735
Gentle, J.1. On the 11th May, 1935, one V. Sundaresayya effected a policy of insurance No. 1113 with the Guardian of India Insurance Co., upon his life and the schedule to that policy provides that the amount payable upon his death is Rs. 2,000. Under the heading 'For whose benefit and to whom payable' are the words 'the assured or his wife Mrs. V. Lalithatnbal if he predeceases her'. The assured died on the 7th March, 1936, during the currency of the policy. It is conceded that in fact only Rs. 1,000 is payable under this policy. During her life time, namely, two days after effecting the policy the assured by an endorsement on the back of the policy assigned to the Travancore National Bank all the benefits under the policy for valuable consideration. The widow, the petitioner in this petition, claims that upon the effecting of this policy a trust immediately came into existence in her favour and that by the assignment of the benefit of the policy to the Travancore Bank the deceased wa...
V. Lalithambal Ammal Vs. the Guardian of India Insurance Co., Ltd, and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.481
Gentle, J.1. On May 11, 1935, one V. Sundaresayya effected a policy of insurance No. 1113 with the Guardian of India Insurance Co., upon his life and the schedule to that policy provides that the amount payable upon his death is Rs. 2,000. Under the heading: 'For whose benefit and to whom payable' are the words 'the assured or his wife Mrs. V. Lalithambal if he predeceases her'. The assured died on March 7, 1936, during the currency of the policy. It is conceded that in fact only Rs. 1,000 is payable under this policy. During his life-time, namely, two days after effecting the policy the assured by an endorsement on the back of the policy assigned to the Travancore National Bank all the benefits under the policy for valuable consideration. The widow, the petitioner in this petition, claims that upon the effecting of this policy a trust immediately came into existence in her favour and that by the assignment of the benefit of the policy to the Travancore Bank the deceased was trying to ...
Mathuranayagam Pillai Vs. the Municipal Council Through Its Commission ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad152; (1937)1MLJ125
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The respondents here are the Municipality of Madura and in the exercise of their statutory powers they erected some posts upon which to carry some electrical wires. At the time when these posts were erected, it was plain to the first witness for the Municipality, the Municipal Electrical Supervisor, that there was a cocoanut tree belonging to the petitioner, the defendant in the suit, and standing on his property which was a very old one and ought to have been felled and removed. The tree, after the erection of the posts, fell and caused damage to a post. Repairs were effected to it by the Municipality and the petitioner was sued for the amount expended by them on those repairs. The learned District Munsiff gave the Municipality, a decree on the ground that the damage caused to the post was due to the negligence of the petitioner in not cutting down the old tree. According to the evidence and the finding the tree fell not on account of being blo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »