Chennai Court November 1930 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.
V. Govinda Panikkar and Ors. Vs. Vilakkathala Parti's daughter Karthiy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad726; (1931)61MLJ35
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a Second Appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, preferred by some of the junior members of Nair tarwad, who sued for a declaration that an assignment of hypothecation debt, by the karnavan (2nd defendant) under the original of Ex. A in favour of the 1st defendant is not valid and binding on the tarwad.2. The Lower Appellate Court has found that Ex. A was fully supported by consideration, through there was no tarwad necessity for the assignment. The mortgage debt assigned under Ex. A was due from on eKunhunni Thampan who executed a simple mortgage-deed for Rs. 2,000 on 15th May, 1914, in favour of the 2nd defendant and his sister, 3rd defendant. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on two grounds, namely, (1) the hypothecation bond which is the subject of the assignment in question has to be classed as one in the nature of movable property; (2) it was competend for the karnavan to assign the hyp...
A.S. Gnanaprakasam Pillai Vs. F.S. Vaz
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad352; (1931)60MLJ293
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is an important one and relates to the sufficiency of a notice to quit. The plaintiff's counsel tells me that, although in the ordinary course he would have filed this suit in the City Civil Court, he has. chosen this forum anticipating that the defendant would raise the point he has now done. The terms of the lease are set forth in a writing, dated the 1st of December, 1924. It says:The landlord lets and the tenant takes the dwelling-house from the 1st of December, 1924 to the 1st of January, 1925, and thereafter unless and until the tenancy should be determined by a notice as hereinafter provided.2. The only other paragraph which is relevant reads thus:The tenancy may be determined by either party giving to the other of them subsequent to the 1st January, 1925, fifteen days' notice in writing expiring with the calendar month.3. This agreement has not been registered and the first question that arises is whether it is admissible in evidence. ...
Vellachami Chetti Vs. Arunachalam Chetti (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad325; (1931)60MLJ339
1. The insolvent in this case within the time fixed for his application for discharge applied for extension of that time. The learned District Judge refused to grant an ex- tension and annulled the adjudication. The latter part of his order, annulling the adjudication, does not appear to us to have been proper. The insolvent, though he may not have applied for discharge in so many words, had submitted himself to the Court and expressed his desire to apply for a discharge, an application which would involve the investigation and consideration of his conduct by the Court. As the learned District Judge was not prepared to extend the time, he might properly have treated the insolvent's application for time as an application for discharge or should have allowed the insolvent to make an immediate application for discharge, if that was thought formally necessary. The penalty of annulment under Section 43 of the Act does not appear to be intended for insolvents who come before the Court in tim...
Arumilli Viramma Vs. Arumilli Seshamma Alias Chittemma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad343; (1931)60MLJ264
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the 1st respondent, the grandmother of one Ramarayudu, a minor, applied to the Lower Court for a limited grant to her of probate of a will asserting that a man named Krishnamurthi, her son, had died and that previous to his death he had made a will under the provisions of which she herself was a legatee and some of the property fell to her grandson a minor. This alleged will effectively shut out the alleged testator's widow the counter-petitioner on the petition in the Lower Court. The 1st respondent accordingly applied to have the will probated and eventually recognising that she was not entitled to ask for probate changed the nature of her application and asked instead to have granted to her letters of administration. This application was refused; and on the 13th November last the learned District Judge passed the following interim order:There is no ground to reject the application. This is really governed by Section 234. The alle...
V. Adinarayana Chetty Vs. Kopparam Narasimha Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad471; (1931)60MLJ167
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. Two worshippers of the Sri Kanyakaparameswari Temple in Wallajah filed a suit O.S. No. 14 of 1913 in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Vellore, praying for the settlement of a scheme for the proper management of the temple and its properties, for the appointment of a lit and proper person as the trustee, for an account by the 1st defendant of his management of the trust properties belonging to the temple, for a direction to the 2nd defendant to hand over the jewels belonging' to the temple to the trustee so appointed and for a direction to the 3rd defendant to hand over the account books relating to the temple and its properties in his possession. It was alleged in the plaint that in consequence of the irregular and improper conduct on the part of the 1st defendant and his supporters the public worship in the temple had ceased to be performed daily. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants but the suit was compromised and a co...
Vatakee Neelamana Illoth Iswaran Nambudiri and ors. Vs. Vatakee Neelam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad634; (1931)60MLJ467
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Defendants 6 to 9 and 13 are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff who is a junior member in a Nambudiri Illom for the recovery of a certain sum of money alleged to be due as arrears of maintenance. In deciding the matters relating to the plaintiff's claim for maintenance, it became necessary to decide whether certain properties covered by Ex. XIV should also be treated as the properties of the tarwad for the purpose of determining the proper amount of the maintenance awardable to plaintiff. There is no doubt that these properties were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant when he was a junior member of the illom and during the period of his father's term of Karnavanship. Some time after the acquisition, these properties were gifted by the 1st defendant to his sons, the present defendants 6 to 9. On the plaintiff's side it is contended that these properties, though they were purchased in the name of the 1st defendant...
C. Kannammal and ors. Vs. Kanakasabai Mudaliar Alias Madurai Muthu Mud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad629; (1931)61MLJ535
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiffs are common to the two suits out of which these appeals arise, separate defendants being sued in ejectment. The defendants pleaded the provisions of the City Tenants Protection Act and the learned City Civil Judge has accepted this plea and dismissed the suits. The plaintiffs therefore appeal.2. In each case a rental agreement was executed in 1921 for a term of five years, the lessee undertaking at the expiry of that time to deliver vacant possession to the plaintiffs. The evidence shows that the sites were used as firewood depots and the case of each defendant is that there was a building on the suit land long before the date of the rental agreements. Whether or not therefore the undertaking to deliver up the land as received by the tenant be held to amount to such a stipulation as is provided for by Section 12 of the Act as to the erection of buildings, that provision, it is contended, cannot apply to the facts of the present cases. The evidence that the...
(Chinta) Chandramma and anr. Vs. Gunna Seethan Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad542; (1931)61MLJ316
Reilly, J.1. Defendants 3 and 5 in this case were co-parceners in a joint family, defendant 3 being the elder. In 1908 defendant 3 executed a simple mortgage in favour of one Joganna for Rs. 100, the date for payment being the 6th June, 1909. In 1909 defendant 5 sued defendant 3 for partition and got a decree for a half share of their property, including a half share of the property mortgaged to Joganna. He also got a decree against defendant 3 for costs. His decree1 for costs he assigned to defendant 2, who in execution of it bought defendant 3's half share of the mortgaged property, in 1912. Afterwards defendant 5 sold the half-share which he had got by his partition decree to defendant 1. In 1914 Joganna sued for sale on his mortgage, making defendant 3 and no one else a party to that suit. He got a decree for sale, and in execution of that decree the plaintiff in the present suit eventually bought the mortgaged property in Court auction in 1924. The plaintiff in 1926 brought his pr...
Moturu Mahalakshmamma and anr. Vs. Thangirala Bala Thripura Sundaramma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad538; (1931)60MLJ478
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the daughters of the late Krishnayya, instituted the original suit for a declaration that the alienations made by his widow (3rd defendant) in favour of two sets of defendants, vis., defendants 1 & 2 on the one hand and the 6th defendant on the other, would not be binding on the reversioners after the death of the 3rd defendant. The alienees put in separate written statements supporting their alienations. There was also another question raised whether the 5th defendant was not adopted by the widow and whether the said adoption was valid. The Trial Court found against the adoption. The Trial Court also found against the validity of the alienation under Ex. VI in favour of the 6th defendant; but it found that the alienation in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under Ex. IX, dated 7th May, 1917, was valid and binding, and it accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit against defendants 1 and 2. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned Subordina...
Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. Mirthinjaya Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad456; (1931)60MLJ521
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The only question of law for decision in this Second Appeal is, whether the plaintiff's suit to set aside the alienation made by his father of 45 cents of land included in the sale-deed, Ex. C, is barred by limitation under Article 126 of the Limitation Act.2. Both the Lower Courts have found that the alienation was not supported by necessity and this finding has not been questioned before me. Article 126 of the Limitation Act provides 12 years as the period of limitation for a suit by a Hindu governed by the law of the Mitakshara to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property. The starting point of limitation is the date 'when the alienee takes, possession of the property.' The alienation was made on 26th June, 1901, and it is admitted that the alienee took possession of the property on the same date. The suit having been brought only on 16th August, 1922, that is, more than 21 years after the date of taking possession by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »