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.
P.S. Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. K.P. Sarvothama Rao, Official Liquidator of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad401; 168Ind.Cas.555
Varadachariar, J.1. In the course of the winding up of the South, Indian Film Corporation, Limited the Official Liquidator took out an application under Section 185 of the Indian Companies Act, for a direction to the Managing Agent Mr. P.S. Venkatarama Ayyar that he should pay up immediately a sum of Rs. 5,400 odd representing the amount overdrawn by him from the Company while he was in charge as Managing Agent The Managing Agent by his counter-affidavit claimed (1) that he was entitled to retain a sum of Rs. 2,800 towards arrears of salary due to himself, (2) that he was also entitled to, two sums of Rs. 976-0-9 and Rs. 1,083 which were according to him improperly 'debited against him on November 15, 1935, and (3) that he was entitled to retain moneys which might be required to enable him to meet the expenses of certain suits filed against him as Managing Agent. The learned Judge has disallowed these claims and given a direction for payment as asked for by the Liquidator. Hence this a...
V. Krishnaswami Rao Vs. R. Sriniavasa Desikan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ850
Varadachariar, J.1. In this petition, we are asked to revise an order holding that the petitioner cannot be permitted to prove an oral agreement which he, pleaded in defence to a mortgagee's suit for sale. The petitioner admitted the mortgage sued on, but pleaded that under an agreement brought about by persons interested in the plaintiff and accepted by the plaintiff, it had been agreed that the mortgage amount should be settled at Rs. 9,000 and in full discharge of the claim under the mortgage-deed a certain portion of the hypotheca should be sold to the plaintiff. The truth and validity of this agreement formed the subject-matter of the first issue in the case; and the second issue raised the question, whether even if the first issue should be found in the defendant's favour, the agreement precluded the plaintiff from maintaining this suit, when admittedly the agreement remained executory. It was further contended on behalf of the plaintiff that, in view of Section 92 of the Evidenc...
Madana Mohana Naiko Vs. Krupasindhu Naiko (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad81; 166Ind.Cas.615; (1937)1MLJ1
M. Venkatasubba Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The question of law-referred to the Full Bench for determination is interesting and not covered by authority. When the appeal came to be heard by the referring Judges, it was found that the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal was deficient and an order was thereupon made directing that the proper amount should be paid. So far the case presented no difficulty, but the question arose whether the learned Judges could require the appellant to pay the proper court-fee in the Court of First Instance. The doubt that has arisen, which has led to this reference, may be expressed as follows. Section 12 of the Court-Fees Act runs thus:(i) Every question relating to valuation for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable under this chapter on a plaint or memorandum of appeal shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to t...
Sreemadh Deivasigamani Ponnambala Desikar, Head of Tiruvannamalai Mutt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ662
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Pandarasannadhi of the Kunnakudi Mutt for the purpose of getting a decision by an appellate Survey Officer (dated 22nd September, 1924) set aside in some respects. There are two villages which may be referred to as M and A. M belongs to the Kunnakudi Mutt of which the plaintiff is the Pandarasannadhi and is a Dharmasanam village in the Sivaganga estate. A belongs to a Devastanam in the Sivaganga estate and the Zamindar is the trustee thereof. The second defendant is an alienee from the Zamindar.2. Survey operations were started in this locality in 1922 or 1923. It is not clear from the records whether the proceedings were started when Act IV of 1897 was in force or after Act VIII of 1923 came into force. It may be a question of some difficulty whether in dealing with the effects of the survey, the Court should apply the provisions of Act IV of 1897 or those of Act VIII of 1923. There is reason to think that there is some...
K.G. Ponnappa Nadar and anr. Vs. thenazhi Parakkalati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad411; (1937)2MLJ329
Varadachariar, J.1. The material facts have been set out in my learned brother's judgment and I need not re-state them. The paucity of reliable evidence in the case has compelled us to base our decision almost wholly on our view as to the burden of proof; and as the question was argued before us at some length, I have thought it right to make a few observations on that point.2. The lower Court has dealt with the case on the footing that:The burden of proving that the elephant died when in the possession of the defendant, notwithstanding the exercise of that care which in law he was bound to take, is upon him.3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned Advocate-General argued that an action between bailor and bailee was no exception to the general rule that the party seeking to recover compensation must make out that the party against whom he complains was in the wrong. On the other hand, Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Iyer (the learned counsel for the respondents), maintained that as a bailee, t...
Deivasigamani Ponnambala Desikar Vs. Raja Srimathu Muthu Vijayaregunat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad169
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Pandarasannadhi of the Kunnakudi Mutt for the purpose of getting a decision by an appellate Survey Officer (dated 22nd September 1924) set aside in some respects. There are two villages which may be referred to as M and A.M belongs to the Kunnakudi Mutt of which the plaintiff is the Pandarasannadhi and is a Dharmasanam village in the Sivaganga estate. A belongs to a Devasthanam in the Sivaganga estate and the Zamindar is the trustee thereof. Defendant 2 is an alienee from the Zamindar. Survey operations were started in this locality in 1922 or 1923. It is not clear from the records whether the proceedings were started when Act 4 of 1897 was in force or after Act 8 of 1923 came into force. It may be a question of some difficulty whether in dealing with the effects of the survey, the Court should apply the provisions of Act 4 of 1897 or those of Act 8 of 1923. There is reason to think that there is some marked difference b...
In Re: Pujari Hanumanthappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad181; 166Ind.Cas.623; (1937)1MLJ75
Mockett, J.1. The accused was charged before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Hospet, with an offence under Sections 55(o) and 58 of the Madras Abkari Act. He was convicted under Section 58. He appealed to the Joint Magistrate, Hospet, and on that appeal, the following took place. The Joint Magistrate found that it had not been proved that the arrack was illicit; that is shortly the effect of his finding. Certain evidence was given with regard to the arrack, but he said, and we think quite rightly, that that evidence did not establish that the arrack was illicit. Now proof that that arrack is illicit is the essence of the offence under Section 58 of the Act. The Joint Magistrate, having arrived at that finding, said:On the whole, I am not of opinion that on the evidence there are sufficient grounds for acquitting the appellant.2. We are unable to understand that statement, because if the offence had not been proved, by reason of the failure of proof of its most essential factor, it is ob...
Hathi Belagal Venkateswara Rao and anr. Vs. R. Mare Gowd and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad287
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge, Bellary, dated 18th September 1933, confirming on appeal the decree of the Principal District Munsif of Bellary, dated 24th September 1931 in O.S. No. 513 of 1930. The suit was one for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the plaint property. The plaintiff's case was that the sales of the plaint properties purported to have been held by the Revenue Officers for arrears of revenue in 1927 and 1928 were wholly void. The plaintiff is said to have been in jail at the time when the alleged sales took place and he was not personally aware of the circumstances attending the sales. It was expressly alleged in the plaint that even the procedure prescribed by the Board's standing order 45 was not followed and that there was no confirmation of the sale nor any certificate of sale issued as required by the Revenue Recovery Act under which the sales are said to have been conducted. The defendants were the subsequent pu...
V. Lakshminarayanan Chettiar Vs. A. Rangayya Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad237; 173Ind.Cas.60
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dated 12th July 1932 reversing on appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Dindigul dated 30th June 1931 in O.S. No. 166 of 1930, a suit for partition and recovery of possession of a fourth share in the plaint site. The entire extent of the site in question is only 22 ft x 32 ft and though the site is said to be situated in Dindigul town, the tenacity with which this litigation has been fought is out of all proportion to the intrinsic value of its subject matter. The plaintiff claimed his one-fourth share on the ground that the entire site originally belonged to one Muthukrishna Achari and that after his death Muthukrishna Achari's surviving four brothers became entitled to the site and that one of such brothers, viz. Subbayya Achari sold his share to him in September 1925 (Ex. A). The defendant contended that the site was purchased by Muthukrishna Achari with joint family funds of himself and ...
D. Kondal Rao Naidu and anr. Vs. Dhanakoti Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Mad81
Gentle, J.1. Prior to the year 1931 the defendant was the owner of a piece of land in Madras which was known as the Koyyatope garden. It was about 4 3/4 cawnies in extent that is to say, about 114 grounds. Plaintiff 2, who throughout in matters referable to this suit has acted on behalf of himself and on behalf of plaintiff 1, knew of this land, and I am Satisfied was well conversant with every detail of it. In the year 1931 some 14 3/4 grounds or thereabouts were sold by the defendant of which 6 grounds were purchased by plaintiff 2 alone by a sale deed of 29th October 1931. In the early part of 1932 the defendant was anxious to raise money upon the balance of the Koyyatope garden either by selling it or by raising money upon mortgage in respect of it and plaintiff 2 was offering to the defendant his assistance to try to further the defendant's objects in regard to this land. He was asked in cross-examination whether he was helping the defendant to sell the land, he stoutly denied it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »