Chennai Court December 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.
S.C.T. Al. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. S.S.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad619
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers by blood, being the sons of one Subramaniam Chettiar, and first cousins by adoption, the defendant having been adopted by his senior paternal uncle, Chidambaram Chetty. Chidambaram Chetty and Subramaniam Chetty had a third brother Alagappa Chetty. Disputes arose between the two parties in regard to various matters including the division of three items of immovable property, a house and two vacant sites in the village of Pallattur. On 21st February 1925 they referred their disputes by means of muchilika, Ex. C, to three arbitrators residing in Devakotta and on 29th April the arbitrators presented their award. Under this the plaintiff was to have one of the sites (item 1) and the defendant the house and the other site (items 2 and 3). The defendant had acquired the interest of the third branch, that of Alagappa Chetty, in the property so that he held a two-thirds share to the plaintiff's one-third share. The value of the proper...
Chena Veena Chidambaram Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. Chokkalingam Naic ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad571; 131Ind.Cas.2
Vepa Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal which comes on for hearing in 1930 on account of deaths of various parties arises out of a suit filed in 1915, the plaint itself being filed on 19th August, 1914. The plaintiff got a decree in November 1915, There was an appeal and the District Judge dismissed the appeal in 1917. There was a second appeal to the High Court, No. 1801 of 1917. The High Court reversed the decree and remanded the case for fresh disposal according to law. The Special Deputy Collector passed his fresh decree in December, 1919, and the District Judge's decree was in February 1924. The suit was filed by a Nattukotti Chettiar to recover rent in respect of the suit land. He claims the rent at the normal rate which lands of similar quality would be liable to pay. But the defendant resists this claim on account of certain prior transactions and he says he is liable to pay rent only at the rate of Rs. 6 per chei. For the purpose of understanding the defendant's plea we have now...
Sangiliya Pillai Vs. P.C. Muthti Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1930
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ516
1. In this case the petition in question, E.P. No. 535 of 1924, was out of time unless the bar of limitation was saved by a previous petition presented on 6th January, 1922. But that petition was neither signed nor verified by the decree-holder, though it was signed by his vakil. The vakil, as he signed above the words of verification, did not profess to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and the District Munsif was obviously not satisfied that he was so acquainted, as he returned the petition for amendment by signature. It was not re-presented until two years and seven months later, when it was produced after signature by the decree-holder with E.P. No. 535 of 1924. We are asked by the decree-holder to hold that the petition of January, 1922, was an application in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, although it was unsigned and unverified. In our opinion the omission of the decree-holder to sign this petition cannot be regarded as an uni...
Edupuganti Buchayya and anr. Vs. Edupuganti Sriramamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad603
1. So far as the amount covered by this execution petition is concerned, the question whether payment should be in money or kind is res judicata by reason of the order in E.P. No. 32 of 1928.2. For the judgment-debtors Mr. Lakshmanna contends that the decree, so far as it creates a charge, is not executable but can only be the basis of a further suit for sale. That is against the decision in Sowbagia Ammal v. Manicka Mudaliar [1917] 42 I.C. 975, where the decree was in similar terms to that in this suit: see also Muttia v. Veerammal [1887] 10 Mad. 283 and Minakshi v. Chinnappa [1901] 24 Mad. 689 Mr. Lakshmanna has a further contention that, even if the charge can be executed by sale without a fresh suit, the land charged must first be attached. No authority for that proposition can be cited and to require attachment of the property to be sold is inconsistent with the sale in execution' of property mortgaged or charged. The mention of attachment in the head note to the report of Soubagi...
(Kammara) Chinna Nagiah and anr. Vs. Yerraguntla Pullayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad610
Reilly, J.1. In this case the suit was instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Proddatur. The District Munsif found that it was a suit exclusively within the jurisdiction of the revenue Court and dismissed it. On appeal the District Judge of Cuddapah agreed with the District Munsif on the question of jurisdiction but altered the decree of dismissal into an order for the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction. The present appeal is against that order.2. The plaintiffs and defendant 3 are brothers, and defendant 4 is their uncle. In 1925 they executed a sale deed in respect of the land concerned in favour of defendant 1, and it is admitted that defendant 1 is in possession of the land. The prayers in the plaint were for the cancellation of the sale deed and for the recovery of possession from defendants 1 and 2 or for the recovery of two-thirds of the land by the plaintiffs. In the plaint the plaintiffs stated that they owned th...
Abdul Majid Saib (Died) and ors. Vs. Ramiza Bibi Sahiba (Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad468
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The parties to this second appeal are Mahomedans. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs to set aside an alienation of property made by their mother, defendant 1, during their minority. They also sued for partition of the property, 7/8ths going to themselves and l/8th to their mother. The alienation is evidenced by Ex. 6 and the consideration, for it was Rs. 1430. The alienee, defendant 2, contended that she paid the full consideration for Ex. 5, that the money was utilized to pay off the plaintiffs' deceased father's debts binding on the estate and that she also effected improvements on the property from the date of her purchase. The lower Courts held that the alienation was invalid ' as it was made by the mother of Mahomedan minors' and gave a decree to the plaintiffs for 7/8th share of the properties but the recovery of the share was made conditional on the plaintiff's depositing in Cour...
(Kintali) Chandramani Prushti Vs. Jambeswara Rayagaru and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Mad550
Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from a decree of the learned District Judge of Ganjam dismissing his suit brought on six simple mortgages marked A, A-l, A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5, executed by defendant 1 to him between September,1909 and July 1911 for a total sum of Rs. 2,000. Defendant 2 (respondent 2), the principal contesting defendant, is the* minor of defendant 1. The other defendants, of whom defendant 3 is a divided cousin by adoption of defendant 1, and defendants 4 to 9 are persons holding under defendant 3 were made pro forma: defendants. A number of formal defences were raised which were all found in favour of the plaintiff. The substantial defence on the merits was that the mortgages sued on were sham transactions made without consideration with the object of defeating any claims which defendant 3 might make to the property or the income on the basis of his adoption which defendant 1 was then denying. On this the learned Judge found in favour of the defence and hence dism...
Abdul Majid Said (Died) and ors. Vs. Ramiza Bivi Sahiba (Died) and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: 131Ind.Cas.153
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The parties to this second appeal are Muhammadans. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs to set aside an alienation of property made by their mother, the 1st defendant during their minority. They also sued for partition of the property, 7/8 going to themselves and 1/8 to their mother. The alienation is evidenced by Ex. VI and the consideration for it was Rs, 1,430. The alienee, the 2nd defendant, contended that she paid the full consideration for Ex. VI, that the money was utilised to pay off the plaintiffs' deceased father's debts binding on the estate and that she also effected improvements on the property from the date of her purchase. The lower Courts held that the alienation was invalid 'as it was made by the mother of Muhammadan minors' and gave a decree to the plaintiffs for 7/8 share of the properties but the recovery of the share was made conditional on the plaintiffs depositing i...
Poovanalingam Servai Vs. Veerayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1930
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ399
1. Assuming that the circumstances of the payment of Rs. 140 out of the purchase-money by defendant 1 for defendant 2, which are not fully disclosed by the record before us, are not those in which defendant 1 could be subrogated to any vendor's charge, this being a suit for partition, even without any charge the equity arising in defendant 1's favour from his payment for defendant 2 can properly be enforced by the Court--see Swan v. Swan (1820) 8 Price 518 : 146 E.R. 1281 and Leigh v. Dickeson (1884) 15 Q.B.D. 60. The plaintiff is a transferee from defendant 2 and is found to have had notice of this payment of Rs. 140 by defendant 1. 2. We see no sufficient reason to differ from the learned Judge's decision except that there does not appear to us to be any reason for allowing interest at a higher rate than 6 pen cent. The interest allowed on the Rs. 140 in defendant 1's favour from 5th May, 1914 to 22nd July, 1918, will be reduced to that rate, amounting to Rs. 35-3-0.3. In other respe...
Poova Nalingam Servai Vs. Veerayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1932Mad97
1. Assuming that the circumstances of the payment of Rs. 140 out of the purchase money by defendant 1 for defendant 2, which are not fully disclosed by the record before us, are not these in which defendant 1 could be subrogated to any vendor's charge, this being a suit for partition, even without any charge the equity arising in defendant 1's favour from his payment for defendant 2 can properly be enforced by the Court: cf. Swan v. Swan [1819] 8 Price 518 and Leigh v. Dickeson [1885] 15 Q.B.D. 60. The plaintiff is a transferee from defendant 2 and is found to have had notice of this payment of Rs. 140 by defendant 1.2. We see no sufficient reason to differ from the learned Judge's decision except that there does not appear to us to be any reason for allowing interest at a higher rate than 6 per cent. The interest allowed on the Rs. 140 in defendant 1's favour from 5th May 1914 to 22nd July 1918 will be reduced to that rate, amounting to Rs. 35-3-0. In other respects the appeal is dism...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »