Chennai Court September 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.
Govindan Asari and anr. Vs. Nagayan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad238
Curgenven, J.1. The question which arises in this second appeal is as to the effect upon a submortgagee of a decree to which he was not a party declaring that a sale to the mortgagor by the guardian of a minor is not binding upon the minor. The sale was effected under Ex. 4 on 20th March 1902 to one Suppayya Maniyagaran. In 1908 the vendee usufructuarily mortgaged the property to one Ramasami Asari and in 1911 the latter submortgaged it to defendant 1. Upon the submortgage O.S. No. 634 of 1914 was filed impleading the mortgagor and the mortgagee and a decree was obtained on 12th December 1914. The decree-holder brought the property to sale in 1922 and bought it himself. Meanwhile the minor, on attaining majority, had sued in O.S. No. 657 of 1915 to set aside the alienation. He made parties to the suit the mortgagor and the mortgagee but not the submortgagee. He obtained a decree in 1917 which directed that the sale should hold good if the defendants paid to the decree-holder a sum of R...
Vadde Venkataswami and anr. Vs. Bommaraju Venkata Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad311; (1932)63MLJ77
Reilly, J.1. The material portion of the judgment is as follows. * * * *2. It is not now disputed that all the property concerned in the suit, as has been found by the Lower Courts, was the property of Karavadi Ramaswami at the time of his death in I8601 and that after his death Mahalakshmamma had only a widow's interest in it. The sale-deed Ex. I, which I have mentioned, was dated the 7th September 1908 and was executed by Rangamma and her three sons then living, the Plaintiff, Defendant 43 and an elder brother, Venkatappayya, now dead. It was in favour of Defendant 1, who is now represented by Defendants 2 to 4 as his legal representatives and by other contesting Defendants as transferees from him. Ex. I is a registered document; but in it a small item of one cent is included which never belonged to the vendors and which it has been found was never intended by any of the parties to Ex. I to pass to the vendee. It was included only for the purpose of getting the document registered in...
Sathappa Chettiar Vs. C. Ramachandra Naidu, Editor and Publisher, tami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad26; 136Ind.Cas.311; (1931)61MLJ848
ORDERHorace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent here is the Editor and Publisher of the 'Tamil Nadu' newspaper whose place of business is in Broadway, Madras; and he is here to-day to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court or otherwise dealt with.2. The facts of the case can be stated quite briefly and they are as follows: One Sathappa Chettiar at whose instance these proceedings have been put before the Court is an accused person. He stands charged in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Coimbatore with the offence of criminal breach of trust- He is the Secretary and Banker of the Kaleswarar Mills, Ltd. and amongst other things he has two mills, vis., the Sree Krishna Ginning Factory and the Soma Vilas Ginning Factory under his management. A complaint was presented against him charging him with criminal breach of trust on the 1st September in the Court before mentioned. There were three heads of charge--so we gather from the opening of Mr...
Vadde Venkataswami and anr. Vs. Bommaraju Venkatasubbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1931
Reported in: 139Ind.Cas.404
Reilly, J.1. It is not now disputed that all the property concerned in the suit, as has been found by the lower Courts, was the property of Karavadi Ramaswami an the time of his death in 1860 and that after his death Mahalakshmamma had only a widow's interest in it. The sale deed Ex. 1, which I have mentioned, was dated 7th September, 1968, and was executed by Rangsmma and her three sons then living, the plaintiff, defendant No. 43 and an elder brother, Vankatapaya now dead. It was in favour of defendant No. 1, who is now represented by defendants No. 2 to 4 as his legal representatives and by other contesting defendants as transferees from him. Exhibit 1 is a registered document; but in it a small item of one cent is included which never belonged to the vendors and which it has been found was never intended by any of the parties to Ex. 1 to pass to the vendee. It was included only for the purpose of getting the document registered in a particular Sub-Registrar's Office, in which no sa...
G. Sirur Vs. R. Mythili Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad170; 136Ind.Cas.45; (1931)61MLJ688
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is an application by die appellant in O.S. Appeal No. 63 of 1930 to set aside the dismissal of that appeal as against the 1st respondent and to review or set aside certain interlocutory orders passed in the same appeal. The appeal was from a judgment of Waller, J., dated the 15th October, 1929, annulling the adjudication of the 2nd respondent and directing the appellant to pay the 1st respondent's costs. It was admitted on the 1st September, 1930 and on the 8th November the 1st respondent applied for a direction that the appellant should furnish security for her costs in the appeal. The application was allowed ex parte on the 19th December, no one appearing on behalf of the appellant, who was directed to give the required security within one month from that date. On the last clay of that period, the 19th January, 1931, an application was filed on behalf of the appellant (C.M.P. No. 548 of 1931) to rescind this order. That also was dismissed for default on the ...
A.R.M. Karuppan Chettiar Vs. K.L.S.V.E. Subramaniam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad188; 136Ind.Cas.318
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the appellant stood surety for the costs payable by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 67 of 1919. The suit was originally dismissed for default. On appeal it was restored and the High Court made it a condition precedent to the restoration of the suit that the plaintiff should furnish security for Rs. 1,000 for costs of the suit. The appellant deposited Rs. 1,000 as security. In the first Court a decree was given for the plaintiff. Then the appellant withdrew the amount deposited into Court. On appeal that decree was set aside. An application was made by defendant 1 to the lower Court for an order directing the appellant to bring into Court his costs of the suit on the ground that he has stood surety for costs and the lower Court made an order in terms of the application. The appeal is against this order.2. Three points have been argued before us The first point is that the appellant has not undertaken any personal liability for the costs and so Under Section 1...
Paliyankotan Kuruvan Parambath Veetil Chathu Kutti Nair Vs. Kundan App ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ852
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The petitioner brought a suit to recover rents from defendants 1 to 3 who had attorned to him under a marupat. The plaintiff is the karnavan of the tarwad. The 5th defendant is a junior member to whom the plaintiff had given a power of attorney to collect the rents. The plaintiff says that he had revoked this power of attorney on 22nd September, 1927 and that the payment of rent made by the defendants in December, 1927, to 5th defendant was consequently invalid. Two pleas were raised in defence that the defendants had mortgaged the property to D.W. 1 with instructions to pay the rent to the 5th defendant and that D.W. 1 was not aware of the cancellation. The second is that the cancellation itself was illegal. I have not considered it necessary to call on the respondents to answer the first point because on the second I think the decision is correct.2. The petitioner contends that the cancellation is valid, that if it was made before the time fixed in the power of a...
Chathu Kutti Nair Vs. Kundan Appa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad70; 136Ind.Cas.776
1. The petitioner brought a suit to recover rents from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who had attorned to him under a marupat. The plaintiff is the karnavan of the tarwad. The 6th defendant is a junior member to whom the plaintiff had given a power-of-attorney to collect the rents. The plaintiff says that he had revoked this power-of-attorney on 22nd September 1927 and that the payment of rent made by the defendants in December 1927 to 5th fefendant was consequently invalid. Two pleas were raised in defence that the defendant had mortgaged the property to D. W. No. 1 with instructions to pay the rent to the 5th defendant and that D. W. No. 1 was not aware of the cancellation. The second is that the cancellation itself was illegal. I have not considered it necessary to call on the respondents to answer the first point because on the second I think the decision is correct.2. The petitioner contends that the cancellation is valid, that if it was made before the time fixed in the power-of attorney...
Akella Suryanarayana Rao Pantulu Garu (Died) and anr. Vs. Dwarampudi B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ533
Jackson, J.1. Suit to recover Rs. 35,776-4-9 on the plea that the mortgages on the properties cited in Schedule A of the plaint executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 5 to 7, as well as the attachment by 8th defendant and Court purchases by defendants 9 and 10 are subject to the first charge created in favour of plaintiff by the family partition deed of 9th January, 1920, Ex. O.2. This family derives from one Basivireddi who died in 1915. He was a rich man and his son-in-law Venkayya, the father of the plaintiff left considerable sums in his hands, which he acknowledged by a pro-note. After his death the Estate was in the hands of a receiver who renewed the note. This is the basis of the plaintiff's claim and the reality of the debt is now disputed. Issue No. 1 as to its validity was found in the affirmative by the lower Court and that finding stands.3. The question for our determination is, whether this debt was secured in 1920 when the members of Basivireddi's family,...
Akolla Suryanarayana Rao and ors. Vs. Dwarapudi Basivireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad457
Jackson, J.1. Suit to recover Rs. 35,776-4-9 on the plea that the mortgages on the properties cited in Schedule A of the plaint executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendants 5 to 7, as well as the attachment by defendant 8 and Court purchases by defendants 9 and 10 are subject to the first charge created in favour of plaintiff by the family partition deed of 9th January 1920, Ex. O.2. This family derives from one Basivireddi, who died in 1915. He was a rich man and his son-in-law, Venkayya, the father of the plaintiff, left considerable sums in his hands, which he acknowledged by a pro-note. After his death, the estate was in the hands of a receiver who renewed the note. This is the basis of the plaintiff's claim and the reality of the debt is not disputed. Issue 1 as to its validity was found in the affirmative by the lower Court and that finding stands.3. The question for our determination is whether this debt was secured in 1920 when the members of Basivireddy's family, who...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »