Chennai Court April 1931 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.
Jagannatha Mudali and ors. Vs. P.T. Chinnaswami Chetti (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad39; 136Ind.Cas.36; (1931)61MLJ878
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question regarding the construction of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act.2. The 8th defendant is the wife of one Kuppathai Mudaili and defendants 3 and 4 are her sons. The plaintiff disputes their legitimacy alleging that the 8th defendant was living in adultery. The point to be decided is, whether defendants 3 and 4 are the legitimate sons of Kuppathai. The findings of fact, which, this being a second appeal, I must accept, are that Kuppathai married the 8th defendant about 1876, but discarded her in 1881 owing to some suspicion about her chastity, that he then married a second wife and lived at a place called Govindanpadi, whereas the 8th defendant left for Kilachur, a village within two miles of that place. There she was residing and the Subordinate judge thinks that she was having immoral relations with some person. The 3rd defendant was born in 1891 and the 4th in 1898. It is not found that Kuppathai did not have opportunities of ac...
Chitturu Jagannadham Vs. Bura Pydayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad782; (1931)61MLJ884
Jackson, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of property described in two schedules A and B.2. The appeal is only concerned with the B schedule property, identified as plots B-2 and B-3 by the District Munsif, an identification which the Subordinate Judge may be taken to accept. 3. On the findings of fact the plaintiff must fail as regards these two plots, unless he can show that defendants 5 and 9 and their legal representatives 3, 6 to 12 are estopped from defending the suit, because in the previous proceeding they put in a claim under Order 21, rule 58 and upon its rejection did not bring a suit within the prescribed year. Both Lower Courts have held that there can be no estoppel because the order rejecting the claim was passed after the property had been knocked down in Court-auction, and at that point for disposing of claims under Order 21, Rule 58 the Court was functus offlcio.4. The order runs:The properties attached are sold to-day. This petition is put in too late, ...
Sree Rajah Vasi Reddi Srichandra Mouleswara Prasada Bahadur, Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad125; (1931)61MLJ692
ORDERRamesam, J.1. Of the above petitions C.M.Ps. Nos. 1338 and 1339 of 1929 are applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against our judgments and decrees in A.S. Nos. 244 and 245 of 1922, respectively. C.M.P. No. 1340 of 1929 is an application under Order 45, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code for a consolidation of the other petitions for purposes of pecuniary valuation and hearing. It is convenient to take up the third petition in the first instance, as the disposal of the other two petitions depends upon the disposal of this to a certain extent. Under Order 45, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code we have power to consolidate the two suits for purposes of valuation, if they are decided by the same judgment. In the High Court they are undoubtedly decided by the same judgment, but it is objected by the learned Government Pleader that they were not decided by the same judgment in the Lower Court and therefore Order 45, Rule 4 does not apply. But in the first place I think ...
V. Alagarsami Naidu Vs. Kathia Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad799
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by a mortgagee to recover an amount of Rs. 60 due on the mortgage Ex A dated 19th December 1921 executed by defendants 1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 6 was impleaded as a subsequent purchaser of the suit hypotheca under Ex. 2 dated 27th November 1924. In his written statement defendant 6 does not merely rely on he subsequent sale deed but upon an earlier transaction. He says in his written statement that the whole site on which the suit house and other houses are suit was part of the survey No. 13 belonging to him. Then he says:In the said Re-survey No. 13 this defendant has built a big bandy stand (vandipettai) and provided it with all conviences for stay of bandies going to and fro on the highway. The said pettai and the shops, houses vacant space etc., round it absolutely belong to this defendant. For the shake of safety and protection to the said pettai, this defendant gave permission to people to build houses ther...
Ganugola Mallayya Vs. Gudimetla Bapi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ39
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question I have to decide is, whether a daughter of a Hindu succeeding to his property can alienate it for raising money to perform her son's marriage, her husband (i.e., the boy's father) being too poor to meet the expenses.2. The facts may be shortly stated. One Pattenna died leaving his widow Atchamma and his daughter Saramma. The property first devolved upon Atchamma and on her death on Saramma, On the 19th of March, 1905, she granted a mortgage, Ex. XIV, in favour of one Samaldas. The deed of mortgage was executed not only by Saramma but by her husband Bhadriah and her son Veerachari. Samaldas filed Suit No. 671 of 1906 to enforce his mortgage, impleading to his action as defendants, (1) his mortgagors, (2) Surayya, brother of Veerachari, and (3) the sons of one Kanchiah, the deceased brother of the last mentioned person. A decree was passed against the mortgagors alone (i.e., Saramma, Bhadriah and Veerachari) and the suit was dismissed as against the ot...
M.M.P. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. A.S.P.L.V.R. Ramaswami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad712; (1931)61MLJ680
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta in O.S. No. 97 of 1927 in regard to the Court-fee payable upon the suit.2. The plaintiff sets forth that his mother's brothers and his father's sister's husband managed moneys for him in the capacity of trustees. There are three separate deposits amounting to Rs. 1,38,778-10-3. A demand for the aggregate amount was made on 29th March, 1927, which is given as the date when the cause of action arose.3. The question is whether Court-fee should be paid upon each deposit or upon the aggregate amount; or, in the terms of Section 17, Court Fees Act, whether the suit embraces distinct subjects. 4. The petitioner contends that the demand of 29th March, 1927, gathers all his claims into one cause of action, and therefore the subjects are not distinct. This would turn upon whether the demand was an essential part of the cause of action, and petitioner frankly concedes that it is not. He could have sued for an...
(Ganugalia) Mallayya Vs. (Gudimetla) Bapi Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad28
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question I have to decide is, whether a daughter of a Hindu succeeding to his property can alienate it for raising money to perform her son's marriage, her husband (i.e. the boy's father) being too poor to meet the expenses.2. The facts may be shortly stated. One Pattenna died leaving his widow Atchanna and his daughter Saratnma. The property first devolved upon Atchanna and on her death on Saramma. On 19th March 1905, she granted a mortgage, Ex. 14, in favour of one Samaldas. The dead of mortgage was executed not only by Saramma but by her husband Bhadriah and her son Veerachari. Samaldas filed Suit No. 671 of 1906 to enforce his mortgage, impleading to his action as defendants, (1) his mortgagors, (2) Surayya, brother of Veerachari, and (3) the sons of one Kanehiah, the deceased brother of the last mentioned person. A decree was passed against the mortgagors alone (i.e. Saramma, Bhadriah and Veerachari) and the suit was dismissed as against the other defend...
C.R. Subramania Aiyar Vs. Panchanada Odayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad175
Ramesam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. The suit is filed upon a mortgage bond, Ex. A, dated 31st August 1912. It was executed for Rs. 400, but the plaintiff admits that only Rs.300 out of the consideration was advanced and the other Rs. 100 was not advanced to defendant 1. The mortgage purported to be a mortgage with possession of certain properties of defendant 1, but as a matter of fact possession of the properties was not delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore claims damages in the shape of mesne profits for three years, which he claims to be Rs. 285 at the rate of Rs. 95 a year. Defendant 1 pleaded that the mortgage was not supported by consideration. Both the lower Courts found that it was supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 300. Mr. Seshagiri Sastri, the learned advocate for the respondents, repeated the argument that the document was merely nominal and was not supported by consideration. He has not filed any cross-objections but has m...
Notoboro Chowdari Mahapatro Vs. Dasari Khambayya Dora
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad751
Ramesam, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover rent under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act, by a Mustazir under the Sonno (Chinna) Khimidi Zamindar from a ryot. The plaintiff claimed a share of the produce, but the defendant contended that he is only liable to pay a fixed cash rent. Before the Deputy Collector he filed two receipts Exs. 1 and 2, one of which refers to a patta from the zamindar. The patta itself was not filed before the Deputy Collector. He decreed the suit, There was an appeal to the District Judge of Ganjam. While the appeal was pending a petition was filed for admitting the patta which was said to have been granted by the zamindar in 1905. The District Judge said that it was not likely to be of any use to the defendant and dismissed the petition. On second appeal to the High Court, S.A. No. 902 of 1906, the learned Judge observed that where the District Court rejects a document on a wrong ground the decision of the Full Bench in Vaithinatha Filia...
T. Rajaram Mehta and anr. Vs. Narayanasami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ357
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The decision in this case turns On the question what is the meaning of the expression; 'established usage' in Section 59 of the Estatesy Land Act? It runs thus:Rent shall be payable in instalments according to agreement or, in the absence of agreement, according to established usage.If the rent claimed was payable, as alleged by the plaintiff, on the last day of the fasli, the suit is within time; if, on the other hand, it was payable on the kistbandi dates as alleged by the defence, the suit is barred. In the Lower Court, it was argued, that as in the case of a valid custom, so in the case of usage, it is essential that it should be ancient. I cannot agree that the two words are synonymous; a usage need not possess the same degree of antiquity as a custom.2. It is then contended, that the word 'usage' must be understood as referring to the entire estate and the appellant relies for this position upon Hira Lal Das v. Mothura Mohun Roy Chowdhury I.L.R. (1888) 15 C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »