Chennai Court December 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.
N.N.R.M. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. N.N.L. Ramasamy Chettiar (De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad641; (1938)1MLJ616
ORDER10. By consent, Rs. 674-10-8 mentioned in paragraph 2 of this statement is substituted for Rs. 302-6-0 shown against item 2 in the table. As to the interest, the provision made in the judgment is modified in the manner set out in paragraph 4 of this statement.11. The undertaking of the second respondent by his counsel to indemnify as mentioned in the said paragraph 2 is recorded....
Chatlapalli Suryaprakasa Rao Vs. Polisetti Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad523; (1938)1MLJ342
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the defendants-judgment-debtors committed default in payment of the instalments due and payable under the compromise decree obtained by the first respondent, decree-holder in this case. The decree was passed on the 19th July, 1932, in and by which it was provided that the amount due and payable under the decree should be paid in six instalments of Rs. 1,000 each with interest at 6 per cent, on the decree amount, the first instalment falling due on the 30th September, 1933,and thereafter the instalments to be paid on the said date each year. It also provided that the amounts paid on the said date each year should be entered upon the decree and that, if for any reason any two successive instalments are not paid, the balance due with interest at the said rate should be recoverable from the defendants personally and from the properties charged under the said decree. The defendants failed to pay the first instalment on ...
ikkassintakath Abdurahiman and anr. Vs. Nadakkavu Malikkal Beeran Koya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad402; 173Ind.Cas.424; (1938)1MLJ571
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a reference under Section 27 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923) made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in the following circumstances. A workman by name Saban employed under the respondent died in or about July, 1934. A claim for compensation was preferred by his mother Pathumma under the Act. A question was raised whether the employer was liable to pay compensation to her. The matter was carried to the High Court and by an order dated 1st September, 1936, it was decided by Burn, J., and Lakshmana Rao, J., that the employer was liable to pay compensation to the said Pathumma. Thereupon the Commissioner by his order dated the 26th September, 1936, decided that the only dependent of the deceased workman was the applicant Pathumma and he therefore allotted the entire compensation to her. The entire compensation referred to was a lump sum of Rs. 552 paid by the employer in pursuance of Section 8 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. T...
Koti Bharma Lingappa Vs. S. Nilakantappayya Wadiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad533; (1938)1MLJ586
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bellary dated 28th February, 1933, in O.S. No. 5 of 1932, a suit for recovery of possession of certain lands and for redemption of certain mortgages. There were three mortgages, one of 1917 for Rs. 800, another of 1920 for Rs. 2,850 and the third one of the same date as the first for Rs. 1,400. The lands included in the mortgages were different. Over and above the lands included in these mortgages, two survey numbers, 53 and 71, were alleged to be in the possession of the defendant under a certain arrangement whereby he was to be in possession for 13 years in lieu of a sum of Rs. 700 due to him. The plaintiffs pleaded that they had discharged all the three mortgages and also the debt of Rs. 700 and they produced three receipts, Exs. A-1, A-2 and A, in support of their allegation. These receipts amounting to Rs. 5,700 were relied upon by the Court below in support of its finding that the paymen...
Sivanagalingam Pillai Vs. K.V. Ambalavana Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad479
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Sivanagalingam Pillai against his father-in-law and mother-in-law for recovery of certain, jewels and cloth belonging to his deceased wife, who died on 10th January 1931 at Cuddalore. Naturally one of the allegations in the plaint was that the plaintiff's marriage with the daughter of the defendants was in the Brahma form and this allegation was denied by the defendants, according to whom the marriage was in the Asura form in spite of the fact that it was admitted by the defendants, that a dowry of Rs. 3000 was agreed to be paid in respect of the marriage and was actually paid, Rs. 1600 in the shape of jewels and the balance in cash at the time of the marriage. The contention of the defendants that the marriage was nevertheless in the Asura form was bated mainly on the ground that a parisam or present of Rs. 101 had been paid at the time of the marriage according to the custom of the caste by the plaintiff's brother-in-...
Dasa E. Krishna Chetty Vs. Kalavalu Pedda Narayanappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ229
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question which has to be decided in this revision relates to the jurisdiction of Village Courts constituted under the Madras Village Courts Act (I of 1889). The facts of the case are simple and may be briefly stated. A suit was filed by one Kalavalu Peddanarayanappa in the Village Court at Dharmavaram. The defendant in his written statement questioned its jurisdiction and moved the District Munsiff under Section 21 of the Act to withdraw the suit from the Village Court. Before this application was disposed of, the suit was decreed ex parte and the petition had therefore to be dismissed. The defendant then applied to the District Munsiff for setting aside the decree under Section 73. This has been dismissed and a revision petition has consequently been filed against that order.2. A perusal of Section 15 of the Act would show that the village courts can only entertain the suits which are filed against persons who either reside within the local limits of their ...
Putti Ramachar and ors. Vs. P.V. Venkata Row and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad661; (1938)2MLJ623
Stodart, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Their grandfather Ramachar had three sons. In 1891, he died leaving a will in which he founded a religious trust and appointed his second son Venkatasubbarayar to carry out its object, namely, the building of a temple, the installation in it of certain idols and the regular conduct of worship of the said idols. Venkatasubbarayar died in 1924 having performed the duties of trustee and was succeeded by his three sons defendants 1 to 3 who have continued in office till 1929 when this suit was filed. Plaintiffs are the sons of the youngest son of the founder. They seek to be declared trustees on the ground that the appointment by testator of Venkatasubbarayar was only for his life, that on Venkatasubbarayar's death in 1924 the office became vacant and the trusteeship vested in all the heirs of the founder, namely, themselves, defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 5 and 6 who are sons of Ramachar's eldest son, and who now support the plaintiffs. The l...
Puvvada Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Gadepalli Sundara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad603
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. This is a petition for revision from the order of the District Judge of Vizagapatam reversing that of the District Munsif and setting aside an ex parte decree passed in favour of the petitioner. It was admitted that .the defendant-respondent was not served personally but it was contended that he had knowledge of the suit and there were no sufficient grounds for his absence. The District Judge did not agree with the contention, and holding that there were sufficient grounds for the defendant's nonappearance, he set the decree aside but as he found the respondent to have been guilty of laches he awarded Rs. 25 to the petitioner 'to compensate him for the waste of time, money and energy caused to him.' These costs were paid at once and received by the petitioner's pleader apparently before the District Judge as a reference to this payment is made in his order dated 24th September 1936. The respondent has raised a preliminary objection that inasmuch as the costs awa...
Kotta Venkatraju Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Sahib Maharban Dostan Sri Raja Rav ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad342; (1938)1MLJ256
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed before the Deputy Collector, Cocanada, under Section 77 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, by the Maharajah of Pithapuram, to recover from the appellant and 5 other tenants an aggregate sum of Rs. 11-1-4 for water taken by them without his permission from his tank for the purpose of raising wet crops on dry lands in Faslis 1336, 1337 and 1338. Paragraph 5 of the plaint, which is in Telugu, has been translated as follows:The defendants have no right whatever to use the said water for the jirayati dry lands in the aforesaid manner. As the defendants used the said water unjustly the amount of Rs. 9-15-7 as per particulars hereunder towards tirva and cesses thereon, with interest (was due) and in spite of several demands by the plaintiff's officials, both oral and written, the defendants did not pay as mentioned above.2. The difference between this sum of Rs. 9-15-7 and Rs. 11-1-4 represents the claim for interest....
In Re: Hilton Brown
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad462
ORDERStodart, J.1. Mr. Hilton Brown was Collector of North Arcot with headquarters at Vellore, in the year 1934 and he went to England on leave on 5th July 1934. For the half year, 1st April 1934 to 1st October 1934, he became liable to profession tax and education tax and he was assessed on the basis of the emoluments he received from the Government during that period, 1st April 1934 to 1st October 1934, including, that is to say, the salary paid to him at some places out of India for the period from 5th July 1934 to 1st October 1934. He has however paid tax on the basis of salary received from 1st April 1934 to 5th July 1934, namely the period when he was in India. The Municipal Council filed a small cause suit against him for the balance and the suit has been decreed in his absence. He sent a written statement by post from England but this was rejected1 which of course was perfectly correct. I am told however that no evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiff Municipality and I a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »