Chennai Court February 1937 Judgments
Matta Sura Reddi and anr. Vs. Mara Rama Narasu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad714; (1937)2MLJ922
1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against a decree which gave the plaintiff a right to recover a sum of Rs. 3,540 and interest, by sale of the plaint properties. The plaint claimed two reliefs in the alternative, either specific performance of a contract of sale of the suit properties (evidence by Ex. A) or recovery of what the plaintiff described as prepaid purchase money as a charge on the properties contracted to be sold. The lower Court held that the claim for specific performance had become barred by limitation. As regards the money claim, the lower Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled in this proceeding to recover one portion of the consideration amount recited in Ex. A, namely, a sum of Rs. 1,750 representing what was due to the plaintiff from one Rami Reddi, the defendants' uncle under the decree in O.S. No. 25 of 1922. But it allowed in plaintiff's favour the other item of consideration, namely, the sum due under the decree in O.S. No. 24 of 1922 which had b...
Tag this Judgment!Endapalle Ella Reddi Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad654
ORDERKing, J.1. This revision arises out of the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor setting aside an order of discharge passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Piler in a case under Section 307, Penal Code (attempt to murder). It appears that the case was first reported by the Village Magistrate to the police and was found by the police to be false. Subsequently at the instance of the complainant himself who was injured, the preliminary enquiry went on. The story for the prosecution was that the accused shot at the complainant from a distance of 15 or 16 yards with a breach-loading gun and injured him in the left thigh. The defence was that P.W. 1 had attempted to kill himself with his uncle's gun which was a muzzle loader and in doing so, bungled and injured himself in the thigh instead of in any vital part of the body. P.W. 8, the Village Magistrate, taking advantage of this circumstance foisted a false case against the accused.2. The Sub-Magistrate of Piler took the whole of the ev...
Tag this Judgment!M. Raghavulu Naidu and ors. Vs. Kamsalya Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad607
Varadachariar, J.1. (Appeal No. 171 of 1934). This appeal arises out of a suit for possession. The plaintiff claimed to bo entitled to the suit properties as the widow of one Maniram Misser and according to the plaintiff's case he (Maniram Misser) was the reversionary heir to the estate of the last male owner of the suit properties named Guruprasad. The plaintiff's husband admittedly survived the widows of the last male owner; and if he was the nearest heir to Guruprasad on the date of the widow's death, it is not disputed that the plaintiff will be entitled to the property, subject to the other defences raised in the suit. It was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff's husband was not the reversioner. This contention was based upon two grounds: one that Guruprasad had left a will whereby his properties had been bequeathed absolutely to his two widows Rama Bai and Sona Bai; the other ground was that the plaintiff had not proved that her husband was the nearest heir and that th...
Tag this Judgment!Sowcar Lodd Govindoss and anr. Vs. Arumuga Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad679
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises from a suit for damages for malicious pro. sedition. The case for the plaintiff is that defendant 1 owned certain lands attached to Novelock Bhagayet near Thengal village, that defendant 1 authorized defendant 2 to institute a criminal complaint and defendant 2 filed the complaint, 0. C. No. 548 of 1926, on the file of the Wallajah Sub-Magistrate's Court against the plaintiff and others charging them with offences under Sections 147 and 430, I.P.C, alleging that on or about 11th November 1926 forty people, including the plaintiff (who was at that time supposed to be acting on behalf of Kalyani Ammal), ryots of Thengal village, gathered together and prevented the men of defendant 1 from taking water in the Thengal Kasam which they are entitled to do, by removing or attempting to remove a dam which was put up by the men of defendant 1, that that complaint was thrown out as false, that defendant 1 was the real prosecutor in the case, and d...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Chetty Vs. K.S. Narayana Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad215
Horwill, J.1. Two parties claimed to be lessees of a tope under the respondent in this appeal and one of them brought a suit against the other for possession. During the pendency of that suit, as both parties ware disputing possession, a receiver petition was put in, and the defendants in that suit, O.S. No. 18 of 1926, were appointed joint receivers upon their furnishing security for one year's estimated income, which amounted to Rs. 1425. This security was to be either in cash or in immovable property. The appellant deposited in Court, Rs. 1425, for investment in the Co-operative Bank. Later, the lessor applied to be made a party and he was added. The matter was taken in revision to the High Court, which held that he was not a proper party to that suit, and that he should file a suit himself. He thereupon filed O.S. No. 87 of 1928 and made the lessees defendants. As the matter in dispute had to be fought out in O.S. No. 87 of 1928, O.S. No. 18 of 1928 was by agreement dismissed, both...
Tag this Judgment!M.C.T.M. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Rangaswami Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad232
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This batch of second appeals arises out of several suits in ejectment filed by the plaintiff as mirasidar and landholder of the village of Melamarudur against the several defendants who ate in occupation of the sites described in the plaints in the several suits filed against them. The case for the plaintiff in that he became the owner of the said village by virtue of a Court auction purchase and that the title to the suit property vested in him there under, that the defendants are in occupation of the sites on condition of rendering certain services for the landlord, that they have failed to rander such services and therefore they have forfeited the right to remain on the several sites. He therefore claimed to removal possession of the sites after the removal of the superstructures erected on the suit sites. The Court sale was in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Somasundaram Chettiar of Devakottah and which was later on assigned to the plaintiff's...
Tag this Judgment!M. Raghavalu Naidu and ors. Vs. Kansalya Bai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: 172Ind.Cas.304
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of suit for possession. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the suit properties as the widow of one Maniram Misser and according to the plaintiff's case he was the reversionary heir to the estate of the last male owner of the suit properties named Guruprasad. The plaintiff's busband admittedly survived the widows of the last male owner; and if he was the nearest heir to Guruprasad on the date of the widow's death, it is not disputed that the plaintiff will be entitled to the property, subject to the other defences raised in the suit.2. It was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff's husband was not the reversioner. This contention was based-upon two grounds one, that Guruprasad had left a will whereby his properties had been bequeathed absolutely to his two widows Rama Bai and Sona Bai; the other ground was that the plaintiff had not proved that her husband was the nearest heir and that there were no nearer heirs in existence.3. As...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Endapalle Ella Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1937
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.102
ORDERKing, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor setting aside an order of discharge passed by the Sub-Magistrate of Filer in a case under Section 307, Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder).2. It appears that the case was first reported by the village Magistrate to the Police and was found by the Police to be false. Subsequently at the instance of the complainant himself who was injured, the preliminary enquiry went on. The story for the prosecution was' that the accused shot at the complainant from a distance of 15 or 16 yards with a breach-loading gun and injured him in the left thigh. The defence was that P.W. No. 1 had attempted to kill himself with his uncle's gun which was a muzzle loader and in doing so, bungled and injured himself in the thigh instead of in any vital part of the body. Prosecution Witness No. 8 the Village Magistrate taking advantage of this circumstance foisted a false case against the accused.3. The Sub-Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Municipality Vs. P. Venugopal Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad562
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The question here is not free from difficulty. The suit was by the Chidambaram Municipality to recover house tax and water tax for the year ending 31st March 1934 in respect of houses belonging to defendant. The point to be decided here is whether the suit was maintainable by the Municipality in the absence of a proper and legal notice of demand previously served upon the defendant by the Municipality. There were other points raised but it is this question which has given rise to this petition. The learned District Munsif has held that the plaintiff-Municipality did not sufficiently prove that it had served what it was alleged was the required notice upon the defendant and that in the absence of such proof, the Municipality was not entitled to file the suit. The question of whether the notice was really served is one of fact and therefore if it had been the only question, the lower Court's judgment could not be interfered with, although I am bound to say that there...
Tag this Judgment!A. Subramania Aiyar Vs. S. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad577; (1937)1MLJ637
Varadachariar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition (under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act) arises out of an application praying that the respondents' debts which were admitted by the Official Receiver may be expunged from the schedule. The matter has been dealt with in the courts below on the assumption that the respondents' claim could have been enforced in a court of law on the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition but that the remedy by suit had become barred by limitation before the date of the order of adjudication. The case has been argued before us on the same assumption.2. Section 34(2) of Act V of 1920 provides that all debts to which the insolvent is subject when he is adjudged an insolvent (etc.) shall be debts provable under the Act. The Courts below have upheld the respondents' contention that in view of the provision in Section 28(7) as to 'relation back' the 'criterion date was the date of the filing of the petition'; in support of the conclusion,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »