Chennai Court July 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.
Nandula Jagannadham Vs. Goteti Vigneswaradu (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad117; (1931)61MLJ507
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In this appeal we have to decide whether a certain alienation made by a Hindu widow is binding on the reversioner. One Manikya Rao died on the 4th January, 1919, leaving the 1st defendant, then a minor, his widow. On the 26th September, 1920, her father, the 2nd defendant, agreed on her behalf, to sell the suit house to the 3rd defendant for Rs. 3,200. This agreement was made subject to the widow's confirmation on her attaining majority. After she became a major, in pursuance of that contract, she executed on the 16th February, 1922, a conveyance of the property in favour of the 3rd defendant. The price mentioned in the sale deed is Rs. 3,770-5-0, which, ignoring a certain small item, represents the sum mentioned in the contract (namely, Rs. 3,200) together with the interest thereon to the date of the sale. The fact was, that the vendee was put in possession of the property on the date of the agreement and he was, on that account, required, in lieu of the profits...
Viswanatha Ayyar Vs. Chimmukutti Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad115
Reilly, J.1. The predecessor of defendant 5 in this case, the janmi of the land! concerned, granted a kanam to defendants 1 and 2. They granted a sub-mortgage of that kanam to defendants 3 and 4, who assigned their right to the plaintiff. After that, on the expiry of the term of the kanam, defendant 5 sued for redemption without making the plaintiff or his assignors, defendants 3 and 4,. parties to the suit, obtained a preliminary decree for redemption and settled with the kanamdars, defendants 1 and 2, by payment out of Court. The plaintiff has brought this suit to enforce his sub-mortgage by sale of the kanam right, which had been mortgaged to his assignors. The District Munsif gave him a personal decree against his mortgagors and a decree for the sale of their possessory right in the land concerned, whatever that might be The plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge claiming a decree for sale of the kanam; but his appeal was dismissed. He then appealed to this Court, and the seco...
Gade Subbayya Vs. Raja Kandukuri Venkata Hanumantha Bhaskara Rao Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad257; 137Ind.Cas.400
Jackson, J. 1. Suit for recovery of Rs. 29,305-14-4 due on the mortgage deed Ex. A, dated 13th June 1911. The mortgage was executed by a widow, Kandukuri Raja Seshamma Garu in favour of defendant 2, while she was enjoying a life-interest in her husband's estate, and before she adopted defendant 1. Defendant 2 transferred the mortgage right to plaintiff under Ex. P. Seshamma Garu is dead and defendant 1 has become owner of the estate. 2. The transaction takes its origin from a compromise decree in this Court dated 8th January 1883, Ex. D, under which Seshamma Garu is bound to pay the mortgagee plaintiff Rs. 5,000, and interest at 10 annas per cent per mensem, for which a village stands hypothecated as security, and it is provided that if the principal is not paid within five years the plaintiff shall take possession of the village, reckon its income at Rs. 500 and hold it till the debt is paid off. 3. Issue 1 is whether this decree is valid and binding on defendant 1. There is no reason...
Rm. V. Vaithinatha Aiyar and ors. Vs. Kochi S. Vaithinatha Aiyar and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ544
Cornish, J.1. An Insolvency Petition was filed on the 27th August, 1929, against the debtors, who are the petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. In the insolvency petition one Kochi S. Vaithinatha Aiyar is named as the petitioner. In para 4 of the petition it is stated:Petitioner is the managing partner of a family firm consisting of himself and his first paternal cousins K. Vaithinatha Aiyar and Visvanatha Aiyar.2. In para 9 are set out various acts of insolvency by the respondents on dates ranging from the 11th August to 13th August, 1929, within the period of three months from the date of the filing of the petition.3. On the 16th September, K. Vaithinatha Aiyar made application under Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to be substituted for Kochi S. Vaithinatha Aiyar on the ground of Kochi's want of due diligence in proceeding with the petition; but this petition was dismissed as want of diligence had not been established.4. On the 10th October Kochi applied to have hi...
Rm. V. Vaithianatha Aiyar and ors. Vs. Kochi S. Vaithianatha Aiyar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad112
Cornish, J.1. An insolvency petition was filed on 27th August 1929 against the debtors, who are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. In the insolvency petition one Kochi S. Vaithina-thier is named as the petitioner. In para. 4 of the petition it is stated:Petitioner is the managing partner of a family firm consisting of himself and his first paternal cousins K.Vaithinathier and Vishwanathier.2. In para. 9 are set out various acts of insolvency by the respondents on dates ranging from 11th August to 13th August 1929. within the period of three months from the date of the filing of the petition.3. On 16th September, K. Vaithinathier made application Under Section 16, Provincial Insolvency Act, to be substituted for Kochi S. Vaithinathier on the ground of Kochi's want of due diligence in proceeding with the petition, but this petition was dismissed as want of diligence had not been established.4. On 10th October Kochi applied to have his partner Viswanathier added as a party t...
Kasiram Sowcar Vs. Vedachala Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.288
Curgenven, J.1. The view of the learned District Judge that the proceeding between the parties, although filed as an original suit, should more properly have been treated as a proceeding under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as the plaintiff was himself an exonerated party in the earlier suit out of which the claim arose, is unquestionably correct It is urged before me that a bar to so treating the suit, namely, as a claim petition by a party under Section 47, is that a previous claim petition had been filed by the present plaintiff and dismissed. It appears to be correct that an application of this charater was filed on the 1st May 1928 and the order of the District Munsif upon it shows that it was dismissed as belated, the observation being made at the same time that a previous order had been passed that the sale would be at the decree-holder's risk subject to any claim which the plaintiff might succeed in establishing to the property. The learned Subordinate Judge h...
In Re: Sundaram Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ915
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is an appeal by the 1st accused in a case tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly with a jury for an offence under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, in which the appellant and seven others were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The sentence on the appellant is six months and a fine of Rs. 200 and six months more in default. The facts alleged were as follows: The appellant is the accountant of the Isanam Mutt to which the Murappanad village belongs. The other accused in the Lower Court were mostly Pallars residing in the Paracheri in that village. The Mutt had engaged the Pallars to repair a breach in a channel. On the 11th August, 1930, the Pallars quarrelled about the distribution of wages between the 2nd accused in the Lower Court and the father of the prosecution 1st witness. The dispute was referred to the appellant who asked that Rs. 10 should be deposited by both parties as caution money to abide by his decision by 3 p....
The Municipal Council, Represented by Its Chairman Vs. Sangsali Vasude ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad808; (1931)61MLJ642
Reilly, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, who is the owner of three houses within the Municipality of Anantapur, sued the Chairman of the Anantapur Municipal Council, defendant 1, and the Municipal Council, defendant 2, for a declaration that the house-tax levied by the Municipal Council on his three houses for the year 1928-29 was illegal and that he was not liable to pay it, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from collecting the tax from him. It happened that in respect of the tax to which he objected not only had the rate of the tax been increased by the Municipal Council, but the assessment of his property, on which the rate was calculated, had also been increased in the course of a periodical revision of assessment under the District Municipalities Act. The District Munsif dismissed the suit as against the Chairman, 1st defendant, but made the declaration and injunction prayed for against 2nd defendant. The Municipal Council then appealed to the District Cour...
(Polavarapu) Ankayya Vs. (Gaddamanugu) Subhadrayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad223
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These are two revision petitions filed by defendant 2 in O. S. No. 446 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif of Bezwada. O. S. No. 446 of 1925 instituted by the plaintiff Subhadrayya was allowed on 7th April to be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh suit, but he was directed to pay costs of defendant 2 (the petitioner before me) on or before 7th May 1926.2. The material portion of the order is as follows:the plaintiff will pay defendant 2's costs Rupees 56-4-0 incurred till now within one month from this date and that in default the suit will stand dismissed with costs.3. The costs were as a matter of fact paid, on 8th May 1926 into Court. It will be noticed that it was just one day too late having regard to the time mentioned in the decree. The plaintiff therefore filed an application in the District Munsif's Court purporting to be under Section 148 Civil P.C., asking the Court to extend the time mentioned in the decree for payment of defendant 2'...
Kandaswami Chettiar Vs. A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad360; 145Ind.Cas.531
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Kulandavelu Chettiar defendant in S.C. Suit No. 1319 of 1922: on the file of the Sub-Court, Madura, was arrested in execution of that decree. Then the present petitioner Kandasami Chettiar executed a surety bond the construction of which is in dispute before me. The surety bond is dated 24th September 1923 and the relevant portion is as follows:The said Kulandavelu Chettiar has been brought under arrest before the Court. The said Kulandavelu Chettiar intends to present an insolvency petition within one month from this date. I have deposited the decrees amount in Court as security for the due presentation of the insolvency petition, and, until its disposal, I shall hereby undertake to produce the said Kulandavelu Chettiar either before this Court or before the Official Receiver until he presents the insolvency petition and is adjudicated and discharged. If the said Kulandavelu Chettiar fails to present the insolvency petition within one month from this date, or...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »