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.
Gadde Venkatarayudu Vs. Anumolu China Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad810; 173Ind.Cas.514; (1937)2MLJ307
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for Specjnc performance of a contract to sell land to the plaintiff. The Court below has decreed specinc performance; this appeal by the plaintiff relates to two subsidiary matters, namely, (1) his claim to an amount of Rs. 2,861-5-1 referred to in the sixth issue and (2) the order of the lower Court directing each party to bear his own costs.2. The first claim arises under the following circumstances. The suit properties were agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for the purposes of discharging certain debts due by the family of the defendants, but as there was some delay in completing the sale transaction, the plaintiff was requested to pay off the creditors even before the execution of the sale deed and he was assured that the amount so paid might be adjusted towards the sale price and that, if the plaintiff had to pay to the creditors anything in excess of the sale price, the same would be made good to him with interest. It is not t...
Minor Narayanaswami, Minor Venkaraman by their Next Friend Janaki Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ616
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this revision petition relates to the amount of court-fee leviable on the plaint in the suit. The suit is for a partition of joint family properties of the plaintiffs and their father the first defendant. The plaintiffs who are entitled to a two-third share therein seek partition and delivery of their separate share and also an account of the income of the properties. So far as the prayers relating thereto are concerned, the plaint has been properly valued, but the controversy has arisen in regard to the relief they seek in respect of the debts contracted by the first defendants Defendants 2 to 14 are his creditors and the plaintiffs are questioning the binding nature of the said debts. The material allegations relating thereto are as follows:The next friend of the plaintiffs learnt that the first defendant had, even afterwards, been persisting in his former habits and he was giving out that he was indebted to the other defendants to the e...
Sri Neelakanta Rajendra Patro Vs. Balaji Patro Mondolo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad945; 173Ind.Cas.524
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The substantial question for decision in this second appeal relates to the claim by the trustees of Jagannadhaswami temple at Udayagiri, Ramagiri Taluk, in the Agency Tracts of the Ganjam District, to recover four garces of paddy annually for the temple from the Mandolo or the Muttadar of Titisingi Mutta in the same taluk. The said mutta is held by an officer called the Muttadar who, according to the usage, is appointed by the Government, the office being recognized more or less hereditary. The officer is remunerated by the emoluments derived mainly from the income of Titisingi Mutta. The claim is thus laid in the plaint:The plaintiff and defendant 2, as well as their ancestors who are Patros of Ramagiri-Udayagiri Mutta, used to collect from Balaji Patro Mondolo, defendant 1, as well as from his ancestors of the Titisingi Mutta, four garces of paddy for the Amrutha Monohi (daily offerings) of the said deity . . . Balaji Mondolo who at present holds the office of...
Narayanaswami and ors. Vs. Swaminatha Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad876
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this revision petition relates to the amount of court-fee leviable on the plaint in the suit. The suit is for a partition of joint family properties of the plaintiffs and their father defendant 1. The plaintiffs who are entitled to a two-third share therein, seek partition and delivery of their separate share and also an account of the income of the properties. So far as the prayers relating thereto are concerned, the plaint has been properly valued, but the controversy has arisen in regard to the relief they seek in respect of the debts contracted by defendant 1. Defendants 2 to 14 are his creditors and the plaintiffs are questioning the binding nature of the said debts. The material allegations relating thereto are as follows:The next friend of the plaintiffs learnt that defendant 1 had even afterwards been persisting in his former habits and he was giving out that he was indebted to the other defendants to the extent of Rs. 60,000 ...
Katta Venkatayyagari Srinivasayya Vs. Gowra Lakshmayya (Deceased) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad811; 173Ind.Cas.548; (1938)1MLJ73
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages for wrongful attachment of the plaintiff's properties. The first plaintiff is the father and the second and third plaintiffs are his sons. The third plaintiff has a son, Sriramayya, who was summoned as a witness in a suit instituted by the defendant against certain third parlies. He did not appear and the present defendant accordingly applied to the Court to take proceedings under Order 16, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. In the attachment thus issued, four items of property were attached, as though they were 'the property of Sriramayya. Admittedly, Sriramayya would not in any event be entitled to the full interest in those properties, because, even on the footing of the plaintiffs and Sriramayya being undivided, Sriramayya would be entitled only to a sixth share. There can be little doubt, that, whoever may be responsible for it, the warrant of attachment was wrongly drafted in not limiting the attachment to the sixth sha...
Kamsala Muneyya and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad755; 173Ind.Cas.1001
Horwill, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted of the murder of Pedda Konda Reddi, a member of the Cuddappah District Board, at about 7 P.M. on 11th October 1935, at a spot just east of Cuddappah town and within a short distance of the Kondayapalli Kunta, the Government Hospital, the High School, and the Cuddappah-Rachinnayapalli Road. P.W. 2 was with Pedda Konda Reddi when the murder was committed. On that day he had come to Cuddappah to make some purchases and on his way home called at the house of a friend of his, Mr. C.L. Narasimha Reddi, who was a District Board member, and there met the deceased. They remained at the house of Narasimha Reddi until about 6 P.M. and then left together for Pakirpalli which is about 1 miles from Cuddappah and is the village of Pedda Konda Reddi. The way to Pakirpalli lies along a footpath through Kondayapalli Kunta. Just as they were approaching the spot where the tank bund meets the footpath, they met two men, one of whom was dressed in the or...
Balabhadra Srirangam Alias Ramakristnayya and anr. Vs. Madhyannapu Ran ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad846; 173Ind.Cas.537; (1937)2MLJ236
Venkataraman Rao, J.1. The plaintiff's suit is a frivolous one and the learned Judge in decreeing it has disregarded certain well-settled principles of law. The plaintiff has brought this suit with a view to have it declared that the decree obtained by defendants 5 and 6 against himself and defendants 1 to 4 (the members of his family) in O.S. No. 21 of 1931 is not binding upon him and should be set aside. The first defendant acting for himself and his minor sons of whom the plaintiff was one, had executed in favour of defendants 5 and 6 a deed of mortgage on the 2nd July, 1926; it was to enforce this mortgage that the suit mentioned above had been brought by defendants 5 and 6. To the suit were impleaded as defendants, the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff himself and his two brothers the last mentioned three having been represented in the action by their mother as their guardian ad litem. During the pendency of that suit, one of the three brothers attained majority and was declared a...
Mrs. Evelyn Popaly Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad775; (1938)2MLJ377
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The Official Assignee applied to the Insolvency Court under Section 7 of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act for a declaration that certain houses are the property of the insolvent purchased in the name of his wife, the 2nd respondent, or in the alternative that the insolvent has a half interest in those houses. At the hearing before Wads-worth, J., the 2nd respondent raised the preliminary objection that as the 2nd respondent had been examined under Section 36 of the Act the proceedings against her under Section 7 were barred. That objection the trial Judge overruled holding that the previous examination under Section 36 of the Act was no bar to the proceedings before him. The hearing of the application has been stayed pending this appeal.2. The point before us is to what extent this case is covered by the Full Bench decision in Official Assignee of Madras v. Narasimha Mudaliar : (1929)57MLJ145 , and its determination depends upon whether the s...
T. Rajagopala Aiyanagar Vs. the Collector of Salt Revenue
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad735; 173Ind.Cas.251; (1937)2MLJ189
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal is from an order passed by Gentle, J., on two applications under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act praying for an order restraining the Collector of Salt Revenue, Madras, by a writ of prohibition from conducting or holding or proceeding with an enquiry into the conduct of the two applicants. The appellant was the applicant in No. 349 of 1937. The order passed by Gentle, J., covered the contentions of both of the applicants which were identical. An interim injunction had been granted on the 8th February. Gentle, J., by his order dissolved that injunction, discharged the rule nisi and dismissed the applications.2. The appellant is an Assistant Commissioner of Salt and Customs, Central Division, Madras, to which office he was appointed on the 16th March, 1936, before which date he was Inspector of Salt and Customs, Negapatam. Certain charges had been made against the appellant and an enquiry under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classific...
In Re: Velayudham Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ232
King, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted in this case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore of various charges connected with the manufacture of what, according to the prosecution, are counterfeiting King-Emperor's coins during May, 1936. The facts found by the learned Judge and, in view of the legal argument to which I shall refer later, not seriously challenged in the appeal before me, were that the first appellant instructed the second appellant to make for him a number of two anna pieces and that when these pieces were manufactured he made most of them up into a bundle which he gave to P.W. 3, his servant, with instructions that P.W. 3 should surreptitiously introduce them into the shop of P.W. 6 with whom he had lately conceived various grounds of enmity. P.W. 3 accordingly took the bundle and placed it in P.W. 6's shop. Information was then given to the police to the effect that if they searched P.W. 6's shop and house they would discover that he had cou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »