Chennai Court December 1932 Judgments
Olakkat Moidunni Haji Vs. Pootherri Illoth Madhavan Nair and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad876; (1933)65MLJ826
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. Both these appeals raise a common question and may be disposed of together.2. The jenmi of certain properties which were held on kanom by different tenants under different demises mortgaged the equity of redemption to the respondents by a simple mortgage for Rs. 6,000 by Ex. D, dated 9th December, 1915. The appellants are two of these tenants. The appellant in S.A. No. 1658 of 1928 had been holding under a demise, Ex. VII, dated 29th September, 1904, for Rs. 400 and the appellant in S.A. No. 1714 of 1928 under a demise, Ex. A, dated 1909, for Rs. 500, the respective properties in those cases. Subsequent to the simple mortgage of 1915, the appellant in S.A. No. 1658 of 1928 took a renewed demise Ex. VIII in 1917 for Rs. 700 on payment of a further advance of Rs. 300 and the appellant in S.A. No. 1714 of 1928 took a renewed demise Ex. IV in 1920 for Rs. 800 on payment of a further advance of Rs. 300.3. The respondents-simple-mortgagees brought a suit O.S. No. 28 o...
Tag this Judgment!Mannaluri Yegnanarayanamurthi and anr. Vs. Munnaluri Balakrishnayya an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad411; (1933)64MLJ489
Madhavan Nair, J. 1. In considering whether, while dismissing the appeal, the appellant should be made to pay the costs of the successful respondents, we have to decide the question whether the appellant is competent to prosecute this appeal. The present appellant is a mortgagee of the rights of the plaintiff in the suit. The suit having been dismissed, the plaintiff's widow filed an appeal to this Court against the decree, the plaintiff having died in the meanwhile. His widow is now dead, and the mortgagee has filed an application to this Court to be allowed to continue the appeal. Under Order 22, Rule 10(1) in other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved'. In Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandi v. Ram Lal Bhagati it was held by the Privy Council that 'where a decree for possession and mesne profits has bee...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.P.R.M.M. Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. K.S. Subbiah Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad563; (1933)65MLJ538
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This is a revision petition against an order excusing delay and continuing stay in an execution petition. The Plaintiff, the mortgagee, brought the suit against the lessee of the mortgagor and obtained a decree to recover possession and mesne profits from the defendant. The defendant appealed and asked for stay of execution in I.A. No. 211 of 1931 on which the following order was passed : - 'There will be a stay of delivery of possession. Further determination of mesne profits up to the date of judgment will continue. The stay granted is conditional on the appellant paying the kist and the full rent of Rs. 3,250 less the kist to the respondent by the end of February each year. The first payment to be by February, 1932.' The rent was not paid by February, 1932 and an extension was asked for on which the District Judge passed the following order: 'In Amanatullah v. Raghunath : AIR1930Pat279 and Pearey Lal v. Sita Ram : AIR1929All266 it is held that the Court has no j...
Tag this Judgment!Payidi Gunnam Naidu Vs. Kuna Chendri Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad839; (1933)65MLJ752
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. The petitioner filed a suit, O.S. No. 140 of 1931, on a pro-note against the counter-petitioners (defendants) who are father and son respectively, and attached before judgment their property. The order for attachment was on 18th February, 1931. On the same day the first counter-petitioner had obtained a sale deed from the defendants and he came forward with a claim petition. The District Munsif found that the execution of the sale deed was suspicious and that on the date of the attachment the defendants continued to have possession of the property. He however dismissed the claim only as regards 2/5ths of the property because the sale deed which was taken from the two defendants also purported to be executed by three other minor sons. The petitioner contended in the proceedings that these three minors were illegitimate sons. But this point was found against him. In revision it is objected that the order is wrong on the ground that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sathiavel Pillai Vs. Sivasami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad344
Walsh, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, the brother in law of the defendant, claimed that he worked in the press of the latter for about 10 months on contract at Rs. 10 a month for wages. The contract was denied, and the Court found that it was not proved. However his claim was decreed at Rs. 5 a month, in addition to the boarding which he admittedly had from the defendant.2. It is contended in revision that no alternative relief on the footing of quantum meruit having been asked for, the lower Court had no jurisdiction to grant any. I agree with that contention. Krishna Prosad Sinha v. Purnendu Narain Sinha (1912) 11 IC 820, is a much stronger case, because the service there was admitted. It was held that the plea of quantum meruit not having been raised, it could not be granted: see also Roopji & Sons v. Dyer Meanken & Co. Ltd. : AIR1930All545 . The plaintiff's own evidence shows that he entered on the work knowing nothing about it and learned it under a man employed by the defendant...
Tag this Judgment!(Marudugula) Subbarayudu Vs. Pandivi Satyanandam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad609
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff who is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition filed a suit under Section 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession of a certain part of a house on the ground that he has been forcibly dispossessed by the Official Receiver. The Court dismissed the suit holding that he had not been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law and against this he has filed this revision petition. One Marudugula Subbarayudu had two sons Venkatasubbayya and Venkataratnam. They were both adjudicated insolvents. The wife of the former is defendant 8 and the wife of the latter is defendant 9. Venkatasubbayya had two sons, the plaintiff and one Appala Raju, whose son is defendant 7. Venkataratnam's son is defendant 6. All these formed a joint Hindu family. The Official Receiver sold the properties in dispute and some other properties to the respondents who were defendants 1 to 5 an the suit. The sale was in 1926. It was obstructed by certain persons including a son-in-law, 3rd...
Tag this Judgment!Thayammal Vs. Sankaranarayana Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad836
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff sued his father, defendant 1, for partition and the point arose for decision whether a mortgage bond, Ex. 7, executed by the father on 29th July 1922 for Rs. 1,000 to defendant 6 was for valid consideration which was binding upon the son. Both the lower Courts have found that the money was actually paid but they differed with regard to the question of its binding character so far as the excess over Rs. 108-5-0 is concerned, this sum having admittedly been devoted to the discharge of prior debts. Out of the balance of Rs. 891-110 the learned District Munsif has found that a sum of rather less than Rs. 400 was spent by defendant 1 upon constructing a house, a purpose binding upon the plaintiff. He has analysed such evidence as there is with regard to the amount so spent and evidently found it very inconclusive, because ho concludes by saying that taking a very lenient view it may be that the expenses of restoration and improvement of the house together with ...
Tag this Judgment!Sothavalan Alias Irulan and ors. Vs. Rama Kone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad338; (1933)64MLJ314
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The Petitioners in this case have been convicted of rioting as punishable under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and of the substantive offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt as punishable under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. They have been sentenced in all to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment each, two months for the rioting and one month for the causing hurt. They have also each of them been fined Rs. 15 for each offence. The only point that has now. to be considered is that of whether the two separate punishments were legal.2. For the Petitioners reliance is placed upon the decision of Curgenven, J., in Kunnammal Mayan In re : (1927)53MLJ656 . In that case the learned Judge has held, though with some hesitation and while admitting that he saw a difficulty in arriving at his conclusion, that when a person is convicted both under Section 147 and Section 323, I. P. C, he could not be awarded a separate sentence for each of the offences. He has followed a decision,...
Tag this Judgment!Sarkaru Munisami Achari and ors. Vs. Chikka Veerappa Setti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad403; (1933)64MLJ345
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The decree-holder in O.S. No. 434 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsif of Madanapalle put in an execution application on 20th August, 1923, under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, for the transfer of the decree to the District Munsif's Court, Chittoor, for execution. Defendants 3 and 6 contested the application saying that the decree-was fully satisfied.2. What took place on the execution application is as follows:--An issue was framed on 6th October, 1923, 'Is the decree fully satisfied? If not, what is due?' After various adjournments the Court noted on 5th December, 1923, 'I want to examine the decree-holder. He should appear with all his account books of 1920 and onwards. Defendants also should bring their accounts. Batta in 3 days.' The decree-holder on the 5th December, 1923, put in an affidavit, Ex. C, in which he said he had not kept his day books and ledger with him and stated 'as prayed for in the petition, orders are necessary for taking out...
Tag this Judgment!Kodukulla Kamayya Bhakta (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Kodukulla China Soora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ37
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The parties are Velnadi Brahmins of the Andhra country. The 3rd defendant, the widow of one Lakshminarayana Bhakta, adopted the 2nd defendant, the son' of 1st defendant, her husband's first cousin (paternal uncle's son). The plaintiff who is another first cousin (another paternal uncle's son) of her husband brought this suit for a declaration that the adoption was invalid on two grounds (1) that his (plaintiff's) consent to the adoption which was necessary was not given, (2) that the adopted son's Upanayanam had been performed in his father's family and that such adoptions are not valid among Brahmins of this class.2. The District Munsif decided both points in favour of the plaintiff and gave him a decree. The learned Subordinate Judge decided both points, against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals.3. On both points the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is clear and complete and I entirely agree with his reasoning. It is therefor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »