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.
Karnati Baseddulagari Chinna Veeriah Alias Chenniah and ors. Vs. Yerra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad223; (1934)66MLJ277
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 who are the sons of the 2nd defendant and brothers of the 1st defendant appeal. The 1st defendant executed a promissory note to the plaintiff when he was the managing member of the family of himself and his father and his brothers. He became insolvent and was . represented in the suit by the Official Receiver of Cuddappah. This suit was brought on the promissory note impleading all the members of the family including the insolvent and the Official Receiver. The suit was obviously unsustainable against the insolvent and the Official Receiver, because the debt was one provable in insolvency for which no suit could be maintained. It was therefore dismissed against the 1st defendant and the Official Receiver but decreed as against the other defendants on its being proved that the debt was incurred on behalf of the family and made realisable from their shares of the family property. This was the decree of both the Lower Courts.2. The appellants ...
C.V. Raran and anr. Vs. K.T. Kandan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad262; (1934)66MLJ540
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by two of the plaintiffs (decree-holders) under Section 145, Civil Procedure Code, for the enforcement of the security bond executed by certain sureties, whereby three items of immovable property were hypothecated in respect of a certain amount drawn by the next friend of the minor plaintiffs on their behalf. Under the security bond, the properties would be liable for any claim of the minors as against their next friend in respect of the money drawn by the latter and not properly accounted for. The security bond is evidently one executed under Order 32, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code. The Court allowed the next friend to draw the .decree amount after the aforesaid security was furnished. This security bond is not executed in favour of any named officer of the Court. In the absence of any specific description indicating the person in whose favour the security bond is executed, it must be deemed according to the trend of this docu...
P.R.M. Thiruvenkatasami Naidu Vs. K.R.P.R.A.L. Ranganathan Chettiar by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad496; (1934)66MLJ310
Sundaram Chetty, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Judge of Madura in O.P. No. 6 of 1931 filed under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act. This petition was put in for the appointment of a guardian for the minor, T. Tirupathi, aged about 14, in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,825-14-3 alleged to have been in deposit with the petitioner (the present 1st respondent) on behalf of the said minor. In this O.P. the minor's maternal grandfather was added as the 1st respondent and the minor's natural father as the 2nd respondent. The petitioner offered to deposit that sum in Court and also asked the Court to appoint either of the respondents as the guardian of the minor in respect of this particular fund on his furnishing security therefor. Some other prayers also were made in the aforesaid O.P. The appellant contested the petition mainly on the ground that the money which was in deposit with the petitioner did not really belong to the minor, but ...
Thiagaraja thevar Vs. Sambasiva thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad283; (1934)66MLJ492
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. A final mortgage decree was passed in O.S. No. 55 of 1920 on 3rd August, 1922, by the Sub-Court of Negapatam which had then jurisdiction over the hypotheca. On the 1st October, 1923, territorial jurisdiction was vested in the Sub-Court of Tiruvarur. The original decree-holder filed in the latter Court an execution petition on 28th April, 1924, which was dismissed for non-payment of batta. He filed another execution petition on 11th September, 1924, before the same Court which was dismissed for a similar reason. The assignee decree-holder filed an execution petition before the same Court on 17th August, 1926, asking for recognition of the transfer and an order for execution. It was numbered as E. P. No. 31 of 1927. On this application the assignment was recognised and execution was ordered; but as no steps were taken the petition was dismissed. On 18th October, 1929, the assignee decree-holder put in another execution petition which was dismissed for non-payment of ...
Nachimuthu Ammal Vs. Sathivadivel Muthuswamy Maniagaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad273
Pandalai, J.1. The only point in these second appeals is one of limitation which depends upon the character of the appellants' claim which arises out of Ex. A, a document called a settlement dead, and dated 9th July 1903, whereby the defendant's grand-father Haraharaswamy Maniagaran settled Rs. 15,000 worth of family properties upon his son Nithyananda Muthuswami Maniyagaran then a minor and retained for himself family properties worth Rs. 7,800 ?odd and also directed the son to pay to each of his three unmarried daughters, of whom the present appellants are the first, namely Nachimuthu Ammal and the third Andi Ammal, Rs. 500 each in the shape of moveable properties on their attaining majority. In the suits which were brought by these daughters for Rs. 500 each, both parties seem to have wandered in a maze of legal intricacies and attempted to get out of their imaginary difficulties in a variety of ways. The plaintiffs conceived that they had to show how the suits were not barred and f...
Rajagopalu Pillai Vs. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad399; 150Ind.Cas.63
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The plaintiff-respondent in this petition filed a suit; against the petitioner to recover a sum of money as commission under the usual Nattukottai Ghetti custom. The petitioner was the respondent's agent at Thaiping in the Malay States. The plaint alleged that on 14th December 1929 the petitioner agreed to go out as agent for another term to the said Thaiping, that in respect of the aforesaid commission he agreed to return 750 rings with interest, and that if he broke the contract and defaulted to go out as agent he should return another 725 rings. But the petitioner defaulted to go out as agent. Consequently the suit was laid for the-value of 750 rings with interest. The defendant stated that the breach of the contract was on the plaintiff's side and counter-claimed damages assessed at the difference between the pay which he had to accept under another principal and the pay which he would have-received from the plaintiff. The suit was filed on 26th August 1931 four da...
Manapragada Swarnapathi Vs. Krovvidi Suryaprakasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad293; 148Ind.Cas.765
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. To this suit neither the proprietor nor the Government has been impleaded as a defendant. Though in form the suit professes to be also for the recovery of the office, the relief that is really pressed, is that relating to the declaration. The plaintiff asserts that his selection under Section 15(1) of Madras Act II of 1894, by the Receiver of the estate, amounted to a valid appointment of himself as karnam and that, the Collector's action in appointing the defendant was wrongful. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, holding that the proper parties were not impleaded. The act which is complained of is that of the Collector, and yet the Government has not been made a party. Although the Collector's view was that the Receiver could not be treated as 'proprietor' within the meaning of Section 115, still the Sub-Collector, while exercising his powers under Clause 3 of that section, actually adopted, and gave effect to, the Receiver's recommendations, exce...
Subbaraya Naicker and ors. Vs. Venkatesa Naicker and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad252; 150Ind.Cas.381
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. Having heard the arguments at some length in this appeal, a difficulty presents itself by reason of the omission of the learned District Judge, to give a definite finding on the question involved in issues 2 and 7 viz., 'whether the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years prior to suit,' and 'whether the suit is barred by limitation.' There are some observations in the judgment of the District Judge indicating his doubt as to plaintiff's possession and enjoyment. But it is not easy to accept the same as a definite finding of fact, especially when he-was disagreeing with finding of the first Court, that the sale in plaintiff's favour under Ex. A was real and not fraudulent. It is contended by the learned advocate for the appellants, that even if the District Judge's view based on the doctrine of 'in pari delioto' as regards the sale deed Ex. A} should prevail, and the defendants am held to be debarred from attacking its validity, it is still open to them to att...
Poturaju Seshayya and ors. Vs. Pillai Sanjivarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad350; 150Ind.Cas.885
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioners in Civil Revision Petitions 1215 and 1216 were defendants 1 to 4 in two suits brought by the plaintiff-respondent on two promissory notes signed by one Venkataratnam. The notes were specially endorsed by the payee to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is the endorsee within the definition in Section 16(1), Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners are the paternal uncles and coparceners of Venkataratnam, who was the manager of the family business carried on by them. Venkataratnam died before suit. A decree has been made against the petitioners upon the ground that the money borrowed on the notes was used for the petitioners' family business. The Sub-Judge says:S.C.S. No. 668/28 is instituted on a pronote executed by the deceased Venkataratnam himself for amount borrowed for the trade carried on by him for the benefit of the joint family S.O.S. No. 669/28 is instituted for the recovery of Rs. 980-7-3 due on a pronote executed by the deceased V...
Tulasi Ammal Vs. Danalakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad316; (1934)66MLJ471
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This is an application to this Court to exercise its power under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make a complaint in respect of the alleged fabrication of a certain document. In A.S. No. 18 of 1928 a settlement deed, Exhibit B, figured as having been executed by one Govindaswami Naidu. The document bore the alleged signature of Govindaswami in seven places and it appeared to have been attested by five persons and to have been written by a sixth person. The suit out of which the appeal arose was to enforce registration of this document and the plaintiff (now 1st respondent) was Govindaswami's second wife and a substantial beneficiary under the settlement deed, much to the prejudice of the first wife who was the 1st defendant in the suit. Proceedings had taken place before the District Registrar, who had refused to register this document on the ground that its genuineness was not established. The trial Court passed a decree directing that the settlem...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »