Chennai Court April 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.
M. Krishnammal Vs. T. Balasubramania Pillai, Power of Attorney Agent o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad937
Beasley, C.J.1. This matter has been referred to us by Gentle, J. The following questions have been raised, viz. (1) Whether an agent with a power of attorney to appear and conduct judicial proceedings has the right of audience in Court; (2) whether the agent is entitled to notice if his principal wants to appear and conduct the proceedings himself in person or appoints an advocate to appear for him; and (3) whether the power of attorney agent can carry on business as a solicitor or attorney, drafting, engrossing and filing plaint, Judge's summons, affidavits and generally issuing legal process and Charge fees to the principal.2. That all three questions stand to be answered in the negative seems to us to be clear; but as the respondent has definitely asserted a right to the notice specified in question 2, and certainly by strong implication if not by his conduct to the right of audience stated in question 1 and the matters in question 3 also arise both out of his conduct and claim, we...
In Re: L.J., a First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.93
Beasley, C.J.1. These proceedings relate to a sum of Rs. 70 10-0 which belonged to one Aletti Malikarjunudu, a client of the respondent, and which sum the respondent by a letter of February 4, 1934 (Ex. A3) admitted that he had in his possession. The respondent did not return that money to his client inspite of repeated requests in writing to do so and eventually the client sent a registered letter of demand on December 24, 1934, which the postal acknowledgment shows was received on January 2, 1935, by the respondent. This registered letter, however, did not produce any reply. A further registered letter was sent to the respondent on March 14, 1935, demanding the return of Rs. 65 within four days and telling him to hand over the papers in the suit to another Advocate at Vizagapatam and that he was to take no further steps with regard to this suit. This letter is shown by the postal acknowledgment to have been received by the respondent on March 19, 1935. No reply was made to this lette...
M.A.R.R.M. Viswanathan Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad816; (1937)2MLJ559
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question which this appeal raises is whether the mortgage debt is binding upon defendants 2, 3 and 4. The actual executant of the said bond was the first defendant, but he purports to have executed it not only on his own behalf but also as the 'family manager and guardian of his undivided younger brother', the second defendant, who was then a minor. All the defendants resisted the claim, even the receipt of the consideration having been denied by the first defendant. There was a further allegation that so far as defendants 2 to 4 were concerned the debt was not incurred for a purpose binding upon the joint family. The learned trial judge has come to the conclusion that consideration was paid, with which we unhesitatingly concur. The facts may be shortly stated. A person by name Chockalinga had three daughters by his first wife but no male issue. Thereupon he adopted the first defendant as his son. Subsequently he married a second wife and the second defendant...
T. Sivasankaram Pillai Vs. Agali Narayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad807; (1937)2MLJ381
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for damages for an alleged libel in a letter dated 4th February, 1929, addressed by the defendant as President of the Taluk Board, Penukonda, to the Secretary to Government, Local Self-Government Department, Madras. On a summons to produce the said letter, the Government sent it in a sealed cover and pleaded privilege under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. Both the Courts upheld the privilege. The plaintiff then sought to let in evidence of the contents of the letter by filing Ex. A which purports to be a copy of the said letter containing the initials of the defendant. This document was produced from the office of the Taluk Board as a summons for production in a criminal case and it was sought to be made use of for the purpose of this case by the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts took the view that as the original could not be admitted in evidence on the ground of privilege, no secondary ...
Kuppammal Vs. M. and S.M. Ry. Co. Ltd. and Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad117
Gentle, J.1. These are two suits brought and or the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, and by consent of all parties have been tried together as the facts in regard to both claims are identical save in respect of the damages which are claimed. In C. Section No. 96 of 1934 the plaintiff is the widow of one Venkataswami Naidu. In C.S. No. 445 of 1934 plaintiff 1 is the widow and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the minor children of one Saman. The claims in both suits are for damages representing the loss of maintenance which the respective plaintiffs allege that they have sustained on account of the death of the two deceased who were the wage-earners of their respective families. There has been a considerable body of evidence given in these suits, none of which is very reliable and all the witnesses exaggerated in their evidence, what, I have come to the conclusion, were the real facts. 1st defendants own land in Walltax Road upon which is erected a railway station and permanent way. Thi...
Padmanabha Iyer Vs. Visalakshmi Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad283
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a revision petition against an order made in the course of proceedings taken Under Section 40, Revenue Recovery Act, for delivery of possession of the property purchased by the petitioner in a revenue sale. The property known as Mattangangal estate was brought to sale for arrears of revenue by reason of the default committed by the pattadars Karuppan Chetti and Avadayam Chetti and purchased by the petitioner Padmanabha Iyer. The said sale was confirmed on 20th June 1935 and a certificate of sale was issued in his favour Under Section 38, Revenue Recovery Act. On the strength of the said certificate, he made an application to the District Court of Tanjore for delivery of possession of the said property and an order for delivery was made; but when he sought to take possession, he was obstructed by Visalakshmi Achi, the respondent herein. Thereupon the petitioner filed an application Under Order 21, Rule 95 and 98, Civil P.C. for removal of the obstruc...
Ettiyar Ahmed Kutty and ors. Vs. Vayalilakath Ayithraman Kutty and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad819; (1937)2MLJ301
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal is against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar dismissing the plaintiff's suit which is a representative action filed on behalf of the Mussalmans of Feroke for an injunction directing the first defendant to demolish and remove the structure put tip in the plot which is claimed to be an adjunct of the Jemath mosque at Feroke, for possession of the same by the plaintiffs on behalf of the mosques and the Mussalman public of Feroke and for granting all other reliefs to the plaintiffs for and on behalf of the mosque which the Court may deem fit to grant. The ground of the claim is that the Jemath mosque belongs in common to the Feroke Mussalman public, that the dead bodies are buried in the Paramba of the mosque and that the plaintiffs congregate, at the said mosque for worship. The necessity for the institution of this suit is alleged to be a trespass by the defendant in that he has put up a shed and has been attempting to...
Annaswami Naicken and ors. Vs. C. Manicka Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad957
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a representative suit brought by the plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the villagers of Devanandal against the defendants as representing themselves and all other villagers of Adayur. The subject matter in dispute relates to the right to the water from the natural stream which flows through the village of Devanandal which is marked A to B in the plaintiff's plan and A to H in the Commissioner's plan. The plaintiffs claim the right to divert the water by means of a dam at the point D in the plaintiffs' plan through a channel DE to the tank F known as the Devanandal Eri for the purpose of irrigating the lands east of the said tank which is registered as wet under the ayacut of the said tank. The extent of acreage which was thus registered on the date of suit was 94 acres 73 cents. The necessity for the suit was that the defendants obstructed the plaintiffs from repairing the dam and also dug a channel nearby which prevente...
Ettiyat Ahmed Kutty and ors. Vs. Vayalikath Ayithraman Kutty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.586
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal is against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar dismissing the plaintiffs' suit which is a representative action filed on behalf of the Mussalmans of Feroke for an injunction directing defendant No. 1 to demolish and remove the structure put up in the plot which is claimed to be an adjunct of the Jemath Mosque at Feroke, for possession of the same by the plaintiffs on behalf of the mosque and the Mussalman public of Feroke and for granting all other reliefs to the plaintiffs for and on behalf of the mosque which the Court may deem fit to grant. The ground of the claim is that the Jemath Mosque belongs in common to the Feroke Musalman public, that the dead bodies are buried in the paramba of the mosque and that the plaintiffs congregrate at the said mosque for worship. The necessity for the institution of this suit is alleged to be a trespass by the defendant in that he has put up a shed and has been attempting to build ...
In Re: Kumarappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad213
ORDERKing, J.1. This petition is not seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. All that has been proved is that the petitioners have committed certain acts of violence in the past. What must be proved in order to justify an order of this kind is that the petitioners are likely to break the peace in future. Does any occasion, does any cause of quarrel exist which is likely to cause them to break the peace? The learned Sessions Judge has not found that any exists. He disbelieves the main feature of the prosecution that the petitioners formed a compact with the object of using force in agitating against the landlords.2. In these circumstances, it is not enough for the learned Sessions Judge merely to say that he thinks that men who have been violent once will be violent again: see Maruthapali Goundan v. Emperor : AIR1937Mad356 and I set aside the order binding over the petitioners....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »