Chennai Court November 1933 Judgments
Pedda Venkata Reddi and anr. Vs. Vitta HussaIn Setti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad883; 150Ind.Cas.51; (1934)66MLJ709
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants are the appellants. In this appeal we are concerned only with the decree passed against the defendants for one of the suit amounts, namely, the amount due under Exhibit J, called 'the promissory note bond' executed on the 25th March, 1921, by the father of the defendants. That 'note bond' was in renewal of a previous 'note bond' Ex. H executed on the 8th September, 1917. The defendants' contention on the merits of the case is that both these notes are concoctions,, by the plaintiff and that they are therefore not liable to pay the amount claimed. They also raise a legal objection that Ex. J is a promissory note, and that being insufficiently stamped it should not have been accepted in evidence by the Lower Court. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled both the contentions and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff. On the question of law he held that the suit note is a 'bond' within the meaning of the term under the Stamp Act. Accordingly he levied a p...
Tag this Judgment!(Sreepada) Ramamurti Guru and anr. Vs. Bangaru Bulli Rangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad268
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Fourth defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff's suit was for the enforcement of the suit mortgage, Ex. A, dated 20th December 1915 executed by the late father of defendants 1 and 2 for himself and as their guardian. In execution of a decree the suit property was purchased by the 3rd defendant's father in court-sale and defendant 4 got the property so purchased from the 3rd defendant's father. The sale certificate shows that besides the suit mortgage the property was subject to three other mortgages, one of which was a simple mortgage, Ex. 11, dated-24th March 1914. It is admitted that defendant 4 paid off this mortgage amount. In the suit he claimed priority to the extent of the amount paid by him under the aforesaid mortgage as also the interest thereon from the date of payment at the rate provided for in the bond. The lower Court allowed the priority claimed by him but refused his claim for interest. In the appeal it is contended that the lower Court should hav...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidinatha Chettiar and ors. Vs. Thirumalai Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad220; (1934)66MLJ315
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The appeal is by the three defendants, brothers, against a decree made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly awarding the respondent (plaintiff) a decree on the instrument, Ex.A, described as a promissory note and dated 20th June, 1924 for Rs. 884. The respondent was an endorsee for collection from the payee Lakshmi Ammal. The case had a curious history. As a promissory note, the instrument was insufficiently stamped. Thereupon the plaintiff first pleaded that it was lost. On the defendants raising the objection that it was not lost but that the truth was that it is inadmissible being insufficiently stamped, the plaintiff produced the paper but succeeded in obtaining from the Court leave to amend the plaint by pleading as his cause of action the promissory note, Ex. C, dated 25th June, 1921, of which it was said Ex. A was a renewal. But this made the suit prim a facie out of time and so the plaintiff pleaded that the invalid promissory note furnished ...
Tag this Judgment!Vaidanatha Chettiar Vs. Thirumalai Reddyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.759
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The appeal is by the three defendants, brothers, against a decree made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly awarding the respondent (plaintiff) a decree on the instrument Ex. A described as a promissory note and dated June 20, 1924, for Rs. 884. The respondent was an endorsee for collection for the payee Lakshmi Ammal. The case had a curious history. As a promissory note, the instrument was insufficiently stamped. Thereupon the plaintiff first pleaded that it was lost. On the defendants raising the objection that it was not lost by that the truth was that it is inadmissible being in sufficiently stamped, the plaintiff produced the paper but succeeded m obtaining from the Court leave to amend the plaint by pleading as his cause of action the promissory note Ex. 0 dated June 25, 1921, of which it was said Ex. A was a renewal. But this mr.de the suit prima facie out of time and so the plaintiff pleaded that the invalid promissory note furnished an ackno...
Tag this Judgment!Sundari Ammal Vs. Venkatarama Sastrial and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad384; (1934)66MLJ680
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit of rather an unusual character whose object was to reduce the maintenance allowed to a Hindu widow, the 1st defendant '(appellant) by the decree in O.S. No. 67 of 1883 (Ex. A) obtained by her against her husband's brother and other members of his family by which she was allowed an annual maintenance of 16 kalams of paddy and Rs. 9 a year on the ground that the circumstances had subsequently so altered that she became no longer entitled to receive this sumptuous allowance and had therefore to be put upon shorter rations. The improvement in the appellant's condition was said to arise from her having received a gift of 6 mahs of land which, according to the learned Judge in the lower appellate Court, produces an annual income of 25 kalams. It is notorious that at the present moment and for 2, 3 years at least prior to this the price of paddy is about 14 annas to Re. 1 a kalam. It never was much above Rs. 3 a kalam. So that at its be...
Tag this Judgment!Kuramutla Gangadu Vs. D.V.N. Abraham and the Inspector of Local Boards
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad174; 147Ind.Cas.819; (1934)66MLJ421
ORDERJackson, J.1. Five persons were nominated as candidates for election to the Rajampet Taluk Board--Panjam S. Chengareddi, T. Radhakrishnayya, Lingam Andhrayya, Kuramutla Gangadu and D. V. N. Abraham. Kuramutla Gangadu was elected and in O.P. No. 75 of 1932 the Election Commissioner at Nandalur set aside his election and declared the candidate having the next largest amount of votes to be elected, vis., D.V.N. Abraham. Kuramutla Gangadu in C. M. P. No. 3287 and Lingam Andhrayya in C.M.P. No. 5383 apply for a writ of certiorari to quash the Commissioner's order.2. The only point taken is that when the Commissioner found the election of Kuramutla Gangadu to be invalid owing to false personation, he ought to have ordered a fresh election and it was beyond his jurisdiction to declare the next on the poll duly elected.3. Rule 12 of the Rules for the Conduct of Inquiries and the Decision of Disputes relating to Elections framed under Section 199(2)(c) of the Madras Local Boards Act gives ...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasa Ayyar Alias Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. the Board of Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad258; (1934)66MLJ247
1. A decision by the District Judge under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927) has been held to be not appealable under a recent Full Bench decision of our High Court in Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras (1933) 66 M.L.J. 43 . This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside the dismissal of the application under the aforesaid Section 84 for default. According to Order 43, Rule 1, Clause (c), an appeal would lie against such an order, only in a case open to appeal.2. We therefore hold that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is incompetent and dismiss it with costs. (Two sets.)...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. M.R.M.K.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad217; (1934)66MLJ412
Bardswell, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of., Madhavan Nair, J. in Second Appeal. The appellant is the Official Receiver of Coimbatore. A suit (O.S. No. 206 of 1926 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore) was brought by Arunachalam Chetti against Krishnasvvami Goundan on a promissory note. There was an attachment before judgment of what was admittedly the joint family property of Krishnaswami Goundan, though it was attached only as being the property of Krishnaswami Goundan, and his sons were not made parties to the suit. The plaintiff on 11th December, 1926, got a decree and applied in execution for the sale of the attached property. The judgment-debtor, Krishnaswami Goundan, filed an insolvency petition (I. P. No. 320 of 1927), on which he was adjudicated an insolvent in February, 1928. By an order passed in December, 1927,- the Official Receiver had been made interim Receiver pending the adjudication and on 6th January, 1928, both he and the judgment-debtor...
Tag this Judgment!Muthirulappa Pillai and ors. Vs. T.V.K. Kamaraja Pandia Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad224
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit brought under Section 112 was ona to contest the right of isale and the ground on which the right jwas contested, was that the rent claimed was exoessive. The purpose of such a suit is to ascertain the rent; as a matter of fact, the only relevant issua to ba itried is: is tha rent claimed the proper 'rent or not? Tha words of Article 8, Part A, are wide enough to cover such a 'proceeding. Mr. Sasha Ayyangar'a contention is that the auit was not directly concerned with the ascertainment of the rent; but the words must be understood in their plain and natural meaning and I sea no good ground for giving them the restricted effect suggested by the learned Counsel. Bangayya Appa Rao v. Sriramulu (1904) 27 Mad 143, although it is a decision under the Rent Recovery Act, throws valuable light on the point. The suit in that case was in regard to tha propriety oE the patta tendered and strictly speaking, was not for the ascertainment of the rent. Gulam Ghouse Sha ...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Aravamuda Ayyangar and anr. Vs. A.V. Srinivasa Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad632
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Jackson, J., who, in second appeal, reversed the decrees of the two lower Courts and dismissed the suit under appeal with costs.2. The facts of the case are as follows:The plaintiff in the suit, the appellant here and defendant 1 are brothers. In 1904 there was a partition among the plaintiff, defendant 1 and their father, each of them then getting one-third share. In the partition amongst other lands, Survey No. 276 fell to the plaintiff's share and Survey No. 282 to that of defendant 1. After this partition, until December 1918, the plaintiff and defendant 1 enjoyed the properties in common and during this period sold some of the lands and also jointly acquired other lands. In December 1918, by Ex. J there was a partition between these two and in that partition Survey No. 276 was taken by the plaintiff and Survey No. 282 by the first defendant. The plaintiff's case was that his land Survey No. 276 was being drained by means of a ch...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »