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.
Thota Chenna Kesavulu, Minor, by Mother and Guardian Butchi Venkamma a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad862; (1933)65MLJ755
Curgenven, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is presented against an order of the District Munsif of Tenali confirming an award passed in O.S. No. 450 of 1927 on his file dismissing the objections of the petitioners, who are defendants 4, 6, 7 and 8, and making the award a decree of the Court. The plaint stated that one Thota Sitaramayya had seven sons, of whom the four eldest were respectively the 1st defendant, plaintiff and the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The 3rd defendant died pending suit. The remaining three sons had died at earlier dates, Kotayya, the 5th son, leaving the 4th defendant, a minor, Sriramulu, the 6th son, leaving three minor children, defendants 5 to 7, and Raghavalu, the 7th and last son, leaving a widow, the 8th defendant. In 1912 Sitaramayya, according to the plaint, made an incomplete or provisional partition. The property we are concerned with consisted of land and outstandings. Of the land he allotted about 20 acres to each of his sons, reserving a small amount o...
T.K.M. Alagappa Chetty Vs. Saminathan Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad367
Walsh, J.1. This is a suit for ejectment and to recover possession of landwhich measures about 2 acres and 16 cents. It is admittedly a raiyati land held on patta in an estate i.e. the Sivaganga Estate. It was objected that the plaint was under-valued: so the Court had to determine the market value of the property. The learned Subordinate Judge valued it on the value of the land as a building site on the hypothetical assumption that the landlord would for some nazzar, for which the Court deducted Rs. 20, be willing to allow it to be so used as a building site.2. It is objected that it was not open to the Court to value property on such at basis. Reading Sections 11 and 151, Estates Land Act, it is clear that the land cannot be used for building purposes without the consent of the landlord: Ramanadhan v. Zamindar of Ramnad (l893) 16 Mad 407 and Orr. v. Mrithyunjaya Gurukkal (1909) 24 Mad 65 have been quoted. It is not argued for the respondent that the method by which the lower Court as...
Thangavelu and anr. Vs. Nachu Narayana Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad352
Curgenven, J.1. The suit was brought by two minor plaintiffs to set aside a, sale-deed executed by their mother to defendant 1. The consideration for the sale, which was of a piece of land, was Rs. 600 of which Rs. 400 is now admitted to be binding upon the minors, both the Courts having found that it was in discharge of a debt incurred by the father. The remaining Rs. 200, it is said, was expended upon purchasing another piece of land for the minors. It is unnecessary here to go into the question whether a guardian has ordinarily a right to spend money for a purpose like this as the case, in my view, is one of those in which the sale must be held binding because the preponderance of the purchase money was for a binding purpose. That as a legal principle has been laid down now by the Privy Council in a series of cases such as Sri Krishna Das v. Nathu Ram , Suraj Bhan Singh v. Sah Chain Sukh and Gowri Shankar v. Jiwan Singh . It must always remain a question or applying this principle a...
Swaminatha Odayar, Minor, Represented by His Mother, Meenakshi Achi Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1932
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.716; (1933)65MLJ350
Reilly, J.1. This suit, as I understand it, is a suit on a promissory note and upon nothing else. The cause of action in the plaint is stated to be the promissory note, Ex. B. The fact that earlier in the plaint some of the previous history is recited does not affect, so far as I can see, the basis of the suit as brought by the Plaintiff. The opening words of the learned Subordinate Judge's judgment make it quite clear that he understood this to be a suit upon the promissory note, and that is shown also by the form of the only issue in the suit:Is the plaint promissory note true, supported by consideration and binding on defendants 2 to 82. Ex. B is a promissory note payable to order, dated the 27th of November, 1923, and executed by Defendant 1 for himself and as guardian of Defendant 2 in renewal of a previous note, Ex. A, dated the 13th of November, 1921, by the same parties. In Ex. A it is stated that the purpose for which the debt is incurred is 'family and litigation expenses'. T...
Palani Chetty Vs. A.R.S.V. Sevugan Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad395; (1933)64MLJ317
Cornish, J.1. Defendant is the petitioner. He was sued on a promissory note. The plaintiff's suit was filed after the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation. He accordingly, in pursuance of Order 7, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, stated in his plaint the ground on which he claimed exemption from the law of limitation. The ground was that there had been a part payment towards principal and interest on 15th June, 1925, by the defendant 'as per Vaddichittai filed herewith'. Some months later it apparently occurred to the plaintiff or his advisers that the ground alleged in the plaint could not be relied on, and an application was made to amend the plaint by averring payments on later dates by the defendant towards interest. The application was opposed by the defendant as out of time, and the application to amend was withdrawn. As a matter of fact, the payment pleaded was found to have been made towards principal, and as the fact of payment did not appear in the handwriting of th...
Vaskuri Ayyanna Vs. Vedangi Gangayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad465
Curgenven, J.1. In connexion with proceedings for the determination of mesne profits a receiver was appointed to auction the land and the respondent in this case has executed a document in respect of the second crop, due for harvest in February 1923. The document is Ex. J and is styled a security bond. Under it the respondent undertook to raise the dalva (second) crop of 1923 and to deliver 70 bags of dalva paddy. If he failed so to deliver them, he bound himself personally for the loss which might be awarded by the Court. In pursuance of this arrangement an application was made to the Court to enforce the terms of the document and the District Munsif passed a decree for the full 70 bags at the rate of Rs. 6-4-0 per bag. In appeal by the respondent the learned Subordinate Judge found on the merits that he was prevented from raising the crop according to his undertaking and reduced the amount payable to 20 bags. This is a second appeal preferred by one of the plaintiffs in the original ...
P.K. Krishnamurthi Chettiar Vs. K.S.A.S. Sathappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad398; (1933)64MLJ523
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 3rd defendant is the appellant. The question for decision in this appeal is whether he is entitled to the right of subrogation to the extent of Rs. 1181-12-7 the balance of consideration on the first mortgage which he has paid off.2. The facts are these:- The suit property was subject to four mortgages. The first mortgage is dated 20th November, 1918. The 3rd defendant has paid off the balance of the mortgage debt, namely, Rs. 1181-12-7. The second mortgage is dated 22nd April, 1921, and the mortgagee under it is the present plaintiff. The third mortgage with which we are not concerned is dated 30th November, 1921, and the fourth mortgage, dated 18th January, 1922, is in favour of the 3rd defendant the appellant-Under this mortgage he had to pay from out of the consideration the balance of the first mortgage. He paid it on 19th January, 1922. At that time he did not know of the existence of the plaintiff's mortgage and when he came to know of it he prosecuted th...
S.K. Samsuvava Rowther and anr. Vs. Sayyad Muhammad Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad495
Curgenven, J.1. The substantial question which this second appeal raises is whether the real owner of a holding, who has not been recognized by the landholder, can upset a rent sale under a decree obtained by the landholder against the pattadar in a suit under Section 77, Madras Estates Land Act. I think it is perfectly clear that the learned Subordinate Judge is right in answering that question in the negative. The whole policy of the Act is to enable the landholder to deal with the registered holder or pattadar of a holding, where such exists, to the exclusion of other persons interested in the holding who as such do not hold a recognizable position under the Act. This is the principle which has been embodied in Section 146 of the Act which enables a transferee to obtain recognition from the landholder. Unless he obtains such recognition the landholder is at liberty to deal with the transferring pattadar, i.e., as though the transfer had not taken place. It must follow, I think, a fo...
Hariharan Pattar Vs. Pachuveettial Narayana Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad482; 145Ind.Cas.174
Walsh, J.1. The appellant before me is the decree-holder. The decree-holder was the first mortgagee and defendants 1 to 15, members of a joint Hindu family, were the mortgagors. Defendant 16 who is the respondent in this appeal, was impleaded as claiming to be a puisne mortgagee in possession. He put in a written statement, but remained ex parte and his mortgage was not recognized by that decree. The decree-holder obtained his final decree on 12th July 1924 and on 26th November 1925, applied for sale of the property in pursuance of the final decree. The sale was not made subject to respondent's mortgage. Defendant 15 with a view to delaying the execution went on filing various applications, but they were dismissed. The sale was held on 23rd June 1926 and the property was purchased by the decree-holder, the appellant. After the sale, defendant 16 filed E.A. No. 797 of 1926 to have it set aside. The hearing of the petition was adjourned several times, one of the reasons being the petitio...
(Valluri) Suryaprakasa Rao Vs. Bhamidipati Venkata Dikshitalu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad844
Walsh, J.1. The respondent in this second appeal had filed a suit for specific performance against three defendants with regard to the execution to him of a sale-deed. A compromise decree was passed. The main terms of the decree were that defendants 1 and 3 should execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff, and the said document be filed for registration on 30th May 1917, at the expense of the defendants, who should get it registered, that the plaintiff do pay to the defendants Rupees 4,570-8-0 settled to be paid before the Registrar at the time of registration that the defendants do receive the said sum, that a certain kadapa should be cancelled, and the registered sale-deeds executed in favour of the husband of defendant 1, and that this kadapa and certain other documents should be handed over to the plaintiff, that as defendant 2 did not join with defendants 1 and 3 in the execution of this document and had become ex parts, and an ex parte decree had been passed against him, in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›