Chennai Court September 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.
Govindaswami Naicker and ors. Vs. K.N. Srinivasa Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad73
Varadachariar, J.1. Appeal No. 119 of 1933 : - This appeal arises out of a suit instituted for obtaining a declaration that certain transactions entered into by plaintiff 1 were void and for incidental reliefs. In the Court below, plaintiffs attacked three transactions evidenced by Exs. H, J and I. The lower Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff 1 died pending the suit and the other two plaintiffs filed this appeal against the decree of dismissal. In the appeal the attack had been confined to Exs. H and I. Plaintiff 2 died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives who were in the first instance added as respondents have since been transposed as appellants to continue the appeal along with plaintiff 3.2. Plaintiff 1 was the father and plaintiffs 2 and 3 were his sons. Starting with little or no means, plaintiff 1 seems to have earned substantial sum by working for a number of years in Rangoon and he acquired some immovable properties both in Rangoon and i...
Sree Rajah Mallapudi Venkatarayadu Garu Vs. Thathiraju Venkataramana R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad86
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a batch of 43 second appeals which arise out of suits filed by the plaintiff as the proprietor of Tyajampudi estate for the recovery of compensation for the use of water taken from a channel called Kurukuru Yeti Kalwa by the defendants who are tenants in occupation of lands in the village of Ammepalli Agraharam. The said Agraharam is owned by the deities of Pattisem. The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals lie in a narrow compass. The villages of Tyajampudi and Kurukuru, which adjoin each other, belong to the plaintiff. The village of Ammepalli adjoins the village of Kurukuru on the east. There is a tank by the name of Ava tank in Tyajampudi and from it there runs a channel which is called Kurukuru Yeti Kalwa. The water is laid down into the channel from the Ava tank by means of sluices. There are two dams erected during the course of the channel in Kurukuru, one at the point marked A and the other at the point marked B in the plan Ex. W-37...
Sivagami Ammal and ors. Vs. Muthu Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ111
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. Section 10 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) provides that a Court taking cognisance of an offence under that Act should either itself make an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or direct a Magistrate of the First Class Subordinate to it to make such enquiry and the transfer of the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for disposal according to law without any such inquiry is illegal. Vide Mangal Ram v. Kalu I.L.R.(1930) 12 Lah. 383 and The Crown v. Chand Mal I.L.R.(1933) 15 Lah. 383. The complaint is therefore transferred back to the file of the District Magistrate of Tinnevelly for disposal according to law....
A. Vijiaraghavalu Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. R.M.A.R. Rm. Arunachalam C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad165; (1939)1MLJ582
Varadachariar, J.1. The original appellant sued for the recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due under a mortgage deed Ex. A, executed by the first defendant in favour of one Narayana Chettiar on 14th December, 1914. Narayana Chettiar became insolvent in 1924. The Official Receiver in whom the assets of Narayana Chettiar vested purported to sell by auction several items of the insolvent's property including the claim under the suit mortgage and the plaintiff purchased them on 19th March, 1929. The plaintiff purchased the items thus sold for a sum of Rs. 1,010 which was paid on 19th March, 1929, itself. The sale appears to have been sanctioned by Court on 17th April, 1929, but for some reason or other a formal sale-deed was not executed till 30th April, 1930. The mortgage deed fixed a period of three years for payment and the twelve years under Article 132 of the Limitation Act would thus have expired on 14th December, 1929. The appellant was accordingly obliged to institute this su...
Nilakanta Prabhu Vs. Appu Naika and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ999
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the lower Court on an application tinder Order 34, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code. In that application, the plaintiff asked for a decree against defendants 2 to 4 and against the assets of the first defendant in the hands of these defendants. The lower Court passed a decree only against the assets of the first defendant in the hands of defendants 2 to 5 but dismissed the application as far as it asked for a decree against defendants 2 to 4. It is this latter portion of the order that is complained of in the appeal.2. Defendants 2 to 4 are the grandsons of the first defendant by a predeceased son. That son had executed a mortgage in favour of a third person and that mortgagee obtained a decree and brought to sale the mortgaged properties. As the father of defendants 2 to 4 was dead by that time, the grandfather, who was acting as guardian of his grandsons, though he had become divided from them, executed a mortgage in favour...
Pentapati Venkataramana and ors. Vs. Pentapati Varahalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad308
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the taking of the accounts of certain dissolved partnerships. The parties belong to the Vysia community and are members of one family though belonging to different branches which had become divided many years ago. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the oldest members in the group and they are the sons of one Chinna Venkanna. Defendants 4 to 23 are the descendants of defendants 1 to 3. Chinna Venkanna had a second cousin Venkanna who had two sons Appayya and Venkanna. The plaintiff and defendants 24 and 25 are the sons of Appayya. Defendant 28 is a grandson of Venkanna, the brother of Appayya. Defendants 26, 27 and 29 are respectively the sons of defendants 24, 25 and 28. These families had admittedly been carrying on trade in Vizianagaram; for the purposes of the present suit, it is necessary to deal with three businesses which are referred to in the record as Kottu No. 1, Kottu No. 2 and Kottu No. 3. Kottu Nos. 1 and 3 seem to have been ...
Pentapathi Venkatramana and Others Vs. Pentapathi Varahalu and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1938
Reported in: [1939]7ITR560(Mad)
VARADACHARIAR, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for the taking of the accounts of certain dissolved partnerships. The parties belong to the Vysia community and are members of one family though belonging to different branches which had become divided many years ago. Defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the eldest members in the group and they are the sons of one Chinna Venkanna. Defendants 4 to 23 are the descendants of defendants 1 to 3. Chinna Venkanna had two sons Appayya and Venkanna. The plaintiff and defendants 24 and 25 are the sons of Appayya. The 28th defendant is a grandson of Venkanna, the brother of Appayya. The 26th, 27th and 29th defendants are respectively the sons of defendants 24, 25 and 28. These families had admittedly been carrying on trade in Vizianagaram; for the purpose of the present suit, it is necessary to deal with three businesses which are referred to in the record as Kottu No. 1, Kottu No. 2 and Kottu No. 3. Kottus Nos. 1 and 3 seem to have been carried on in the...
Pachigolla Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Chavala Gangaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad684; (1939)1MLJ692
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of money due under certain mortgages executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff between June 1927 and June 1928-Exs. A to D series. Defendants 3, 5 and 7 are the contesting defendants and the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants relates to the extent of the property comprised in the mortgages in plaintiff's favour.2. The plaintiff's mortgages comprise properties described in three Schedules A, B and C. Schedule A relates to certain house property with which we are not concerned. Schedule B refers to a tiled building which was being constructed on a site belonging to Gangachalam and others and purports to pass the walls, beams, door frames, etc., of the building. From the body of Ex. A it will be seen that this site had been taken on lease for a period of 12 years for the purpose of constructing a building thereon for a rice mill. Schedule C comprises an engine which is said to be known by t...
L. Venkatakrishna Naidu, Receiver Vs. R. Narayanaswami Aiyar and Five ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad172; (1938)2MLJ886
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by the 1st defendant for directions under Order V-A, Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules relating to third party procedure. The application is resisted by the plaintiff and by the respondents on whom notices under T. 1 have been served. The contention on behalf of the plaintiff is that the third party procedure is not applicable at all with reference to the persons who are now sought to be added as third parties or against whom notices have been served. The objection on behalf of third parties is also similar except that, in addition to the above common contention, each raises a contention peculiar to himself. Though the application has been taken for giving directions against three respondents, Mr. Seshagiri Sastri on behalf of the 1st defendant has confined his application to T. Section Rajarama Sastri alone and did not press it as against the others. No directions need therefore be given in regard to them and the application must be dismi...
G.V.C. Babu Naidu Vs. Municipal Council
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad177; (1938)2MLJ1035
Wadsworth, J.1. The question in this case is whether the plaintiff who owns an arrack distillery at Bellary can be said to have transacted business at Adoni, where he keeps a depot for distribution of his liquor, and incurred liability to pay profession-tax to the Adoni Municipality. The facts are well settled. The plaintiff is a licensed distiller. By the terms of his licence he manufactures liquor for distribution at certain specified depots at a price fixed by the Excise Department on a calculation of costs of production plus a reasonable profit. The depot at Adoni exists only to supply arrack for cash to licensed vendors. The depot-keeper has no authority to supply on credit. He issues liquor in return for cash which he has to deposit in the treasury subject to certain authorised deductions for standing expenses. He keeps no account except a stock book and the general control of the business apart from the daily sales is entirely exercised in Bellary. It is also established that in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »