Chennai Court November 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.
In Re: Mana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad448
ORDERHorwill, J.There is abundant evidence on 4he record that the petitioner and his rival used to arm themselves and their supporters and attempt to settle their disputes 'by force with the result that breaches of the peace often resulted and were still more frequently threatened. Of the 19 express charges, the Appellate Court found that the petitioner was guilty only of eight; but he accepted also the general evidence that the petitioner, i.e. Mana, led local factions responsible for constant threat and bullying. It is argued that Section 110 (e) and (f), Criminal P.C. do not apply to factious leaders of this type; but I cannot see that a man is any the less dangerous to the community because he lives in a house and owns lands. The petition is dismissed....
Ladooram Sowcar and anr. Vs. Nidamarti Jala Durgaprasadarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad463
Pandrang Row, J.1. These appeals arise out of two second appeals, namely Nos. 894 and 895 of 1931, which in their turn arise out of two connected suits of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Vizagapatam. One of them was instituted by the partners of Baughmul Sowcar against Mr. Jala Durgaprasadarayudu, a lawyer of Rajahmundry, and the other suit was by the lawyer as the plaintiff and the Sowcars as the defendants. The suits arose out of a dispute regarding the boundary between the properties belonging to the two parties on the Beach Road at Vizagapatam. The dispute was originally taken to the notice of the Survey Officer and after a decision by the survey authorities these suits were filed, both parties being dissatisfied therewith.2. Speaking broadly, the dispute relates to three items: (l) The road which lies between the two properties which was claimed by Mr. Jala Durgaprasadarayudu as a common or joint road, but which according to the Sowcars was their own exclusive p...
Srimathu Raja Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha Doraisingam Alias Gouri Vallabha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1937
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ1016
Pandrang Row, J.1. The facts of this case have been stated by Varadachariar, J., in his judgment and it is needless to repeat them. The only point that has been decided is that the notice given in May 1928 by one Singa Dorai satisfies the conditions embodied in Section 49 of the Court of Wards Act. The law on the subject has been fully discussed by Varadachariar, J., and there is no need to add to his discussion of the case-law. The section of the Court of Wards Act which has to be construed is Section 49, which runs as follows:1. No suit relating to the person or property of any ward shall be instituted in any Civil Court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to or left at the, office of the District Collector specified in the notification under Section 19 or the Collector appointed under Section 46, as the case may be.2. Such notice shall state the name and place of the abode of the intending plaintiff, the cause of action and the relief which ...
Ryots of Garabanda, Vs. Zamindar of Parlakimedi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad722; (1938)1MLJ68
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1925 the Zamindar of Parlakimedi applied to the Government under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act for a settlement of rents in respect of all the ryoti villages in his estate, and Government acceded to his request. A special Revenue Officer was thereupon appointed to conduct the inquiry and after a lengthy investigation he announced his findings. The ryots contended that the rates fixed in the year 1868 were permanent and were not liable to be altered. They further contended that in the event of this question being decided against them Section 30 of the Act limited any enhancement of rents to 12 per cent. The special Revenue Officer decided both these questions against the ryots and directed that the rents should be enhanced cent, per cent. An appeal followed to a single member of the Board of Revenue under Section 171 of the Act. By an order dated 30th March, 1936, the member of the Board who heard the appeal upheld the contention of ...
Krishnaswami Aiyar Vs. Sabarathnam Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad394; (1938)1MLJ101
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is an appeal dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for redemption and possession of 41 cents of land bearing Survey No. 382-B as being barred under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The defendants who are apparently quite rich, have not chosen to appear. The facts of the case are quite simple.2. The property in suit originally belonged to one Kuppa Goundan, who mortgaged it on 19th September, 1890, with one Lakshminarayana. The mortgage was usufructuary and it was provided in the deed (Ex. K) that the mortgagor would pay the principal amount and redeem the property on 11th April, 1901. Kuppa Goundan sold the property to the plaintiff's uncle in 1896 under Ex. A and directed the vendee to pay the mortgage money due under Ex. K to the mortgagee. The property subsequently fell to the plaintiff under Ex. B.3. Prior to the date on which the mortgage could be redeemed, Lakshminarayana died - apparently leaving large debts due to the father of defendants 1 to 4 and his wido...
Mahalakshmi Amma Vs. Krishna Holla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad320; (1938)1MLJ236
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only point that has been urged in this appeal is that the defendant was debarred from raising the plea under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The document Ex. A which is the basis of the suit, only states that as the defendant's wife was sickly and that the plaintiff had been serving him and looking after his children and had no other means of livelihood, the defendant would continue to give certain quantity of paddy to the plaintiff during her lifetime. It was also mentioned in the document that the defendant was a relation of the plaintiff's.2. It was contended before me that the defendant should not have been permitted to adduce any evidence against the contents of this document. I might say at the outset that there is a great deal of difference between the terms of a contract and the recitals of facts which are mentioned in a document. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act debars a person, who is a party to a contract from adducing any evidence which ma...
Guzulu Devendra Ayyar Vs. P.C. Muthu Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad329
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. A suit for possession and injunction was filed by one Guzulu Devendra Iyer against Muthu Chettiar as defendant 1 and Venkateswara Iyer as defendant 2 in July 1931 in the Court of the District Munsif at Melur in which the tenant was also imp leaded as defendant 3. Certain mesne profits were also claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. While filing his written statement, defendant 1 raised a number of contentions in which ha attacked the locus standi of the plaintiff to maintain the suit on the ground that he was not an occupancy tenant and asserted that the othi (Ex. A-l) was invalid. It was admitted by him that he was the landholder but alleged that defendant 2 was in possession of the lands in suit and that the land was rightfully sold to him in a revenue auction for arrears of rent. It was also pleaded on his behalf that he was an unnecessary party to the suit. A number of issues were then framed by the lower Court, but the objection raised by defendant 1 that h...
Anantha Pattar Vs. Padmanabha Panikkar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad468; (1938)1MLJ79
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a security bond (Ex. A) dated 15th December, 1926, executed by the first defendant as the karnavan of a tarwad, charging the tarwad properties with the payment of monies due for sixteen future instalments in respect of a kuri chit in which the first defendant had taken one share and successfully bid at an auction. The kuri was started on 17th February, 1924 and was to run for 23 chits of Rs. 300, payable half yearly. The tarwad was undoubtedly possessed of substantial properties which, it is agreed, yielded an annual income of about 10,000 paras of paddy. The greater portion of the lands was held by various people on kanom and it also appears that substantial amounts used to be received from time to time by way of renewal fees in respect of those kanoms. The above circumstances relating to the financial position of the tarwad have been relied on by the parties in this case as supporting different points of view in respect ...
Ruddarraju Venkayamma Vs. Kalidindi Sitaramaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.951; (1938)1MLJ157
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court below. She sued to set aside an alienation made by her step-mother in the year 1888. The appellant's mother predeceased her father but his second wife, Subhadrayya, lived until 1926. The appellant had two sisters, Bangarayya and Rajayamma both of whom have been dead for several years. The appellant sought to set aside the transaction on the ground that there was no necessity for the sale of the property; but the learned Subordinate Judge found against her.2. After forty years have elapsed evidence of the circumstances which existed at the time of the alienation would in most cases be very scanty, and in this case there is no evidence at all. It is known, however, that there had been litigation in which Subhadrayya was engaged, and it is also known from the conveyance that the property was sold in order to discharge debts. It is contended that the recitals in the deed are not sufficient. Recitals, however, ca...
Secretary of State Vs. Sree Rajah Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Surya Rao B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad470
King, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit brought in 1925 by the Maharajah of Pithapuram with the Secretary of State as the principal defendant, for a declaration of his title to a lanka measuring about 140 acres, in the river Vainatiam, a branch of the Godavari. This lanka adjoins the right or western bank of the river, and extends from the Gannavaram aqueduct in the north to the Government village of Mondepulanka in the south. To the west of the river throughout this length lies the zamindary village of Lankala Gannavaram belonging to the plaintiff along with the bank being lands bearing Section Nos. 5 (Uta Badawa Lanka), 2 (Gaddavani Lanka Thoorpulanka Polemere dori Tuni) and 1 (Jonnalanka). Plaintiff laid claim to this lanka on two grounds (i) because the Vainetyam at this point was neither tidal nor navigable, and he therefore was the owner of its bed, and (ii) because part of it was a re-formation of part of an old lanka of his called Turpulanka which had existed at this site ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »