Chennai Court January 1938 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.
Chavali Velayya Vs. the President of the Board of Commissioners for Hi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad631; (1938)1MLJ487
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These are petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council (the judgment to be appealed from is reported in H.R.E. Board, Madras v. Koteswara Rao (1937) 446 L.W. 587. All of them excepting one may be easily disposed of. The question raised in each case is whether the property was a gift to the God or was an archaka service inam. The point turned upon the effect of the inam proceedings and it was held in an affirming judgment, upon a construction of the various inam papers, that the gifts were intended for the deity.2. That the property in each case is of the requisite value under Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code is not disputed. The High Court's decision being an affirming one, the only point that arises is, whether the proposed appeal involves some substantial question of law. The finding here was reached, as already stated, upon a construction of the inam papers and no question of law was raised:Where the question to be decided is one of fact, it ...
In Re: Nemichand Parakh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad551; (1938)2MLJ161
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioner in this case, Nemichand Parakh, was convicted of criminal breach of trust on three counts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count, the three sentences to run concurrently. The charge against him was, 'that you on or about the undermentioned dates at Madras being entrusted with properties stated below committed criminal breach of trust (1) on or about 4th April, 1935, gold chain of the value of Rs. 175 belonging to P.W. 1; (2) on or about 18th September, 1935, ruby necklace of the value of Rs. 50 belonging to P.W. 3; and (3) on or about 21st March, 1936, ring of the value of Rs. 12-8-0 belonging to P.W. 1'. The dates given in the charge are the dates on which the actual pledges were made of these jewels by the prosecution witnesses concerned with the accused. It is not pretended that the receipt of the pledged jewels was itself a criminal breach of trust. Presumably the criminal breaches of trust alleged against ...
Vr.L.Vr.S. Pethaperumal Chettiar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. V.Al.V. Ramas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ505
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. We have heard Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar fully and do not propose to call upon the respondents. The plaintiff-appellant complains that he is not bound by the arrangement evidenced by Exs. A to F, the outcome of a settlement entered into between himself and the first defendant (defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers of the latter and need not be specially mentioned), on the ground that it is vitiated by undue influence and coercion. The facts are fully set out in the lower Court's judgment, which we do not propose to recapitulate. The material facts which need be stated are these. The fourth defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and aunt (mother's sister) of the first defendant. At the time of the death of the plaintiff's father in 1918 there was a partnership which was being carried on. The first defendant and his brothers were partners in that firm entitled to a certain share. The plaintiff's father was a sub-partner possessing a fractional interest in the last menti...
Melepat Madhathil M.R. Venkitaraya Aiyar and anr. Vs. Neelamane Sankar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad649; (1938)2MLJ108
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the judgment of King, J., which has confirmed the concurrent decision of the two Courts below.2. The facts are fully stated in the judgment of the learned District Munsiff as well as that of Mr. Stodart the District Judge. The point for decision is whether the plaintiff was entitled to put up a dam to prevent the escape and overflow of water from the land of the defendants over his land. The plaintiff having been held to possess the right, the defendants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The relative positions of the lands in question may be briefly described. The plaintiff owns the plot A, which comprises plot D which the lower Courts have found belongs to him; the embankment or dam to prevent the overflow has been erected in the last mentioned plot D. To the south of A and contiguous thereto, are three plots B, B-1 and C; B-1 is to the east of B and C is to the east of B-1. The former two plots belong to the defendants ...
Sree Batchu Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for Indi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad565; (1938)2MLJ452
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the suit tank belongs to the Zamindar or to the Government. The immediate cause of this litigation, as pointed out by Cornish, J., was the action of the Local Taluk Board in auctioning in the year 1926 the right to fish in the tank. Both the Taluk Board and the Government were made defendants and their contentions were rejected by the District Munsiff as well as the Subordinate Judge. A second appeal was filed in this Court, only by the Government whose plea was that the tank was communal property. Cornish, J., reversing the concurrent decision of the lower Courts, has held that the title of the Government has been proved.2. Should the tank be held to' be communal property as pleaded, it stands to reason that the Government cannot be presumed to have included in the grant property which belonged to the villagers in common (see the judgment of this Bench in Appa Rao v. Secretary of Stated A.I.R. 1938 Mad...
Mathukumalli Ramayya and ors. Vs. Uppalapati Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad513; (1938)1MLJ492
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. C.M.P. No. 89 of 1938. - This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the decree passed by this Court in Appeals Nos. 571 of 1931 and 260 of 1932. The application is opposed.2. The appeals arose out of a suit filed by a reversioner for recovery of possession of the suit properties on the footing that as reversioner to the estate of the last male holder he is entitled to possession. There were two sets of alienees in the case, one set of people who traced their title to the mother of the last male owner and another set of alienees who traced their title to the widow of the last male owner. The lower Court dismissed the suit so far as it related to the properties claimed through the mother but it decreed the suit in respect of properties alienated by the widow of the last male owner. Appeal No. 260 of 1932 was filed by the plaintiff against so much of the lower Court's decree as dismissed the suit in respect of pertain properties. ...
Katneni Venkatakrishnayya and anr. Vs. Garapatti China Venkayya and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad539; 175Ind.Cas.1002; (1938)1MLJ775
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants were the defendants in O.S. No. 27 of 1932 of the District Court of West Godavari, instituted by two minors through their mother, acting as their next friend. A decree was passed against them and this was subsequently transferred to the respondent by the mother, acting as the guardian of the property of the minors. The respondent then applied to be brought on the record in the place of the decree-holders and to be allowed to execute the decree. The learned District Judge allowed the application, and the appeal is from that order. The question for decision is whether a guardian of the property of a minor can transfer a decree passed in favour of the minor without first obtaining the sanction of the Court. In allowing the application the learned Judge relied on the decision in Govindarajulu Naidu v. Rang a Rao (1920) 40 M.L.J. 124. The appeal has been placed before a Full Bench as that decision was dissented from in Kancherla Kanakayya v. ...
Velappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Ramaswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ817
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gobichettipalayam, dated 31st March, 1937, declaring under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that one Kamandi is the only pujari of the temple of Mariamman in Nallikavandanur who has the right to perform puja in that temple and forbidding all interference, with the exercise of that right. The only ground of attack on the order is that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction or, in other words, that the dispute about the right to worship as pujari in the temple is not a dispute which comes within the provisions of Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would appear that there was a dispute also about the management of the temple itself, but the learned Magistrate says that that was not the dispute regarding which he took action though the right of appointment as pujari is vested in the person or persons in whom the management vests. The simple point therefore that arise...
Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. A. Venkata Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad602; (1938)1MLJ873
Pandrang Row, J.1. The simple point raised in this petition is whether the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur was bound as a matter of law under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, to stay the trial of O.S. No. 22 of 1937 pending on his file in view of the earlier institution of another suit (O.S. No. 280 of 1936) on the file of the District Munsif of Tirupur.2. The only point argued before me is that it is not necessary for the application of Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, that the Court in which the earlier suit was instituted should be competent to decide the subsequent suit which is to be stayed. On this point, I am of opinion that the weight of authority is against the contention of the petitioner. Even a grammatical construction of Section 10, Civil Procedure Code, as it stands, really does not support this view. The words 'relief claimed' should, in my opinion, apply to the suit which is to be stayed and not to the earlier suit. This is the construction adopted in several decisions...
D. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. T.S.P.L.P. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad947; (1938)2MLJ585
Horwill, J.1. The appellant trust, through a former trustee, executed a mortgage bond in favour of the two insolvents and their brother. On this bond a mortgage suit was brought and a decree obtained against the plaint institution. In O.S. No. 8 of 1924 on the file of the Sub-Court, Negapatam, the plaintiff, another trustee, brought a suit to have it declared that the mortgage decree was not binding on the plaint trust and for refund of a certain amount which had been paid under the decree obtained by the insolvents and their brother. He was successful in the trial Court; but the' insolvents and their brother, who were defendants 1 to 3 in the suit, filed a joint appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 8 of 1924. During the pendency of the appeal the first and second defendants became insolvents and died before the appeal came on for hearing. The appellate Court, apparently in ignorance of the fact that defendants 1 and 2 had become insolvents, declared that the appeal of defendants 1 an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »