Chennai Court April 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.
Rayi Rangayya Naidu Vs. Rayi Subbayya Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad706; (1936)71MLJ286
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Chittoor dated 27th January, 1932 reversing on appeal the decree of the Principal District Munsiff of Chittoor dated 24th February, 1931, passed in an execution petition presented under Order 21, Rule 32, Civil Procedure Code. The petition for execution which purported to be made under Order 21, Rule 32, did not allege that there had been any disobedience of the injunction or indeed any act which could be construed as disobedience or failure to obey the decree passed by the Court. There was further no allegation that the party against whom the petition was directed had an opportunity of obeying the decree. On the other hand, it was admitted in the lower Courts by the petitioner that the time for enforcing the injunction had not yet arrived. It is clear from these facts that the application did not lie under Order 21, Rule 32, as observed by the learned District Munsiff. The prayer in the petition was really n...
The Mahrajah of Pithapuram Vs. Thomas Cook and Sons Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.805; (1936)71MLJ425
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. In November, 1932, the appellant, the Maharajah of Pithapuram, bought four valuable dogs from one the Rev. Dr. Bruce in England and on the 30th November, instructed the respondents, Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons, Ltd., to take delivery of the dogs there and ship them to Bombay. Accordingly the respondents received the four dogs purchased by the appellant from the Rev. Dr. Bruce and shipped them on board the Steamer 'Naldera' belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for passage to Bombay. During the course of the voyage when the ship had reached the Red Sea it is evident from the certificate given by the Commander of the ship that one of the dogs purchased by the appellant slipped its collar whilst being exercised on the ship's deck and jumped into the sea and was lost. Only three dogs were, therefore, delivered by the ship at Bombay. In the course of a very prolix plaint it appears that the suit is founded upon breach of co...
Y. Mahabaleswarappa Vs. S. Ramachandra Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.433; (1936)71MLJ199
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioner, the successful condidate at a District Board Election, prays that a writ of certiorari may issue to bring up and quash the order of the election Commissioner declaring his election void and ordering a fresh election. The result of the poll was that the petitioner had been returned by a majority of 114, having polled 1206 votes to the 1092 votes for his opponents, the first respondent. An election petition was brought by the first respondent alleging certain irregularities in the conduct of the polling officer in one of the polling booths. What had happened here was that the Polling Officer by a mistake had marked on the back of each ballot paper the number of the voter in the Electoral register. This number, according to Rule 16, is only to be marked on the counter-foil when the ballot-paper or counter foil is handed to the voter. The result was that 322 ballot papers so marked and put into the ballot-box in this polling booth were invalidated and rej...
In Re: Sangama Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ138
Gentle, J.1. This is an appeal by two accused who were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad Division at Madura on 19th February, 1936 under Sections 364 and 302, Indian Penal Code, or Sections 302 and 109, Indian Penal Code.2. The offences are alleged to have been committed on or about 18th January, 1935. Since we are setting aside the conviction and ordering a retrial of these two accused, we are not dealing with any facts save those which are necessary for the purposes of our judgment. It is alleged by the prosecution that the two accused, together with the deceased, left the village of Nachiarpatti on the morning of 18th January, 1935, the deceased driving a bullock cart and the two accused riding as passengers. It was their intention to go to a village six miles away named Rajapalaiyam there to buy some plough shares - stopping on the way to Rajapalaiyam at the Sanjivi hills to cut some pegs for the bullock cart - and to return to Nachiarpatti. The father of the deceas...
Sangama Naicker and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad715; 165Ind.Cas.743
Gentle, J.1. This is an appeal by two accused who were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Ramnad Division at Madura on February 19, 1936, under Sections 364 and 302, Indian Penal Code, or Sections 302 and 109, Indian Penal Code, The offences are alleged to have been committed on or about January 18, 1935. Since we are setting aside the conviction and ordering a re-trial of these two accused, we are not dealing with any facts save those which are necessary for the purposes of our judgment. It is alleged by the prosecution that the two accused, together with the deceased, left the village of Nichiarpatti on the morning of January 18, 1935, the deceased driving a bullock cart and the two accused riding as passengers. It was their intention to go to a village, six miles away named Rajapalayam, there to buy some ploughshares, stopping on the way to Rajapalayam at the Sanjivi Hills to cut some pegs for the bullock cart, and to return to Nachiarpatti. The father of the deceased (P.W. ...
Karutha Syed Muhammad Rowthar Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad32
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Coimbatore dated 13th March 1935, reversing on appeal, the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, dated 28th April 1934, on an application made Under Sections 53 and 4, Provincial Insolvency Act, 5 of 1920. That application was made by the Official Receiver of Coimbatore in respect of the insolvency of E.M. Muhammad Ismail Saheb alias Mudali who was adjudicated an insolvent on 8th December 1927 on a petition for adjudication made by one of his creditors who was his own brother on 24th August 1927. The present application related to two transfers of immoveable property made by the insolvent on 17th July 1926: one was a sale deed for Rs. 22,000 and the other was a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 4,000, in favour of one Karutha Syed Muhammad Rowther, the appellant in the present appeal, and who is the son-in-law's sister's husband of the insolvent. It was alleged that these transfers were without...
Megraj Iswaradas Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad797; 166Ind.Cas.769; (1936)71MLJ328
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a point not covered by authority; before dealing with it, we shall first dispose of certain other matters which have been argued.2. The first question to be decided is this. Section 73, Civil Procedure Code, provides that those decree-holders alone are entitled to rateable distribution who have applied for execution to the Court by which the assets are held. Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar's contention is in effect, that this is a self-contained rule and is not to be read as controlled by or being subject to, the provision embodied in Section 63. To accept this contention would be to defeat and render nugatory the last-mentioned section. Section 63 must be treated as constituting an exception to Section 73 in this respect. Although the decree-holder claiming rateable distribution should ordinarily, as prescribed by Section 73, have applied for execution to the Court by which the assets are held, Section 63, recognizing an exception, lays down when ...
Ayyappa Naidu Vs. Marimuthu Moopanar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.57
Pandrang Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Burn, J. dated October 19, 1934, dismissing S.A. No. 696 of 1934 on the ground that it was barred by limitation in view of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act. The facts of the case are very simple. The decree appealed from was one passed on February 2, 1934, and the time for appeal expired during the vacation of the High Court and the day en which the High Court re-opened after the recess, viz. July 16, 1934, was the last day on which the appeal could be presented in time. The memorandum of appeal was no doubt actually handed into the office on this date, July 16, 1934, but only a court-fee of eight annas was paid with it, though it was very clear from the nature of the appeal and from what was stated in the memorandum itself that the proper court-fee payable was Rs. 15. The deficit court-fee was paid by the appellant of his own accord on September 10, 1934. The learned Judge has held that in these circumstances the appeal m...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad923; 166Ind.Cas.200; (1936)71MLJ268
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Secretary of State (first defendant in the suit) against a decree declaring the exclusive right of the plaintiffs to all the water in an irrigation channel known as the Varahanadi Channel near Periyakulam in the Madura District, and restraining the Government by injunction from interfering in any manner with that channel between the points marked A-1 to A-7 in the plaintiffs' plan, whether by way of cutting open or digging a new channel or by way of diverting the water.2. The Varahanadi channel takes off at the foot of the Palni hills from a river known as the Varahanadi river at the point marked A-l in the plaint plan. At this point, the main river turns northward and after some distance runs eastward, whereas the Varahandi channel runs almost directly eastward from the point A-1. At A-1 there is an east to west dam of boulders (called Thalavamadai dam) whose effect is to turn all the low water coming down the stream into the channel and it...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad794; (1936)71MLJ574
1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed in December 1921 by the owner of the Athimanjeri Estate and relates to the Sholinghur Tank. Wet lands in the village of Panchagantaninadhapuram which is within the Athimanjeri Estate are being irrigated by water from this tank and have been so irrigated for more than a century. Until 1920 no charge was made for this irrigation by Government but in that year, and again in 1921, Government levied water-cess. Plaintiff thereupon filed this suit, claiming an absolute right to one-third of the water from this tank and asking for a perpetual injunction restraining Government from levying water-cess, and for the refund of the cess already levied.2. The suit was tried by the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor. He found that plaintiff had failed to prove his claim to one-third of the water, but that on the facts it must be presumed that Government had entered into an engagement with plaintiff's predecessor-in-title to supply water from th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »