Chennai Court December 1932 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.
(Kodukulla) Kamayya Bhuktah and anr. Vs. (Kodukulla) China Sooranna an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1934Mad48
Pandalai, J.1. The parties are Velnadi Brahmins of the Andhra Country. Defendant 3, the widow of one Lakshmi-narayana Bhakta, adopted defendant 2, the son of defendant 1, her husband's first cousin (paternal uncle's son). The plaintiff who is another first cousin (another paternal uncle's son) of har husband brought this suit for a declaration that the adoption was invalid on two grounds: (1) that the 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 plaintiff and gave him a decree. The learned Subordinate Judge decided both points against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals. On both points the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is clear and complete and I entirely agree with his reasoning. It is therefore not necessary to elaborate t...
Thirupathi Ayyangar Vs. Yegnammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad568
Pandalai, J.1. The legal representative of a deceased judgment-debtor whose plea of limitation against the execution of the decree by the legal representative of the decree-holder has been rejected by both the lower Courts urges the same plea in this second appeal. The dates are as follows:28th July 1921.-Decree for money in favour of plaintiff against defendant 1.In 1922. Both the plaintiff and defendant 1 died on dates not known.19th July 1923.-E.P. No. 400 of 1923 by the widow of decree-holder as legal representative of decree-holder praying to add the name of the appellant as legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor and praying for execution against him. The petitioner (respondent) was recorded as the legal representative of the decree-holder, but as the appellant could not be served though three notices were taken out, the petition was not pressed and eventually dismissed on 26th November 1923.17th July 1926.-Another petition for execution by respondent against appella...
Ramasami Nayakar and ors. Vs. Venkatasami Naicker, a Creditor on Behal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad653; (1933)65MLJ298
Burn, J.1. The Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin dismissed an application by the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly to set aside an alienation under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In appeal, the District Judge of Tinnevelly reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and declared the alienation void as against the Official Receiver under both Sections 53 and 54 of the Act.2. No second appeal lies in such a case vide Alagiri Subba Naick v. The Official Receiver, Tinnevelly I.L.R. (1931) 54 Mad. 989 : 61 M.L.J. 820 and therefore the C.M.S.A. No. 60 of 1929 must be dismissed.3. Civil Revision Petition No. 591 of 1929 is said to be based upon the same ground as C.M.S.A. No. 60 of 1929 though it is obvious that the considerations which arise in revision are not the same as those which arise in a second appeal. In revision under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act it is only necessary to ascertain whether the decision of the learned District Judge is in accordance ...
Rajah Bahadur Dhanarajagerji Vs. Rajah Panuganti Parthasaradhy Rayanim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ263
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. C.M.A. No. 362 of 1929. This appeal is filed by the 4th defendant against the order, dated the 26th of August, 1929, of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore fixing the amount of mesne profits made in pursuance of the order of His Majesty, dated the 25th June, 1924. The order in question was made on the Execution Petition No. 63 of 1924 filed By the plaintiffs, and the facts which led to the filing of that petition may be shortly stated.2. As a result of a certain transaction between the late Rajah of Kalahasti and the 1st defendant (after whose death the 4th defendant, his son, was brought on the record as his representative) the suit properties passed to the latter and the plaintiffs, who succeeded as auction-purchasers to the rights in the properties of the Rajah, filed O.S. No. 55 of 1915 (which subsequently was renumbered as No. 1 of 1917) claiming to redeem them on the' footing that the transaction was a mortgage. Alternatively the plaintiffs claimed to have the...
V.K. Kelu Achan and anr. Vs. Thandavan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad340; 147Ind.Cas.526
Walsh, J.1. The defendant in this suit was a receiver appointed by the High Court under Section 92, Civil P.C. He got a decree in O.S. No. 191 of 1921 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, Palghat, against one Andy Chettiar. The suit was against Andy Chettiar and his father, Samiyappan Chettiar, but Samiyappan Chettiar was exonerated and a decree was given against Andy Chettiar. In execution certain crops were attached. Andy's father, Samiyappan Chettiar, and his second son. Thandavan Chettiar put in a claim petition, and one Ramalinga Ayyar put in another claim petition. Both petitions were dismissed. Ramalinga Ayyar took no further action. But Samiyappan Chettiar and his son Thandavan Chettiar brought this suit to set aside the order of dismissal. The suit was resisted on the grounds; (1) that the suit is not maintainable without the sanction of the Court by which the defendant was appointed a receiver: (2) it was barred under Section 47, Civil P. C, because Samiyapp...
Ramalingam Pillai Vs. Ponnusami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad726; 145Ind.Cas.1014
Curgenven, J.1. In disposing of A.S. No. 372 of 1926 the learned Subordinate Judge in my view has confounded two entirely different issues. In para. 6 of his judgment he proposes to himself the question whether the plaintiff's claim is cognizable by a civil Court, which is the subject matter of issue 6. He then goes on to discuss what the claim amounts to and appears to be deciding the question whether the plaintiff has established a right to require the gods to be stopped at his house, which is the subject matter of issue 2, though he concludes by finding that the right claimed by the plaintiff is not cognizable by a civil Court. I must take it that he has restricted himself to a consideration of issue 6 and that he has left issue 2 undecided.2. The case upon which he seems to have relied on in his somewhat confused discussion is Krishnaswami Ayyangar v. Rangaswami Ayyangar (1909) 5 IC 76. There is no doubt that the brief passage in the judgment which is relevant upon this point concl...
Ramaswami Nayakar and ors. Vs. Venkatasami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1932
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.876
1. The Subordinate Judge of Tuttcorin dismissed an application by the Official Receiver of Tinnevelly to set aside an alienation under Section 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. In appeal the District Judge of Tinnevelly reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and declared the alienation void as against the Official Receiver under both Sections 53 and 51 of the Act.2. No Second Appeal lies in such a case (vide Alagirisubba Naik v. Official Receiver of Tinnevelly 132 Ind Cas 641 : 61 MLJ 820 : Ind. Rul. (1931) Mad. 673 : 31 LW 105 : AIR 1931 Mad. 745 : 54 M 989 and therefore the C.M.S.A. No. 60 of 1929 must be dismissed.3. Criminal Revision Petition No. 591 of 1929 is said to be based upon the same grounds as C.M.S.A. No. 60 of 1929 though it is obvious that the considerations which arise in revision are not the same as those which arise in a second appeal. In revision under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act it is only necessary to ascertain whether the decisio...
Tanneru Venkayamma Vs. Tanneru Gangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: (1933)65MLJ703
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff, the widowed daughter-in-law, against the 1st defendant, her father-in-law, and the other members of the family for a partition and separate possession of her husband's share of the properties specified in Schedules A, B, C and D of the plaint.2. The 1st defendant had married two wives. By his first wife, the 6th defendant, he had two sons Sriramulu and Punnayya. Sriramulu died in 1911. His son is the 4th defendant Punnayya died in 1923. His widow is the plaintiff. 5th defendant is the brother of the 6th defendant and brother-in-law of the 1st defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 are the children of the 1st defendant by his second wife.3. Schedule A of the plaint comprises properties gifted by the 5th defendant under Ex. A to the 1st defendant, Punnayya, the deceased husband of the plaintiff, and the 4th defendant, the grandson of the 1st defendant; B schedule comprises properties t...
isidore Fernando Vs. Thommai Antoni Michael Fernand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad544
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant in this case instituted a suit against the defendant-respondent as the assignee of a foreign judgment passed by the District Court of Colombo on a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 1,300 with interest. The suit in Ceylon was filed under the summary procedure, Chap. 52, Ceylon Ordinance No. 2 of 1889. The defendant did not appear to obtain leave to defend that suit in time, and so an ex parte decree was passed. He then appeared, asked for the matter to be re-opened and for leave to defend the suit. The Court noted as follows:Defence unsatisfactory. Leave to defend will be granted on defendant giving security in Rs. 1,300 on or before 12th January 1925.2. The security was not furnished and on 14th January 1925 the entry was: 'Mr. Sivaprakasam moves for judgment. Allowed. Decree entered.' Execution was taken out and notice served on the defendant. The plaintiff then assigned his decree to the present plaintiff-appellant, who instituted the suit under Sec...
Sree Chelikani Venkatarayanim Garu Vs. the Maharaja of Pittapuram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad427; (1933)64MLJ503
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question which arises in these Letters Patent Appeals is one under Section 26(3) of the Madras Estates Land Act which reads as follows:Except as provided by Sub-section (1) no rate of rent at which land may have been granted by a landholder shall be binding upon the person entitled to the rent after the lifetime of the landholder if such rate is lower than the lawful rate payable by the ryot before the date of the grant upon the land or upon land of similar description and with similar advantages in the neigho bourhood.2. The facts of the case have been very fully set out in the order of Madhavan Nair, J., in Second Appeals Nos. 140 to 144 of 1928 calling for a finding from the District Judge upon the question:Whether the rates now paid are lower than the lawful rates paid by these ryots on the suit holdings and, if lower, what were the rates that were paid before?3. The learned District Judge's finding is that 'the rates now paid are in fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »