Chennai Court February 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.
M.K. Radhakrishna Iyer and anr. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad930
1. This Letters Patent appeal is from a judgment of Madhavan Nair, J. setting aside the lower appellate Court's decree and dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.2. The suit was by the plaintiffs as the representatives of certain ryots; and their case was that Government entered into an agreement with these ryots, and those of the adjoining villages through which the channel passes under which agreement Government is bound to clear the channel of silt and keep it in good condition, that the channel was formerly under the control of Government but later on was transferred to the Public Works Department, that the latter in neglect of its duty caused the channel to be silted up and that the villagers represented by the plaintiffs after giving notice to Government removed the silt from the channel in about August 1921 incurring expenses in so doing. They claimed that such removal was absolutely necessary for the purpose of irrigation and that they were entitled to claim from...
P. Rathanasabapathy Goundan Vs. Public Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.243
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal by 1st accused in 8. C. No. 41 of 1935, in the Sessions Court of Coimbatore. The appellant was convicted of an offence punishable under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, namely robbery, as a result of unanimous verdict of the jury. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years by the learned Sessions Judge.2. Five other accused were charged with the appellant under Section 120-B read with Section 384, Indian Penal Code, and the appellant was also charged with accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the 6th accused with extortion (s. 384, Indian Penal Code) and with the same accused with dacoity (s. 395, Indian Penal Code). The appellant was acquitted on the other charges by the learned Sessions Judge and all the other accused were acquitted on all the charges. Briefly put, the prosecution case was that the zemindar of Ramapatnam was engaged in an illicit amour with the appellant's wife, Satyabhama. She wrote to him passionate letters and he replied in terms th...
Appasamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Sundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ223
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of a half share in the suit properties under a deed of gift dated 16th September, 1926, executed in their favour for and on behalf of a trust by the sixth defendant. Defendants 4 and 5 claimed title to item 2 of the suit property under a deed of sale Ex. XV dated 7th May, 1920, executed by one Ayyasami in their favour. Defendants 2 and 3 are mortgagees from defendants 4 and 5 of the said property. The first defendant claims items 1 and 3 under a sale deed Ex. XIV dated 17th June, 1921, from the said Ayyasami. Ever since that date of the sales the alienees have been in possession of the property. The case for the plaintiffs is that Ayyasami and sixth defendant Muruga pillai were members of a joint family who became divided in status and each was entitled to a several half share in the property, that the deeds of sale executed by Ayyasami are not binding on the sixth defe...
Kondath Chathoth Kunhi Raman Nambiar Vs. Cheriyalanthot Aniyath Elambi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ352
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The cases cited by Mr. Nambiar, granting that they have been correctly decided, are easily distinguishable. His contention amounts to this, that a lessee can in suit for rent, claim abatement, however trifling or trivial the deterioration is that the leased property has undergone. Not one of the cases cited by him lends support to this doctrine. He strongly relies upon the observations of Sir Barnes Peacock, C.J., in two old Calcutta decisions Afsurooddeen v. Musst. Shorooshee Bula Debee (1863) Marshall's Reports, p. 558 and Sheikh Enayetoolah v. Sheikh Elahee Buksh (1864) S.W.R. Gap. Vol. (Act X Rulings) p. 42. In both of them the abatement was allowed on the ground that a portion of the property leased was washed away. The learned Chief Justice makes the following observations:We think that that rule is founded on the principles of natural justice and equity, that, if a landlord let his land at a certain rent to be paid during the period of occupation, and the ...
Alluri Venkataratnam Vs. Alluri Kanakasundara Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ473
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the principal District Munsiff of Guntur dated 10th November, 1933, in S.C.S. No. 1403 of 1933, a suit to recover Rs. 191 odd being the amount due on a promissory note dated 6th July, 1930, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff's transferor one Kameswara Row. The second defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had obtained the transfer of the promissory note by endorsement on 22nd June, 1933, for good consideration. It was contended by the defendants that the debt due under the suit promissory note had been discharged long ago by the transfer of another promissory note to Kameswara Row in full discharge of the suit debt. It was also contended that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course. The two questions that were decided by the District Munsiff were that the discharge pleaded was true and that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course...
Kandoth Chathoth Kunhi Raman Nambiar Vs. Cheriyalanthot Aniyath Elambi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad664; 165Ind.Cas.8
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The cases cited by Mr. Nambiar, granting that they have been correctly decided, are easily distinguishable. His contention amounts to this: that a lessee can in a suit for rent claim abatement, however trifling or trivial the deterioration is, that the leased property has undergone. Not one of the cases cited by him lends support to this doctrine. He strongly relies upon the observations of Sir Bernes Peacock, C.J. in two old Calcutta decisions Afsurooddeen v. Mt. Shorooshee Bula Dabee 1863 Marsh 558 and Sheikh Enayetoolah v. Sheikh Elahea Buksh 1864 WR Act 10. In both of them the abatement was allowed on the ground that a portion of the property leased was washed away. The learned' Chief Justice makes the following observation:We think that the rule is founded on the principles of natural justice and equity, that if a landlord let his land at a certain rent to be paid during the period of occupation, and the land is, by the act of God, put in such a state t...
C.T.V.E. Vairavan Chetty and ors. Vs. Chettichi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad876
Varadachariar, J.1. (After setting out facts as above and after discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded.) We agree with the finding of the lower Court that the hundi was cashed by the defendant who had agreed to undertake the obligation cast upon him as per the terms of the arrangement alleged in para. 6 of the plaint. The only other question argued before us was the plea of limitation. The lower Court has held that the suit is covered by Section 10, Lim. Act, and there is accordingly no bar of limitation. In the view that the payment to Vellayappa himself of any balance that might remain after payment of his creditors was part of the arrangement under which the hundi was issued to the defendant, there can be little difficulty in holding that Section 10, Lim. Act, covers the present suit. The section requires that the property should have become vested in the defendant in trust for a specific purpose. As the trust in the present case relates to money, the issue of the hundi in ...
Aluri Venkataratnam Vs. Alluri Kanakasundara Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad879; 165Ind.Cas.432
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the principal District Munsif of Guntur dated 10th November 1933, in S.C.S. No. 1403 of 1933, a suit to recover Rs. 191 odd being the amount due on a promissory note dated 6th July 1930, executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff's transferor one Kameswara Rao. Defendant 2 is the undivided son of defendant 1. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had obtained the transfer of the promissory note by endorsement on 22nd June 1933, for good consideration. It was contended by the defendant that the debt due under the suit promissory note had been discharged long ago by the transfer of another promissory note to Kameswara Rao in full discharge of the suit debt. It was also contended that the plaintiff is not a holder in due course. The two questions that were decided by the District Munsif were that the discharge pleaded was true and that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course. So far as the truth of t...
Appasamy Mudaliar and ors. Vs. K. Sundaram Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad696; 164Ind.Cas.1078
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of a half share in the suit properties under a deed of gift dated September 16, 1926, executed in their favour for and on behalf of a trust by the 6th defendant. Defendants Nos. 4 to 5 claimed title to item No. 2 of the suit property under a deed of sale Ex. XV, dated May 7, 1920, executed by one Ayyasami in their favour. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are mortgagees from defendants Nos. 4 and 5 of the said property. The 1st defendant claims items Nos. 1 and 3 under a sale deed Ex. XIV, dated June 17, 1921, from the said Ayyasami. Ever since, the date of the sales, the alienees have been in possession of the property. The case for the plaintiff is that Ayyasami and the 6th defendant Muruga Pillai were members of a joint family who became divided in status and each was entitled to a several half share in the property, that the deeds of sale executed by Ayyasami are not binding ...
Kovummal Ammad Vs. Urathkandiyil Arangadan Ammad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad666; 163Ind.Cas.825; (1936)71MLJ145
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits in ejectment instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of various items of properties comprised in the schedules to the plaints. The parties to the suit are governed by Muhammadan Law and their relationship appears from the following genealogical table.Kunhamad|_________________________________________________________________| | | | | | |Moideen Mamavu Avulla Biyathu- Umacha Periyaya Aminamarried married married mma chiAmina Pathuma Uppannu| || || ____________| | || Kunhamad Umacha| Kutti|____________________________________________________________| | | | | |Kunhi Pa- Ummayya Biyathumma Periyayachi Ammad (Plf.) Moothanthumma|___________________________________| |Pokker (Dead) Ammad (Dead)| |1st Deft. 12th Deft.2. All the suits were tried together and the evidence appears to have been taken in O.S. No. 261 of 1927 out of which S.A. No. 1862 of 1931 arises. It will appear from the above genealogy that defendants 1 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »