Chennai Court November 1933 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.
Duraiswami Iyengar and anr. Vs. Rangaswami Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad726
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff mortgagee is entitled to a personal decree and the question is whether that view is wrong. The suit with which we are concerned, is O.S. No. 30 of 1924. That was filed by the second mortgagee and the prior mortgagee was not impleaded. Subsequently O.S. No. 435 of 1920 was instituted by the first mortgagee and to that suit however the second mortgagee was made a party. In execution of the decree passed in the last mentioned suit, the entire property mortgaged was brought to sale and nothing remained to be sold in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 30 of 1924. The point to be decided is, whether the second mortgagee, i.e., the plaintiff in O.S. No. 30 of 1924, is entitled to obtain a personal decree in his suit. The lower Courts have answered the question in the affirmative, and in my opinion, rightly. Mr. Thiruvenkatachariar for the appellant has argued the point fully, citing the numerous cases on the subject. B...
Subramania Ayyar Vs. Swaminatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1935Mad121
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 42 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram to recover moneys due on hypothecation bonds, dated 20th February 1913 (Ex, A) and 6th October 1915 (Ex. B) executed by the deceased father of defendants 1 and 2, in favour of the plaintiff. Defendants other than defendants 1 and 2 are persons who claim rights (subsequent to A and B) with reference to various portions of the properties mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 8 claimed to haw purchased a, portion of the hypotheca in an auction sale held in execution of a money decree obtained against defendants 1 and 2, and their deceased father and others, after the dates of the mortgage bonds, A and B. Defendants 1 and 2 did not appear in the lower Court. The other defendants raised contentions regarding the validity of the mortgages, A and B. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the mortgages were valid and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the va...
Srinivasa Ayyar Alias Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. the Board of Commissioner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.168
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 Appeal No. 574 of 1931 given on April 11, 1933: Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hiridu. Religious Endowments Board, Madras : AIR1931Mad103 This is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside the dismissal of the application under the aforesaid s. 84 for default. According to Order XLIII, 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)....
Duraiswami Ayyangar Vs. Rangaswami Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.416
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff mortgagee is entitled to a personal decree and the question is whether that view is wrong. The suit with which we are concerned, is Order 8. No. 30 of 1924. That was filed by the second mortgegee and the prior mortgagee was not impleaded. Subsequently Order 8. No, 435 of 1925 was instituted by the 1st mortgagee and to that suit, however, the second mortgagee was made a party. In execution of the decree passed in the last-mentioned suit, the entire property mortgaged, was brought to sale and nothing remained to be sold in execution of the decree in Order 8. No. 30 of 1924. The point to be decided is whether the second mortgagee, i.e, the plaintiff in Order 8. No. 30 of 1924, is entitled to obtain a personal decree in his suit. The lower Courts have answered the question in the affirmative and, in my opinion, rightly. Mr. Thiruvenkatachari for the appellant has argued the point fully, citing the numerous cases on t...
Subramania Ayyar Vs. Swamunatha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.1013
1. The plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 42 of 1027, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram to recover moneys due on hypothecation bonds dated February 20, 1913(Ex. A) and October 6, 1915 (Ex. B) executed by the deceased father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiffs. Defendants other than defendants Nos. I and 2 are persons who claim rights (subsequent to A and B) with reference to various portions of the properties mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. The 8th defendant claimed to have purchased a portion of the hypothecs (sic) money decree obtained against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and their deceased father and others, after the dates of the mortgage bonds A and B. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear in the lower Court. The other defendants raised contentions regarding the validity of the mortgages A and B. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the mortgages were valid and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the various items included in his mortgages sold ...
V.N. Muthusamy Iyer, Managing Partner of V.N. Sundaram Ayyar and Broth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ656
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Salem directing satisfaction of the decree to be recorded to the extent of Rs. 2,100. The decree was obtained in the name of a firm styled as V.N. Sundaram Ayyar & Brothers represented by the managing partner V.N. Muthuswami Ayyar. The suit itself was filed in the name of the firm represented by the aforesaid managing partner. Subsequent to the decree another brother of the family received a sum of Re. 2,100 in full satisfaction of the decree and put in a memorandum requesting the Court to record satisfaction. The firm consists of the brothers of a joint Hindu family, and as such, the person who received the payment and who applied to the Court to enter up satisfaction is not only one of the members of the joint family, but also one of the partners of the firm. This petition was opposed by Muthuswami Ayyar, who filed this suit as the managing partner of the firm. The question is whether by reason of the ...
V.N. Muthuswamy Iyer Vs. V.S. Narasimha Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad330
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Salem directing satisfaction of the decree to be recorded to the extent of Rs. 2,100. The decree was obtained in the name of a firm styled as V.N. Sundaram Ayyar and Brothers represented by the managing partner V.N. Muthuswami Ayyar. The suit itself was filed in the name of the firm represented by the aforesaid managing partner. Subsequent to the decree another brother of the family received a sum of Rs. 2,100 in full satisfaction of the decree and put in a memorandum requesting the Court to record satisfaction. The firm consists of the brothels of a joint Hindu family, and, as such, the person who received the payment and who applied to the Court to enter up satisfaction is not only one of the members of the joint family, but also one of the partners of the firm. This petition was opposed by Muthuswami Ayyar who filed this suit as the managing partner of the firm. The question is whether by reason of th...
Dasureddi Vs. M. Venkatasubbammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad436; 152Ind.Cas.75
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a testamentary suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the grant of probate of a will dated 22nd July 1930, and alleged to have been executed by the late Rangammal. Plaintiff is Rangam mal's husband's brother's daughter. Plaintiff's brother is the late Subbaroya Beddi, the father of the minor defendant. According to the case of the plaintiff, she and her elder brother Subbaroya Reddi were living with Rangammal after their parents' death, but after the marriage of Subbaroya Reddi he went over to his mother-in-law's house and the plaintiff alone continued to live with Bangammal throughout. Plaintiff has a daughter Muthiammal. Under the will in question (Ex. A), Bangammal bequeathed a debt due to her on a pro-note amounting to Rs. 1,900 together with moveables worth Bs. 25 in favour of the plaintiff to be held and enjoyed by her for her life and the remainder should be taken by her daughter Muthiammal with absolute rights. Rangammal had a...
Vaiyapuri Pandaram Vs. V. Seetharama Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad639; 152Ind.Cas.464
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Jackson, J. The suit under appeal was upon a promissory note executed by defendant 1 on 23rd May 1920 for Rs. 1,000. The suit was filed against defendant 1 and against the present appellant as defendant 2 on 14th March 1925. The appellant was impleaded in the suit as defendant 2 because he had executed a document, Ex. B, on 31st July 1921 together with defendant 1. The document is as follows:Both of us are conducting trading business jointly for the benefit of our family. In respect of the debts that have been borrowed (till now) and may be borrowed hereafter from you (the plaintiff) by us jointly and severally and also jointly along with others, we bind ourselves to be liable for them and pay them oft to you, jointly and severally.2. It is clear that as against the appellant the suit was barred by limitation, but it was contended that certain payments made by defendant 1 on 22nd March 1922 and 13th January 1923 saved limitation. But...
Municipal Council Vs. Ralli Bros.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad420; 150Ind.Cas.890
Pandalai, J.1. The defendant, the Municipal Council of Tuticorin, is the appellant. The respondent, the firm of Messrs. Ralli Bros., brought this suit for the recovery of six payments of Rs. 110 each made to the appellant on account of half yearly profession tax for the six half years ending 31st March 1936, as demanded by the appellant, on the ground that according to the District Municipalities Act, the respondent firm was not liable to the demand. The appellant's defences were that the respondent is liable to the demand and that at any rate the first five out of the six payments were voluntary and could not be recovered back. On the liability of the respondent to the profession tax the District Munsif held that the respondent was liable under Section 93, District Municipalities Act, 1920, read with Rule 18, Schedule 4 thereto.2. On the second, as to the character of the payments he held that they were not voluntary. Therefore he dismissed the suit. The respondent appealed to the lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »