Chennai Court January 1937 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.
Vattathara S.J. and anr. Vs. Reverend Koshi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad494
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Trichinopoly, dated 23rd December 1936. That order appears to have been passed on a petition presented Under Section 145(4), Criminal P.C., on the same date. There wore previous petitions but the order that is now sought to be revised is the order passed on 23rd December 1936 on a petition of that date. That order really does not purport to be passed Under Section 145 or Section 144, Criminal P.C. It does not in fact purport to be an order passed in the exercise of any jurisdiction conferred on the Magistrate by any section of the Criminal Procedure Code or any other provision of law. An order of this kind would not probably have induced any one to carry it in revision but for certain observations made therein which are considered by the petitioners to be prejudicial to their interests. There was a dispute between what are known as loyal Christians, that is to say, those who accept the righ...
Marwadi Vannaji (Deceased) and ors. Vs. D.H. Ranga Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad446; (1937)1MLJ384
ORDER7. As the second appeal has been allowed the direction in the lower appellate Court's decree that the plaintiff should pay a portion of the Court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal to that Court should be omitted and a direction to the effect that the whole court-fee payable to Government on the memorandum of appeal to the lower appellat Court should be paid by the fourth defendant should be substituted.8. Leave to appeal is granted....
In Re: the South Indian Film Corporation, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ293
Gentle, J.1. In this matter the Royal Talkies, Trichinopoly, have been admitted by the liquidator as creditors of the company in the sum of Rs. 250. It is contended on behalf of these creditors that they are in a different category to the ordinary unsecured creditor. The indebtedness arose in this way.2. The company was in the habit of letting out films upon hire to renters and on the 10th September, 1935, the company wrote to these creditors setting out the terms upon which they were prepared to hire out a film and the letter concludes, 'If you agree to the above conditions, send us a deposit of Rs. 1,000 immediately.' Instead of Rs. 1,000, only a sum of Rs. 250 was sent and on the 19th September, 1935, the company by letter intimated to these creditors that it was unable to conclude an agreement for hiring the film. This Rs. 250, it appears from the correspondence and from the books of the company, was entered into a suspense account to the credit of the Royal Talkies. Applications f...
Ramalingachi Reddi and ors. Vs. Elayyaperuma Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad403
King, J.1. The two plaintiffs in this suit claimed certain rights and honours in connexion with the Selli Amman festivals in Thammampatti (Salem District). Plaintiff 1 claimed that ho had the right to lead a horse whenever this festival was held, and plaintiff 2 the right of holding the 'kalasam' and both claimed that as reward for these religious services they were entitled to receive the honours (ceremonial gifts of pansupari) before any other worshippers received them. These rights were declared by the first Court and an injunction granted against the defendants. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem upheld the 1st plaintiff's rights but refused to recognize those claimed by plaintiff 2. His decree in favour of plaintiff 1 was also to some extent modified. It omitted the injunction and added a condition that if plaintiff 1 should fail or refuse to lead the horse the defendants might make other arrangements for holding the festival. Against such of the decree as was unfavo...
Kodak Ltd. Vs. South Indian Film Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad833
ORDERGentle, J.1. In this matter the Royal Talkies, Trichinopoly, have been admitted by the liquidator as creditors of the Company in the sum of Rs. 250. It is contended on behalf of the creditor that they are a different category to the ordinary unsecured creditor. The indebtedness arose in this way. The Company was in the habit of letting out films upon hire to renters and on the 10th September 1935 the Company wrote to these creditors setting out the terms upon which they were prepared to hire out a film and the letter concludes: 'If you agree to the above condition, send us a deposit of Rs. 1,000 immediately.' Instead of Rs. 1,000, only a sum of Rs. 250 was sent and on the 19th September 1935, the Company by letter intimated to the creditors that it was unable to conclude the agreement for hiring the film. This Rs. 250, it appears from the correspondence and from the books of the Company, was entered into a suspense account to the credit of the Royal Talkies. Applications for payme...
Sri Perarulala Ramanuja Jeer Swamigal Vs. T.S. Pichu Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad481; (1937)1MLJ559
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this revision petition is one of some importance. It relates to the construction of Section 63 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Under Section 62 of the Act the petition was put in by some of the residents of Tirukkurangudi village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tinnevelly District, for the settlement of a scheme for the temple of Sri Alagianambirayar, Tirukkurangudi alleging mismanagement on the part of the trustee. The Hindu Religious Endowment Board after making the necessary enquiry came to the conclusion that no case has been made out for the framing of a scheme and rejected the petition. This suit has been filed for setting aside the said order and for framing a scheme. A preliminary issue was raised whether a suit lies under Section 63, Clause 4 of the Act. The learned District Judge has held that such a suit lies. It is against the said order that the above revision petition has been filed. It is contended by Mr. Sitarama Rao that o...
Kotikelapudi Venkatramayya Vs. Digavalli Seshamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad538
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant instituted the suit on the footing that he had become entitled to the suit properties by the rule of survivorship, on the death of his uncle, one Subbarayudu, in July 1919. Subbarayudu left a will, Ex. XVIII dated 12th July 1913 and defendants 1 to 6 claim as legatees under that will. Questions were raised in the lower Court as to the genuineness of this will and after elaborate trial, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the will was genuine; but as the plaintiff's claim by survivorship, if well founded, would by itself suffice to defeat the operation of the will even if it were true, his learned Counsel here did not attack the lower Court's finding on the question of the genuineness of the will and confined his arguments to the plaintiff's claim under the rule of survivorship.2. The question argued before us is substantially that raised by the 4th issue in the case. The latter part of that issue related to a contention that even if the suit prope...
S.P. Swami Naidu Vs. Natesa Aiyar Alias Subramania Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad576; (1937)1MLJ616
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore declining to dispauper the plaintiff under Order 33, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this petition arises, on a mortgage executed by defendants 1 to 4, in favour of his mother and deceased sister, the mother of the sixth defendant in the suit. The case on which the plaintiff came to Court was, though the mortgage was executed in favour of both the plaintiff's mother and sister, they were really benamidars for the father of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was the person solely entitled to the amount due under the mortgage, and therefore he prayed for a mortgage decree for the entire amount to be passed in his favour. The case of the sixth -defendant is that his mother is entitled to half the amount, that the allegations relating to benami are false and that he was entitled to half the mortgage amount in the right of his mother. A...
Maharajah of Venkatagiri Vs. Ardhamala Yagadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad953
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. These three Civil Revision Petitions can be taken together, the facts with the exception of a small difference in C.R.P. No. 1029 of 1935 being exactly similar. The only claim in the suits which arises to be considered here is the claim of the plaintiff, the Maharajah of Venkatagiri, to recover compensation for water taken by the respondents, his tenants, to raise a second crop on the manyam lands. The respondents resisted that claim on the ground that they had obtained a prescriptive right to the user of the water for the second crop without any liability to pay for it. The learned District Munsif accepted the respondent's evidence that at no time for considerably over 20 years did the petitioner claim or recover compensation for the water taken by the respondents for the second crop raised on these lands and he accordingly held that the respondents had acquired the easement for the user of the water and dismissed the petitioner's claim to payment for that water. ...
Sambasiva Reddi Vs. the Official Receiver of South Arcot
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad444; (1937)1MLJ654
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises from the following circumstances. The Official Receiver of South Arcot presented to the District Court at Cuddalore a petition under Sections 53, 54 and 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside two mortgages. The learned District Judge transferred that petition to the file of the Subordinate Court of Cuddalore which dealt with the petition and it was declared the two mortgages in question were fraudulent and void as against the Official Receiver under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Hence this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. When the matter was first argued before us we took the point that the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition at all and, as there seemed to be at that time some doubt regarding the local limits of the jurisdiction of that Court and we wished to know how the petition came to be transferred by the District Court to that Subordi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »