Chennai Court November 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.
Govinda Subbaramayya and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.372
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Meiiore, dated July 13, 1936, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1936 in which the two appellants were charged with murder but were convicted as follows: 1st appellant under Section 326, Indian Penal Code and the second appellant under Section 201, Indian Penal Code. The 1st appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and the 2nd appellant to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The charges relate to the killing of one Subbi described by the learned Judge as 'a buxom wench of 22 years', who though married and living with her husband, was said to have been kept by the 1st appellant Subbaram-ayya for some years prior to the occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge observes that-the 2nd appellant also was one of those to whom the deceased was distributing her favour but there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to support this view it is, however, established that the 2nd appellant and the 1st appella...
Polparkara Manakkal Viroopakshan Nambudripad Vs. Pulipra Tarwad Karnav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ83
Varadachariar, J.1. This case has been posted before this Bench in consequence of a contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the decision of the Full Bench in Vedapuratti v. Vellabha Valiya Raja : (1902)12MLJ128 , should not be followed after the decision of the Privy Council in Raghunath Singh v. Hansraj Kunwar (1934) 67 M.L.J. 813 : L.R. 61 IndAp 362 : I.L.R. 56 All. 561 . The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by a jenmi for redemption of properties in the possession of the kanomdar. Various objections were raised of which it is necessary to refer only to those raised by issues 1 and 3.2. The third issue was framed with reference to what happened in O.S. No. 670 of 1923 on the file of the Ponnani Munsiff's Court. That suit was instituted by the assignee of a melcharthdar, who is the seventeenth defendant in the present suit. A decree for possession was passed in that suit conditional on payment of a certain sum of money for compensation for the improvements effec...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ159
Varadachariar, J.1. These are second appeals by the Secretary of State for India against the decrees of the Courts below directing refund of water cess levied on the plaintiff's inam lands and restraining the defendant by injunction from levying water cess in future on those lands. All the three cases have heen dealt with together in the Lower Appellate Court and may similarly be dealt with here.2. Though no document of grant is available, and indeed none seems to have been produced even before the inam commission there can be very little doubt that the inam grant was of the entire village and not of any portion thereof; reserving any other portion to the grantor. As pointed out by the Lower Appellate Court, it is so stated in column 13 of the Inam Register and such other evidence as we have as to the user of the tank by the inamdar in respect of fishery rights and so on and of repairs executed by him to the tank only goes to confirm the inference suggested by the entries in the Inam R...
Tadikonda Ramakrishna Rao and anr. Vs. Kottagundu Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad398; (1937)1MLJ501
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The appellants are husband and wife but it will be convenient to refer to the husband who is the first plaintiff as the plaintiff. He has a brother named Hanumantha Rao and the arrangement made by the defendant with Hanumantha Rao for the purchase of the latter's undivided half share in the suit house has been the cause of differences and disputes between the parties.2. It is admitted by the defendant that, to begin with, he was a tenant of the whole of the suit house under the plaintiff who at that time is said to have acted on behalf of himself and of his brother Hanumantha Rao. Later on, however, it seems to be common ground that the defendant was a tenant only of the eastern portion of the house, which is referred to as portion A in the plan. It also appears from the evidence that for some years, up to 1925, the western portion was in the occupation of another tenant, but it is stated that the western portion was...
Trustee of Temple of Sree Venugopalaswamivaru Vs. Vedantam Seetharaman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad326
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. On a proper construction of the judgment of the High Court, we think that the archakas, i.e., the respondents must be deemed to have been allowed arrears of pay from the date of suit, namely 28th September 1923 to the date of that judgment, namely 13th August 1931, and paditharam expenses likewise for the same period. If this be so, the question arises: Can the amounts claimed for this period be recovered by way of execution of the decree? The principle governing this matter has. been clearly laid down in Vaithilinga Mudaliar v. Board of Control, Sri Thayagarajaswami Devasthanam, Thiruvarur AIR 1936 Mad 581, a recent decision of a Bench of this Court. As has been observed there:The true distinction is, not whether a provision in a, scheme decree is directory or declaratory, but whether the provision sought to be executed is or is not in what is really the scheme part of the decree... the proper way of dealing with the matter is first to separate the scheme part f...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Rao Bahadur Paul Appas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.775
Varadachariar, J.1. These are second appeals by the Secretary of State for India against decrees of the Courts below directing refund of water cess levied on the plaintiff's inam lands and restraining the defendant by injunction from levying; water cess in future on those lands. All the three cases have been dealt with together in the lower Appellate Court and may similarly be dealt with here. Though no document of grant is available, and indeed none seems to have been produced even before the Inam Commission, there can be very little doubt that the inam, grant was of the entire village and not of any portion thereof; reserving any other portion to the grantor. As pointed out by the lower Appellate Court, it is so stated in column 13 of the inam register; and such other evidence as we have as to the user of the tank by the inamdar in respect of fishery rights and so on and of repairs executed by him to the tank only goes to confirm the inference suggested by the entries in the inam reg...
Pulavarti Lakshmanaswami Vs. Mahammad Galah HussaIn Saheb Garu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad382; (1937)1MLJ580
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises an important question, namely, whether in an action for a malicious act against a police officer, he is entitled to raise the defence of limitation, relying upon'the protection given by Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act (XXIV of 1859). The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant, a Police Sub-Inspector, accusing him falsely of having obstructed a public pathway by heaping bricks, commenced with a malicious motive a prosecution against him (C.C. No. 318 of 1927) on 18th March, 1927, under Sections 188 and 283, Indian Penal Code, and that two days later (on the 20th March) he maliciously instituted another false complaint (C.C. No. 320 of 1927) under Section 291, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the same alleged heaping of bricks. The plaintiff further alleges that although the earlier complaint was enquired into and dismissed, the second charge, instead of being withdrawn, was pressed and continued, which also was ultimately f...
Kotta Venkataraju Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Sahib Meharban-i-dostan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ632
Varadachariar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against an order of Cornish, J., refusing to restore S.A. No. 848 of 1932 which was dismissed under Order 41, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, as the appellant's counsel did not appear when the case was called. In support of the application, a verified petition has been filed by the counsel engaged in the case and it is there stated that at the time the second appeal came on before our learned brother, the counsel was actually engaged in arguing a case before another division bench, that he did not make other arrangements for the second appeal because he expected the case before the division bench to be over earlier but that to meet all contingencies he had asked a representation to be made to our learned brother if the case should be reached earlier, that he was actually engaged before another bench and that he would be before Cornish, J., in a few minutes.2. When the matter came on before us on a previous occasion, a que...
Nallajerla Satyavati and ors. Vs. Vijjapu Pallaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad431
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam rejecting a document, Ex. G, in the case as inadmissible on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped in supersession of a prior order admitting it on 7th September 1934. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 26 of 1933 for recovery of certain sums of money due to them from defendants 1 to 3 in the case. It was their case that this matter was referred to arbitration and that the arbitrator was also inquiring into the claims relating to the partition between defendants 1 to 3. He delivered an award on 12th April 1930 in and by which he decreed certain sums as payable by defendants 1 to 3 and the claim was based on the award. In the written statement filed by defendant 1 it was not alleged that the document was insufficiently stamped, and that the suit cannot be based thereon. When P.W. 1 was being examined objection was taken to its admissibil...
Maramittath theruvil Moothachettiam Veetil Kelu Vs. Kuttiyil Machikand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad451
1. In 1853, the karnavan of the Mootha Chettiam Veetil tarwad executed a usufructuary mortgage-deed in favour of one Kuttiassan. In 1871 the assignee of the mortgagee executed a surrender deed, Ex. 3, in favour of one Chappan, who claimed to be the karnavan of the M tarwad. It appears however that two bodies of people claimed to constitute the M tarwad and two rival karnavans (the plaintiffs and defendant 1) claimed the equity of redemption of the mortgage on behalf of those two bodies. In the suit it has been established by evidence to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the present plaintiff has the rights of the mortgagor and that defendant 1, who actually purported to redeem the mortgage, had no right at all to do so. It has also been established that as long ago as 1878 the plaintiff was aware of the fact that defendant 1 was holding the land, not merely as one who had acquired rights from the original mortgagee, but as the full owner of the prop...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »