Chennai Court December 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.
Karaia Nachi Bivi Vs. Allapichai Alias Nyna Muhammad Marackair (Since ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ572
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal raises a question as to the court-fee payable on the plaint. There is no doubt room for some suspicion that the plaint has been so drafted as to avoid inconvenient facts and make it appear that it is not necessary to pay a higher court-fee than the plaintiff paid in the first instance. But I do not think that even such a suspicion will justify the departure from the well-established principle that for purposes of the calculation of court-fee, the Court must take the allegations in the plaint to be prima facie correct.2. On the pleadings in the case, I think a distinction ought to have been drawn between the properties which have admittedly been alienated by the first defendant and properties which are in his possession in his own right. So far as the former set of properties is concerned, the plaintiff cannot claim to treat the alienee's possession as the possession of a co-tenant and for this purpose it can make no distinction even if physical po...
In Re: Maruthapali Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad356
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the Village Munsif of Kalianai and he was ordered by the Joint Magistrate, Dindigul, to furnish security for keeping the peace for one year by executing a bond for Rs. 2,000 with two sureties each for a like sum. That order was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Madura. So far as the evidence in the case goes the findings of the Magistrate have not been seriously attacked in the course of the hearing of this petition, but it has been contended that the preliminary order itself was without jurisdiction and that this is not really a case to which the provisions of Section 107, Criminal P.C., apply. The preliminary order which was passed on the 29th March 1935, gives details of the information received by the Magistrate and in substance runs as follows:Whereas from information laid before me it appears to me that you have been committing and will continue to commit breaches of peace and wrongful acts likely to lead to breach...
Gudia Dullabho Sahu Vs. Cinni Adinarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad831
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of court-fee. A few facts may be necessary for the disposal of the same. Defendant 1's grandfather was entitled as reversioner of one Cinni Errayya to certain properties and he filed a suit for recovery of the same as reversioner.2. All the properties which appertain to the estate of Cinni Errayya are described in Schedule A to the plaint in this action. While the litigation was pending, defendant 2 in this suit who was financing the plaintiff in the said litigation in consideration of the advances made by him obtained a transfer of two-third share in all the properties which defendant 1's family would obtain as a result of the said litigation. Defendant 1's grandfather succeeded in the suit and an appeal was preferred against the said decision to this High Court. While the appeal was pending, a certain arrangement took place on 26th January 1927 between the plaintiff and the father of defendant 1 who had succeeded t...
Nagayya Naidu and anr. Vs. R. Duraiswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Mad111
Burn, J.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the payment of the suit mortgage on 16th November 1926 by defendant 13 saved limitation as against defendant 12. The learned District Munsif held that it did not and the learned Subordinate Judge, disagreeing with him, held that it furnished the start of a fresh period of limitation and that therefore the suit was not barred. Defendants 13 and 12 are purchasers from the original mortgagors. Defendant 11 had purchased a portion of the hypotheca before and defendants 12 and 13 purchased one-half of the rest. Defendant 11 was exonerated during the trial and with regard to defendant 13, it was found by the learned District Munsif and the learned Subordinate Judge agreed that the payment made by him on 16th November 1926 was accepted by the mortgagee in full satisfaction of the mortgagee's claim against defendant 13. The learned Subordinate Judge says:Was the amount received by plaintiff from defendant 13 in full satisfacti...
Kandaswami Goundan and ors. Vs. Rangaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Mad370
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is a creditor who upon the refusal of the Official Receiver to take steps to set aside a sale Under Section 53, Provincial Insolvency Act, obtained leave of the Court Under Section 54. A to file a petition for that purpose. The petition was dismissed, the District Judge holding that the appellant bad not sue. Deeded in proving that the sale which he impeached was not a transfer in good faith and for valuable consideration. The appellant in pursuance of Section 75(3) obtained leave of the High Court to appeal against the decision of the District Judge, A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Venkatachariar, who appears for the alienees, the respondents to this appeal, that [the appeal will not lie. His contention is that the appellant is not competent to appeal as a person aggrieved unless he had limit applied to the Official Receiver to appeal and the Official Receiver had refused. The learned advocate seeks to draw analogy from Section 54. A in suppo...
In Re: Maruthapalli Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.97
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the village Munsif of Kallanai and he was ordered by the Joint Magistrate Dindigul, to furnish security for keeping the peace for one year by executing a bond for Rs. 2,000, with two sureties each for a like sum. That order was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Madura. So far as the evidence in the case goes the finding of the Magistrate have not been seriously attacked in the course of the hearing of this petition but it has been contended that the preliminary order itself was without jurisdiction and that this is not really a case to which the provisions of Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, apply. The preliminary order which was passed on the March 29, 1935, gives details of the information received by the Magistrate and in substance runs as follows:Whereas from information laid before me it appears to me that you have been committing and will continue to commit breaches of peace and wrongful acts likely to lead to brea...
Karia Nachi Bivi Vs. Allapichai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad402; 171Ind.Cas.572
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal raises a question as to the court-fee payable on the plaint. There is no doubt room for some suspicion that the plaint has been so drafted as to avoid inconvenient facts and make it appear that it is not necessary to pay a higher court-fee than the plaintiff paid in the first instance. But I do not think that even such a suspicion will justify the departure from the well established principle that for purposes of the calculation of court fee, the Court must take the allegations in the plaint to be prima facie correct.2. On the pleadings in the case, I think a distinction ought to have been drawn between the properties which have admittedly been alienated by the 1st defendant and properties which are in his possession in his own right. So far as the former set of properties id concerned, the plaintiff cannot claim to treat the alienee's possession as the possession of a co-tenant and for this purpose it can make no distinction even if physical poss...
In Re: Muthu Mooppan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.571
King, J.1. On September 10, 1935, the Revenue Inspector of Modakuruchi Firka, Coimbatore District, made a complaint to the Police under Section 353, Indian Penal Code against two accused, Mari Mooppan and Mootha Mooppan. A charge-street was filed by the Police before the Sub-Magistrate of Erode, who after hearing the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that a prima facie case was made out not under Section 353 but only under Section 186. He thereupon framed a charge under that section and took the evidence of the defence. When the case came to be argued, the plea was raised for the accused that the trial was illegal as Section 193(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Code, enacts that no Court shall take cognisance of an offence under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, except upon the complaint of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The Sub-Magistrate upheld this plea and acquitted the accused. The Revenue Inspector thereupon filed his complain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›