Chennai Court March 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.
Balgis Beevi Ammal Vs. Hathija Beevi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad353; 147Ind.Cas.300
Pandalai, J.1. In deciding that defendant 1 should pay court-fees on the four sums mentioned in paras. 6 to 9 and the postscript of his order, the learned Judge would have been well advised in not relying so much on check slips issued by the court-fee examiner, but on some provision of law which requires the payment of the court-fee. The learned Government Pleader is quite rightly unable to support the order as it is quite erroneous. The defendant is not putting forward any counter-claim, if such a proceeding is known to the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, but making various claims as to items in the partition account to be taken in the suit. The order of the learned Judge is set aside. The costs of this petition will be costs in the cause....
P.C. Muthu Chettiar Vs. Muthuswami Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ111
Jackson, J.1. The question for determination is whether an acknowledgment by the mortgagor in favour of a prior mortgagee precludes a puisne mortgagee, whose title accrued before the acknowledgment was given, from relying upon the Statute of Limitation as a bar. Can a mortgagor alienate the hypotheca and then acknowledge the mortgage debt so as to give a fresh period of limitation as against not only himself but the alienee?2. A plain reading of Section 19, Indian Limitation Act, would suggest that the acknowledgment affects both the mortgagor and his alienee:Where before the expiration of the period prescribed...an acknowledgment of liability...has been made...by some person through whom the party derives title, a fresh period shall be computed.3. In Krishna Chandra Saha v. Bhairab Chandra Saha (1905) I.L.R.32Cal.1077 it was held that the mortgagor is the person from whom the alienee derives his title, and the section does not say that the acknowledgment must necessarily be given befo...
P.C. Muthu Chettiyar Vs. Muthuswami Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad516
Jackson, J.1. The question for determination is whether an acknowledgment by the mortgagor in favour of a prior mortgagee precludes a puisne mortgagee, whose title accrued before the acknowledgment was given, from relying upon the statute of limitation as a bar. Can a mortgagor alienate the hypotheca and then acknowledge the mortgage debt so as to give a fresh period of limitation as against not only himself, but the alienee.2. A plain reading of Section 19, Lim. Act, would suggest that the acknowledgment affects both the mortgagor and his alienee.Where before the expiration of the period prescribed...an acknowledgment of liability...has been made...by some person through whom the party derives title, a fresh period shall be computed.3. In Krishna Chandra v. Bhairab Chandra [1905] 32 Cal. 1077 it was held that the mortgagor is the person from whom the alienee derives his title, and the section does not say that the acknowledgment must necessarily be given before the alienation. This op...
Chinnaswami Padayachi Vs. Darmalinga Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad566; (1932)63MLJ394
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The defendant appeals from a decree awarding the plaintiff possession of 1 acre and 32 cents of land comprised in A schedule with mesne profits. The dispute is between rival purchasers of the same property, in mortgage suits brought by the first and second (simple) mortgagees, without impleading each other. The following are the material facts. Chakrapani, the owner of properties in A and B schedules, mortgaged them to the defendant on 21st July, 1905. On 4th November, 1905, he mortgaged A schedule properties together with 19 cents of other land to one Ponnuswami. Ponnuswami's(the second mortgagee's)heirs sued the mortgagor in O.S. No. 601 of 1914. By Order 34, Rule 1 they were not required to join the first mortgagee'in his suit and he was not joined accordingly, though they must have known that there was a first mortgage on the A schedule property, as it was registered. The 19 cents of land which was not included in the first mortgage was sold first and a part...
Paluri Venkatasiva Rao Vs. Bodapati Venkatanarasimha Satyanarayanamurt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad605; (1932)63MLJ764
Reilly, J.1. This. Civil Revision Petition comes before us on the question what is the proper court-fee to be paid on the plaint in the suit concerned. In the plaint the prayers are for a declaration that the decree obtained by Defendant 1 in O.S. No. 302 of 1916 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Bhimavaram is void, for setting aside that decree, if necessary, and for recovery of the property, covered by the decree. The Plaintiff valued the suit for court-fee as if it came under Clause (c) of Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. The Defendants objected and said that in its nature this was a suit for the cancellation of the previous decree and that therefore the Plaintiff should pay court-fee under Section 7(iv-A) of the Act, i.e., under the new Sub-section introduced into the Act for this Presidency in 1922. The Subordinate Judge after hearing arguments on the question came to the conclusion that the suit was really one for possession of the property and therefore that i...
Suram Sriramulu Vs. (Thotapalli) Viraragadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Mad563
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The petitioner in this case preferred a complaint Under Section 426, I.P.C., against the accused which was fixed for hearing on 23rd November 1931. When it was called up on that day at 11 o'clock the complainant was absent and consequently the accused were acquitted Under Section 247, Criminal P.C. In the affidavit the complainant says that he had a case in the civil Court on that day and that he went there to take leave of that Court and when he came back at 11-20 a.m. he found that the case had been called 10 minutes before and the accused were acquitted. He says in para 9:It is common practice of Magistrates to pass over cases when complainants are absent when cases are taken up in the forenoon and take up cases sometime later in the day.2. The legal argument attempted before me is that this being a summons case, the case has to begin by examining the accused Under Section 242 and that the accused cannot be acquitted unless they are present there. If the accused are...
Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. Pichumani Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad164
Pandalai, J.1. The decree in this small cause suit was passed by the Subordinate Judge on a promissory note and contemporaneous agreement called a yadast. The defendant though served did not appear. The only ground urged in this petition is that the learned Judge erred in admitting proof of the execution of the note and yadast by the affidavit of plaintiff's next friend instead of calling him as a witness into the witness-box and taking his deposition in open Court. No objection on the merits of the claim is raised. In my opinion the ground urged is without any substance. Order 19, Rule 1 enables any Court to order that any fact may be proved by affidavit and the proviso enables the Court to compel the attendance of the deponent in case of need. In Woodroffe and Ameer Ali it is stated that it is common practice to admit affidavits at the hearing when there is no contention as to the facts. That is what happened in this case and I can see nothing illegal in it. The petition is dismissed...
Narla Ramakrishnayya Vs. Myneni Venkataranga Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: (1932)63MLJ577
Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Kumaraswami Sastriar in S.A. No. 1379 of 1926. The original suit which gave rise to this second appeal was instituted by two members of the Myneni family for a declaration that the last holder of the office of the Village Munsif of Dhulipudy was Myneni Bhishiah alias Nagabhushanam, that the plaintiffs are the only surviving members of the last male-holder's family from whom on revision a selection should be made of the person best qualified for the office and that the appointment of the defendant (a member of the Narla family) as the permanent Village Munsif of Dhulipudy is illegal, and for some other reliefs. Both the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge held that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try this suit, and the learned Judge of this Court was also of the same opinion. The first point raised by Mr. G. Lakshmanna, the learned advocate for the appellant, is that tne Civil Courts have no juri...
Thiagaraja Mudaliar, Minor, by Next Friend Janaki Ammal and anr. Vs. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Mad48; (1932)63MLJ707
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent to recover a sum of Rs. 1,15,000 from out of the estate in the hands of defendants, on account, of the arrears of maintenance due to her for a period of nearly 11A years at the rate of Rs. 10,000 per annum. The plaintiff's case is, that her deceased husband Ramalinga Mudaliar and his elder brother, the late Somasundara Mudaliar, were brothers who were the last surviving male coparceners of a very rich family known as the Vadapathimangalam family, that the plaintiff's husband died issueless on 23rd December, 1912, at Tiruvarur, and that soon after the annual ceremony of her deceased husband, she left the family house in which Somasundara Mudaliar was living and went over to her parent's house about the beginning of the year 1914 and from that time onwards she was living separately from the family of her husband's brother. The plaintiff's husband and his elder brother owned properties (moveable and i...
Trivikrama Konuraya Vs. Sankaranarayana Vazhunnavar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.83; (1932)63MLJ743
Jackson, J.1. I have had theadvantage of reading the judgments which are about to be delivered, and will confine myself to saying that on the facts of the present case I think that the Karnavan may be presumed to have ratified the kanom which he prematurely granted.2. Inasmuch as the defendant never clearly raised the point on which he has succeeded till second appeal, we think that the parties must bear their own costs throughout.Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.3. The suit properties belong in Jenm to the Thazhakkat Mana of which the 6th defendant is the Karnavan. The then Karnavan of the Mana demised the suit properties on kanom to the 1st defendant's Karnavan (Raman) under Ex. II, dated 6th June, 1910 (it was renewal of a prior kanom). The same Karnavan executed in favour of the said Raman Ex. III on 20th April, 1919, by which Raman was authorised to hold the properties for a period of twelve years from 6th June, 1922, the date on which the period of twelve years under Ex. II would expire. T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »