Chennai Court August 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.
A.E. Venkatarama Chettiar and anr. Vs. Marudachala Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad795
Curgenven, J.1. The facts of this case have been sufficiently set out by the learned District Munsif of Udamalpet. There was a preliminary decree passed in a mortgage suit and an application I. A. No. 777 of 1925, was put in by the decree-holder for a final decree. Upon this the Court ordered notice to the judgment-debtor. On several occasions notices were issued and a number of them served, but eventually when an order was passed for substituted service to be applied for against defendant 2 and for a guardian to be proposed for defendant l's legal representative the decree-holder defaulted and the application was dismissed. The date of the dismissal was 15th September 1926 and on 3rd August 1928 the application out of which this petition arose, I. A. No. 686 of 1928, was filed praying the Court to revoke the previous order on the ground that it was invalid. The learned District Munsif after considering certain rulings has come to the conclusion that there is no necessity to issue noti...
(Talluri) Peda Manikyam Vs. Vantabattina Periagadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad148
Madhavan Nair, J.1. One Jakkarayya, an Indian Christian, died leaving some properties by a 'will'. In O.S. No. 457 of 1924 the plaintiff, one of his sons, instituted a suit for a part of the properties covered by the 'will'alleging amongst other things that the properties were owned by himself and by defendant 1, his brother, that their father had no right to the properties and that he cannot dispose of them by a will. Ha contended that defendants 2 to 7 trespassed upon the properties. Defendant 1 supported the case of the plaintiff. Defendant 7 in the suit is the son of a deceased daughter of Jakkarayya. Ha contended that the properties were the self-acquisition of Jakkarayya, that they were bequeathed by Jakkarayya under a 'will'to the plaintiff, defendant 1 and himself in equal shares and that the suit properties fell to his share under a partition. The plaintiff's contentions were rejected by the lower Courts and his suit was dismissed. No second appeal has been preferred against t...
Changat Chatu Nambiar Vs. Changat Odayothi Kunhiraman Nambiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad154
Curgenven, J.1. I think on the merits that the learned District Munsif has come to a right decision. He has found that the defendant as mortgagee is liable on the terms of the document to pay the enhanced assessment. Several cases originating in this Court have been cited with regard to the effect of such provisions in mortgage documents, but I do not think I need go further than the Privy Council decision in Abid Hussain Khan v. Kaniz Fatima A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 102, which makes it clear that in the absence of a contract to the contrary it is the mortgagee who is liable to pay any enhanced assessment. This case is noticed by Phillips, J., in Vasteva Holla v. Mahabala Rao : AIR1926Mad405 , together with two earlier cases, Krishnier v. Arappauli Iyer : (1904)14MLJ488 , and Panigatan Kanaran v. Raman Nair [1907] 17 M.L.J. 517, which were in a somewhat contrary sense. That being so, we must read the provisions of the mortgage bond in the light of the general liability which the law would cast...
K.A. Muhammad Sultan Sahib Vs. Nagoji Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad828
Curgenven, J.1. I am asked to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tiruppur refusing to review an order passed by his predecessor under Section 115, Civil P. C. The petitioner stood surety for the defendant, who was arrested before judgment, and after a decree was passed against his principal a notice was served on him on 12th February 1928 to produce the judgment-debtor on the following day, the 13th. He was unable to comply with this demand, but he himself appeared and asked for time, which was refused. The Court then reserved its order against the surety under Section 145 and on the following day directed his arrest under that provision. The order was in fact stayed, and on the 20th of the same month the surety produced the judgment-debtor. He then applied, as I have said, for a review of the order directing execution to issue against him. The learned District Munsif who has declined to grant the review has, it seems to me, taken an erroneous view of the requirements of Sectio...
Changat Chathu Nambiar Vs. Changatodayoth Kunhiraman Nambiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.337
Curgenven, J.1. I think on the merits that the learned District Munsif has come to a right decision. He has bound that the defendant as mortgagee is liable on the terms of the document to pay the enhanced assessment. Several cases originating in this Court have been cited with regard to the effect of such provisions in mortgage documents, but I do not think I need go further than the Privy Council decision in Abid Hussain Khan v. Kanie Fatima 80 Ind.Cas.1019 : 46 A. 269 : 19 L.W.703 : A.I.R.1924 P.C.102 : 10 O. & A.L.R.281 : 22 A.L.J.284 : 34 M.L.T.78 : 27 O.C. 72 : 11 O.L.J.427 : (1924) M.W.N.657 : 29 C.W.N.214 : 51L.A.157 : L.R. 5 A. (P.C.) 212 : 1 O.W.N. 33 (P.C.) which makes it clear that in the absence of a contract to the contrary it is the mortgagee who is liable to pay any enhanced assessment. This case is noticed by Phillips, J., in Vasteva Holla v. Mahabala Rao 91 Ind. Cas. 943 : A.I.R.1926 Mad.405. together with two earlier cases, Krishnier v. Arappuli Iyer 14 M.L.J.488. and...
Rajagopalaswami Naicken and ors. Vs. Palaniswami Chettiar Alias Ponnus ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ93
1. This is a suit for sale brought by the mortgagee against the mortgagor 1st defendant, and his three sons, defendants 2, 3, 4. The Lower Court decreed the suit, and after the hypotheca had been sold under the decree, the plaintiff applied for a personal decree against the 1st defendant for the balance still due under the mortgage and costs, and against defendants 2 and 3 for the amount due for costs. The Lower Court has granted a personal decree against defendants 2, 3, 4 and hence the appeal. The point taken is, that once the amount due under the mortgage, the subsequent interest and costs, have been amalgamated into one sum, and the hypotheca has been sold, it is not open to the plaintiff to assume that costs are part of the remaining balance, or to ask for a personal decree for costs as though they were still legally recoverable from the defendant as provided by Order 34, Rule 6. It is not contended that in no case can defendants who are not personal parties to the mortgage be hel...
Subramania Chettiar and anr. Vs. Sankara Velayudam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad804; (1932)62MLJ479
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a disposition by way of bequest by a Hindu of portions of the family property in favour of his deceased brother's widow for life with remainder absolutely to her daughter can be held to be ratified by his adopted son when it is found that this and other dispositions of family property were made in pursuance of an arrangement made by the adoptive father with the natural father of the boy whom he wished to adopt in consideration of the adoption and it is also found that the adopted son has ratified all the other dispositions forming part of the same arrangement and has not questioned the disposition in dispute for a period of more than twenty years after attaining majority.2. The facts are fully stated in the judgments of the District Munsif and the learned Subordinate Judge. One Veerabahu died in 1889, having a short time before his death adopted the present respondent and at the time of the adoption having made, in pursuanc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›