Chennai Court April 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.
Govindasamy Koundan Vs. Kandasamy Koundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.839
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The mortgagee obtained a decree for sale of Jour items of property. He first brought to sale three of them and now applies for a personal decree. This is resisted by the mortgagor on the ground that the mortgagee is bound to exhaust his remedy in the first instance against the properties mortgaged. The question is: Is there any inflexible rule that the mortgagee should first bring to sale all the mortgaged items? In this case subsequent to the mortgage, the fourth item was sold by the mortgagor to a third party, who by some omission has not been impleaded as a party to the suit. Further the mortgagor in conveying the fourth item to the aforesaid third party made a representation to him that it was free from encumbrance. The question is: Is it open to him in the circumstances to insist that the mortgagee should proceed against the fourth item? In other words, is there any rule of law which compels ''.the court to permit the mortgagor to take advantage of his own w...
V.E.A. Annamalai Chettiar and anr. Vs. V.E.A. Rm. Annamalai Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad697; 147Ind.Cas.476; (1933)65MLJ376
Curgenven, J.1. The parties are Nattukottai Chetties and originally formed a joint Hindu family. The plaintiffs sued for partition and division of the assets shown in Schedules A to D of the plaint. Issues were framed and a reference was then made to a single arbitrator, who was entrusted with the duty of dividing the property. The arbitrator submitted his award on 3rd January, 1930. On the 7th the Court allowed until the 17th for objections and then further until the 24th. On that date it was stated that the plaintiffs did not wish to file any objections while further time until the 31st was allowed to the 2nd defendant. On the 31st further time was applied for on his behalf, but the Court passed a decree in terms of the award. The petitioners before me are the 2nd defendant and his son, the 3rd defendant. They object that the award failed to dispose of certain matters referred to the arbitrator. Schedule A relates to sites and buildings and these it is said had been left undivided. I...
Koduru Janardana Rao Vs. Prattipaty Lakshmi Narasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad52; 147Ind.Cas.351; (1933)65MLJ873
Bradswell, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is:In an appeal under Section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code in a civil proceeding has the appellate Court power to remand the matter back to the Lower Court for disposal2. In the course of the argument reference has been made to Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachella Padayachi I.L.R. (1906) Mad. 311 : 17 M.L.J. 123. In that case it was held that a Court exercising what is therein called its appellate jurisdiction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, that is under the now abolished Clause (6) of that section, had no power to remand a case for fresh enquiry. I do not, however, think that that decision can be quoted as an authority directly bearing on the point now under reference. Though Section 195(6) gave to the superior Court powers that were of an appellate character, the clause said nothing as to the powers which it gave of granting or revoking a sanction to prosecute being given to a Court as a Court of Appeal. On the othe...
Subbaraya Goundan and anr. Vs. V.V.R. Virappa Chettiar Bank and Its Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad851; (1933)65MLJ719
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The questions referred to the Full Bench are:(1) Has the judgment-debtor who has been adjudicated an insolvent right to prefer an appeal against an order dismissing an application put in by him under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, in the course of the execution of the decree passed against him? and(2) If such an appeal is incompetent in its inception can it be continued if the Official Receiver consents to continue it?2. This reference has been occasioned on account of the conflict between the decisions in Kondapalli Tatireddi v. Ramachandra Rao (1921) 13 L.W. 616 and Palaniandi Chettiar v. Kalyanarama Aiyar (1926) 97 I.C. 486. In Kondapalli Tatireddi v. Ramachandra Rao (1921) 13 L.W. 616 it was held that the insolvency of a judgment-debtor does not render it incompetent for him to continue the proceedings under Order 21, Rule 72 by way of an appeal. In Palaniandi Chettiar v. Kalyanarama Aiyar (1926) 97 I.C. 486 it was held that a party to a suit after adj...
N.K.R.M. Rajagopala Chettiar Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: 147Ind.Cas.614; (1934)66MLJ43
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This case relates to the Sri Rajagopaaswami Temple at Ammayappan in the East Tanjore District. The appellant contends that the temple is an excepted temple. Under Section 84(1) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 'If any dispute arises as to whether a math or temple is one to which this Act applies or as to whether a temple is an excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the Board'.2. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board by its order, dated 31st January, 1931, decided that the temple is not an excepted temple. Under Section 84(2) ' a trustee affected by a decision under Sub-section (1) may, within one year, apply to Court to modify or set aside such decision but, subject to the the result of such application, the order of the Board shall be final'.3. The appellant applied to the District Court to set aside the decision of the Board, but the District Judge confirmed its order. The appellant has now appealed to the High Court against the decision of ...
T.S.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. P.N. Subramania Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad185; 150Ind.Cas.176
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is to enforce the mortgage bond, Ex. A executed by defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 are his sons. The bond is attested by defendant 2. The defendants' case is that there was no family necessity to support the bond and therefore it is not binding on them. The deed provided that the principal amount should be paid with interest at 12 per cent within, six months and in default interest should be added to the principal and the entire amount paid with interest added to interest at 18 per cent at the end of every six months. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the interest claimed is penal and should not be allowed. The learned Judge accepted the plea of defendants 2 and 3 that the mortgage bond is not supported by necessity. In the result he gave a mortgage decree against defendant 1 and passed a deoree in the event of the amount not being realized from the share of the property belonging to defendant 1, against defendants 2...
S. Narayana Nadar Vs. Arunachala Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad868
Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff appeals from a decree dismissing his suit on the preliminary ground that his claim is res judicata by the decision in a previous suit (O.S. No. 574 of 1924) in the Court of the District Munsif of Tenkasi.2. That suit was brought by the present plaintiff as endorsee of a promissory note executed by one Lakshmana Nadar-not now a party-to Arunachala Nadar, the present defendant 1, and endorsed by defendant 1 to the plaintiff. He sued both the maker of the note and endorser and sought a decree against both. The maker denied the genuineness of the note and the endorser, while he admitted receipt of Rs. 1,768 from the endorsee (the plaintiff) for the endorsement, pleaded that he was an unnecessary party to the suit and that no decree should be passed against him. The District Munsif found that the note was not executed by the alleged maker, that the present defendant 1, (then defendant 2) the endorser, received consideration, which in fact was admitted by him but...
Rangappaya Aithala and ors. Vs. Shiva Aithala and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad699; 145Ind.Cas.961; (1933)65MLJ410
Krishanan Pandalai, J.1. The question in the case is whether the heirs of a Hindu widow in whose favour the head of her husband's family has executed an agreement charging specific family property to pay her maintenance at a certain rate on a particular date in each year for the previous year, can if she dies on an intermediate date recover the proportionate amount due after the last payment till the date of her death.2. The facts are not in dispute. The Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3 represent one brother and the 1st Defendant another brother, and the father-in-law of Mahalakshmi Hengasa was the third (eldest) brother in a joint Hindu family. On 2nd June, 1870, after the death of Mahalakshmi's husband and father-in-law, the father of Plaintiffs as the elder surviving brother and head of the family executed in her favour a registered agreement Ex. B charging some of the family properties agreeing to pay her for each year from 1st Chaitra Sudha (about 25th March) of 1870 maintenance ...
Pothuru Swamy Babu Vs. the Union Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad791; (1933)65MLJ725
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The appellant sued the Respondent, the Union Board of Narasannapet, for refund of Rs. 118-8-0 and interest thereon being the amount of house tax for 1924-25 illegally collected from him on 1st May, 1925. The suit was brought on 6th May, 1926. To the defences on the merits it is needless to refer as it has been held by both the Courts below and is no longer questioned that the levy was illegal as an essential notice was not published. The only point for decision is whether the suit was barred by limitation being brought more than six months after the date of the cause of action as provided by Section 225 of the Local Boards Act, 1920, as it stood before the amendment of 1930. The learned District Judge as held the suit barred and the plaintiff appeals.2. The appellant mainly relies on Lakshmanan Chetti v. The Union Board of Devakottai : AIR1931Mad520 , where Madhavan Nair, J. held in February, 1931, that the above section is applicable only to suits for compensat...
Potnuru Swamy Babu Vs. the Union Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1933
Reported in: 146Ind.Cas.499
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The appellant sued the respondent, Union Board of Narasan napet for refund of Rs. 118-8-0 and interest thereon being the amount of house tax for 1924-25 illegally collected from him on May 1, 1925. The suit was brought on May 6, 1926. To the defences on the merits it is needless to refer as it has been held, by both the courts below and is no longer questioned that the levy was illegal as an essential, notice was not published. The only point for decision is whether the suit was barred by limitation being brought more than six months after the date of the cause of action as provided by Section 225 of the Local Boards Act, 1920, as it stood before the amendment of 1930. The learned District Judge has held the suit barred and the plaintiff appeals.2. The appellant mainly relies on Lakshmanan Chetti v. Union Board of Devakottai 132 Ind. Cas 113. 60 M.L.J.600 : 33 L.W. 532 : (1931) M.W.N. 428 : A.I.R. 1931. Mad. 520 : Ind Rul. (1931) Mad. 609, where Madhavan Nair, J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »