Chennai Court March 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.
Maya Kone Vs. Periasami Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad942; (1937)2MLJ622
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 1,300 and interest thereon on a promissory note dated 16th January, 1924, executed in his favour by the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded as his undivided brothers on the ground that the debt was contracted by the first defendant as the manager of the joint family for family purposes and for the benefit of the family of the defendants. The fourth defendant is the son of the first defendant and as such he is sought to be made liable in addition to his being a member of the joint family. The suit was filed on 3rd October, 1929. To get over the bar of limitation an endorsement of payment by the first defendant dated 10th January, 1927, was relied on. Defendants 2 and 3 pleaded that there was no family necessity to incur the said debt, that they became separate from the first defendant in 1925, and that any payment or acknowledgment of liability thereafter by...
Manapalli Krishnayya Vs. Kaza Seetharamayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad764; (1937)2MLJ627
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question argued in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 709-7-0 due in respect of dealings had with the first and second defendants who carried on business under the name of Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill. The claim would be admittedly ramayya. barred by limitation but for an acknowledgment of liability contained in the letter Ex. F executed by the first defendant on the 28th October, 1926. The second defendant, who is the appellant in this second appeal, resists the claim on the ground that Ex. F is not binding on him on two grounds: (1) The letter was intended to be executed by both the defendants but it is only signed by the first defendant and therefore' inoperative as against him (second defendant). (2) On the date of Ex. F there was a decree for dissolution of partnership made in O.S. No. 244 of 1923 and the first defendant could no longer act for him.2. The first contention can be easily disposed of. Though th...
Chittaluri Sitamma Alias Sitabayamma and anr. Vs. Saphar Sitapatirao a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad8; (1937)2MLJ606
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession of 15 items of properties on the ground that the plaintiff has become entitled thereto under a gift deed (Ex. A) executed in his favour by one Seetha Bai Ammal on the 4th September, 1914. Seetha Bai Ammal was the widow of one Jagannadha Rao and the mother-in-law of the first defendant. As the first defendant is also called Seetha Bai Ammal, we will refer to the first defendant when necessary as the daughter-in-law.2. Jagannadha Rao died some time in 1903, leaving him surviving his widow Seetha Bai Ammal and an adopted son Subba Rao, who died in May, 1914. The evidence shows that during the last days of Subba Rao or soon after his death the relations between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law became strained and the plaintiff who is the grandson of a brother of the mother-in-law and who had been living in Subba Rao's family for some years managed to persuade the old lady to execute a gift in his favour of properties i...
Muthu Goundan and anr. Vs. Chinniah Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad861
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. Ramaswami Ayyangar has strenuously argued that the lower Court's judgment is correct, but I am afraid I cannot agree with him. The question is simply: are there grounds for my interference with the lower Court's decision in second appeal? I am clearly of the opinion that there are such grounds. The property in question was brought to sale in pursuance of a decree obtained by one Murugappa against Karungannan, the father of defendant 10. The property was purchased by Venkatasubbier, the agent of Murugappa, at the Court auction held in 1915. This man who is examined as P.W. 6 played a prominent part in the transactions that led up to the action. In 1917, he obtained symbolical delivery of the land that he had purchased. As regards Murugappa the evidence shows that he was in financial difficulties and that defendant 1, Mr. V.S. Narayanaswami Ayyar, a Vakil, was appointed receiver of his properties. It is common ground that in spite of the Court's sale, the land ...
Manapali Krishnayya Vs. Kaza Seetharamayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.22
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question argued in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 709-7-0 due in respect of dealings had with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who carried on business under the name of Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill. The claim would be admittedly barred by limitation but for an acknowledgment of liability contained in the letter, Ex. F, executed by defendant No. 1 on October 28, 1926. Defendant No. 2, who is the appellant in this second appeal, resists the claim on the ground that Ex. F is not binding on him on two grounds: (1) The letter was intended to be executed by both the defendants but it is only signed by defendant No. 1 and, therefore, inoperative as against him (defendant No. 2); (2) On the date of Ex. F there was a decree for dissolution of partnership made in O.S. No. 244 of 1923 and defendant No. 1 could no longer act for him.2. The first contention can be easily disposed of. Though the document was intended to be executed...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Bandi Pedda Venkata Nari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad634; (1937)1MLJ743
Mockett, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the first accused of murder. He was in fact convicted of an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. On another charge in relation to an offence committed against another person (P.W. 1) he was convicted under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, the sentences to run consecutively.2. Now, with all respect to Mr. C.R. Pattabhiraman's arguments, we do not think there is any room for doubt with regard to the facts of this case which are simple enough. There is a wealth of evidence to establish them and we only propose to set out shortly what they amount to. The accused lives opposite to P.W. 1 as will be seen in the plan. Accused 1 was bathing in the street opposite to his house, thereby causing 'slush' in the road. P.W. 1 protested and asked him to go and bathe in his backyard. It seems to us a not unreasonable ...
Sri Rajah Vijiya Apparao Savai Aswarao Bahadur Zamindar Garu and anr. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.39; (1937)2MLJ355
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant is the superior proprietor of the Bhadrachalam Estate; he filed the suit for a declaration that the assessment imposed on that estate for a period of 30 years from Fasli 1332 was ultra vires and illegal, as being in contravention of certain Government Orders of 1886 and 1922. The assessment itself was imposed in pursuance of G.O. No. 1373 dated 10th September, 1923 (Ex. V). It is this Government Order that directed the publication of the notification, which has been marked Ex. D in the case stating that a revision of the rates and conditions of assessment in the Bhadrachalam taluk will be carried out with effect from Fasli 1332, in accordance with the orders conveyed in G.O. No. 815 Rev., dated 5th May, 1922.2. Ex. V shows that at the time of passing that order, the Government had before them a communication from the Board of Revenue dated 9th May, 1923. That apparently was the letter of the Board containing the revised statements called for in paragra...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Koramutla Narasigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ490
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Cuddappa of the three accused on a charge of murder, the Sessions Judge having found them guilty under Section 326 only.2. The events which brought about the killing of the deceased are simple. The brinjals of P.W. 2 were rooted up and his plough stolen. He made a complaint about this, and the ccused, rightly or wrongly, thought that P.W. 2 had thrown suspicion on them. On his way home on the day of offence while he was passing the house of the accused, they abused him. He consulted some of his castemen about this abuse, and decided to refer the matter to the elders of the caste. The accused apparently heard what was going on and knew of the decision. As P.W. 2 passed their house again on his way to the house of the elders, the three accused rushed out of the house and attacked him, beating him severely with sticks. The deceased sister, hearing her brother's cries, came to the scene and asked th...
Abdul Aziz Sahib Vs. M. Abdul Sammad Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad596
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question relating to the construction of Section 16, Specific Relief Act, which runs thus:When a part of contract which taken by itself can and ought to be specifically performed, stands on a separate and independent footing from another part of the same contract which cannot or ought not to be specifically performed, the Court may direct specific performance of the former part.2. The facts may be briefly stated. Defendant 1, a Station Master, agreed to sell to the plaintiff, a plot of land measuring about 1 acre 14 cents. That plot had originally belonged to his wife, and upon her death, it devolved upon himself and his children his share being one-third and the share of the children being two-thirds. Out of the agreed consideration of Rs. 825 the plaintiff paid Rs. 250 as advance to defendant 1. The latter, with what motive it is unnecessary to enquire, repudiated the contract and it now transpires that two of his sons who have becom...
Emperor Vs. Koramutla Narasigadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad792
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Cuddapah of the three accused on a charge of murder, the Sessions Judge having found them guilty Under Section 326 only.2. The events which brought about the killing of the deceased are simple. The brinjals of P.W. 2 were rooted up and his plough stolen. He made a complaint about this, and the accused, rightly or wrongly, thought that P.W. 2 had thrown suspicion on them. On his way home on the day of offence, while he was passing the house of the accused, they abused him. He consulted some of his castemen about this abuse, and decided to refer the matter to the elders of the caste. The accused apparently heard what was going on and knew of the decision. As P.W. 2 passed their house again and on his way to the house of the elders, the three accused rushed out of the house and attacked him, beating him severely with sticks. The deceased sister, hearing her brother's cries, came to the scene and as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »