Chennai Court March 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.
Delhi Venkatarama Doss Pantulu Vs. Delhi Bheemarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.54
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree in favour of the respondent, an insane person and his elder brother, who acted as his next friend, as well and the sole question for determination is whether the application is barred by limitation. The prior application by the wife of the respondent for removal of the next friend and permission to execute the decree on behalf of her husband cannot be deemed to be an application for execution in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, nor was it pressed finally. The original next friend continued to represent the respondent and a batta memo filed in such an application can hardly furnish a fresh starting point of limitation. The question thus depends upon whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 7 of the Limitation Act, and whether or not by reason of the decree being on a joint promissory note in favour of the brothers and the next friend bein...
Velichetti Satyanarayana and ors. Vs. Sajja Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad637; 145Ind.Cas.862; (1933)65MLJ282
Curgenven, J.1. The appellants are alienees from a widow, the 1st plaintiff having sued as the nearest reversioner to the estate of the widow's husband, Sajja Brahmadu. The alienations were three in number. Taking them in the order in which the argument has proceeded, Ex. III is a will and involves Items 1, 6 and 12 of Schedule A and Schedule B. Under this will the 13th defendant, who appeals, and the 14th defendant, who does not appeal, acquired properties. The argument is attempted that by virtue of two transactions, evidenced by Exs. J and I, the 1st plaintiff is estopped from questioning these alienations. Taking it that these two transactions were in fact one and that the 1st plaintiff's father Venkayya got some items from the widow in consideration of relinquishing his reversionary right to the remainder, and taking it further that the 1st plaintiff himself has inherited those items which the father received, we think that the Lower Court is right in holding that there is no case...
Thambu Bashyam Ayyangar and anr. Vs. N. Srinivasachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad734
Walsh, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is as to the power of the pleader to compromise the case for defendants 1 and 3. The suit was brought by the worshippers of a certain temple for a declaration that a usufructuary mortgage executed in favour of the father of defendants 1 to 3 is not binding on the suit temple and for recovery of properties or in the alternative, if the Court held that the mortgage was binding on the temple, for recovery of the properties on payment of Rs. 263. The defendants contended that the mortgage was binding on the plaint temple and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief. Issues were framed and when the suit came on for hearing the pleaders on both sides represented that the matter was settled between the parties. Defendants 1 to 3 bad a common pleader. Both the pleaders, plaintiff 2 and defendant 2 endorsed on the plaint the terms of the settlement. The suit was then adjourned to 16th April 1930 to enable the plaintiffs to depos...
Pichai Moideen Rowthar Vs. Chathurbuja Das Kushal Das and Sons and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad736; 145Ind.Cas.1023; (1933)65MLJ491
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance. Plaintiff is the appellant before us. The facts out of which the suit arises are as follows. The suit property which consists of four-fifths share in Mudikandam Village in Trichinopoly District belonged to the family of T. Sadasiva Tawker and others who were carrying on business in Madras under the name and style of T.R. Tawker & Sons. On 11th April, 1924, the property was mortgaged by the owners to the 1st defendant (who is the firm of Chathurbuja Das Kushal Das & Sons carrying on business in Mint Street, Madras) under Ex. VI. Under this document the mortgagees have got a power of sale without the intervention of Court. T.R. Tawker & Sons having failed in their business they were adjudicated insolvents and their properties are vested in the Official Assignee of Madras, who is the 5th defendant in the case. The 2nd defendant is Kissen Das Girdar Das, a partner and the authorised agent of the 1st defendant firm. He...
Baijnath Karnani Vs. Vallabhadas Damani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad511; (1933)65MLJ572
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Stone, J. and the point to be decided is: Where in a foreign State there is a suit and in that suit a judgment is given and from that judgment appeal is made, which appeal is dismissed, is the 'judgment in that suit' the judgment of the Court of first instance or is it the judgment of the appellate Court for the purposes of the Limitation Act?2. The suit under appeal is brought to enforce a judgment given in the State of Bikanir. The first Court's decree there was appealed from, and the appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court. If the appellant here, the plaintiff in the suit, is to take as the date for his cause of action the date of the decree in the Court of first instance, then his suit is barred by limitation. If he is to take the date as that of the appellate Court's decree then his suit is not barred by limitation.3. This is a very interesting point and, as Stone, J. remarks, it is strange that th...
MoidIn Kunhammad and ors. Vs. Ahmad Kutti Abdulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad636
Walsh, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 378-7-7, being the value of certain logs of timber or the logs themselves. The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif, but on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has given a decree in his favour for Rs. 174. Against this decree, the second appeal has been filed. A preliminary objection has been raised that the value of the suit being below Rs. 500 no second appeal lies under Section 102, Civil P.C. It is contended for the appellants that the suit is one falling under Section 35(h)(ii), Sch. 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and is therefore not triable by a Small Cause Court. Section 35(h)(ii) runs as followsfor an act which is, or, save for the provisions of Ch. 4, I P.C., would be an offence punishable under Ch. 17 of the said Code.2. To see whether this clause applies, we must take the plaint, a summary of which is extracted in the judgment of the trial Court. To put it briefly, the plaintiff alleged that he took...
(Thodukattil) Pativattath Katungi Vs. (Mele Thodiyil Thazhathethel) It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad770
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this second appeal. He filed a suit on a registered rental agreement executed by the defendants in favour of himself and of a deceased Karnavan. The defence put forward by defendant 1 was that the property belongs to the temple of which the plaintiff is one of the Uralans and unless all the Uralans are joined in the suit he is net liable to pay rent. The plaintiff had filed a previous suit, O.S. 683 of 1920, on the same rental agreement against the same defendants for a different period. This suit had been decreed in the plaintiff's favour in spite of pleas of coercion and misrepresentation. Together with that suit was tried O.S. 338 of 1921 filed by the present defendants against the present plaintiff for a declaration that the plaintiff was not the only trustee but that there were two other persons also. In the common judgment the plaintiff was given a decree in his own right to recover the amount although the Court found on the issue tha...
Puthukollai Pallathil Kunhammad's son Moidu and Ors. Vs. Puthukolli th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1933
Reported in: 145Ind.Cas.888
1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 378-7-7 being the value of certain Jogs of timber or the logs themselves. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the learned District Munsif but on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has given a decree in his favour for Rs. 74. Against this decree, the second appeal has been filed.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that the value of the suit being below Rs. 500, no second appeal lies under Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is contended for the appellants that the suit is one falling under Section 35 (h) (ii) of the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small' Cause Courts Act and is therefore not triable by a Small Cause Court. Section 35 (h) (ii) runs as follows 'for an act which is, or, save for the provisions of Chap. IV of the Indian Penal Code would be an offence punishable under Chap. XVII of the said Code.' To see whether this clause applies, we must take the plaint, a summary of which is extracted in the judgment of the trial Cou...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad506; (1933)65MLJ25
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The petition is against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam holding that the Court-fee paid on the plaint was sufficient. It is a.petition presented by Government.2. A preliminary objection is taken as to the maintainability of this petition either under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It is argued that, where an order in regard to Court-fees happens to be in favour of the plaintiff, the High Court will not interfere by way of revision; and, on the other hand, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that, following the decision of a Bench of this High Court in Kulandaivelu Nachiar v. Ramaswami Pandia Thalavan I.L.R. (1927) Mad. 664 : (1927) 55 M.L.R. 345 the High Court has the power to revise such an order. Turning to that decision, it will be seen that in that case the Lower Court passed an order directing the plaintiff to pay additional Court-fees on an erroneous...
(Pakkiri) Muhammad Rowther Vs. Maideen Pichai Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad569
Walsh, J.1. The appellant is defendant 11 in the suit. The respondent is the plaintiff (decree-holder auction-purchaser). The plaintiff had brought the suit on a mortgage. Defendant 11 was impleaded as puisne mortgagee. A. mortgage decree was passed. The property was purchased by the decree-holder and delivered over to him. Defendant 11 put in an application saying that part of the property marked A. should not be delivered possession as he had certain rights in it. He was asked to define his rights properly by way of filing an affidavit, and he did so stating; that he claimed both an easement right of way through portion A and also right, in the portion Ex. A as cosharer with the mortgagors of the property. His application was put in both under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P.C. The application was dismissed by both the Courts below. The present second appeal has been filed against these decisions.2. A preliminary point was taken that the petition was one under Order 21, Ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »