Chennai Court January 1934 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.
S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1934
Reported in: 150Ind.Cas.602; (1934)66MLJ451
Jackson, J.1. The Plaintiff (Appellant) sues the sixteen Defendants on the following grounds. The Plaintiff's father, a money-lender with branches of his business in Burma and Cochin China, died on 24th April, 1915, leaving a widow Defendant 5 and their son, the Plaintiff, aged 3. The father's cousins were one Ramaswami Chetti and the present 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff's guardian was his widowed mother, but she let the two cousins manage the estate; and they managed jointly till October, 1918, when Ramaswami Chetti died. Then 1st Defendant assumed- sole management, and became de facto guardian. From the time that they assumed management the cousins acted in fraud of the Plaintiff's estate, and in order to promote this fraud the 1st Defendant appointed sundry agents who colluded with him and participated in his breach of trust. Defendants 6 to 13 were such agents. Defendants 2 and 3 are impleaded as sons of Defendant 1; Defendant 4 as son of Ramaswami Chetti. The Plaintiff's mother is...
S.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad367
Jackson, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) sues the sixteen defendants on the following grounds. The plaintiff's father, a money-lender with branches of his business in Burma and Cochin China died on 24th April 1915 leaving a widow, defendant 5, and their son, the plaintiff, aged 3. The father's cousins were one Kamaswami Chetti and the present defendant 1. The plaintiff's guardian was his widowed mother, but she let the two cousins manage the estate; and they managed jointly till October 1918, when Ramaswami Chetti died. Then defendant 1 assumed sole management, and became de facto guardian. From the time that they assumed management the cousins acted in fraud of the plaintiff's estate, and in order to promote this fraud defendant 1 appointed sundry agents who colluded with him and participated in his breach of trust. Defendants 6 to 13 were such agents. Defendants 2 and 3 are impleaded as sons of defendant 1; defendant 4 as son of Ramaswami Chetti. The plaintiff's mother is defendant 5,...
Damaraju Sivaramamurthi Vs. Atyam Venkayya (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad364; (1934)66MLJ561
1. This is an appeal by the 2nd Defendant against the revised judgment by the learned Sub-Judge after remand in O.S. No. 117 of 1922. The only point argued relates to the decree passed against the 2nd Defendant for the past mesne profits. The 2nd Defendant is the son of the 1st Defendant who is now dead and Defendants 3 and 4 are his uncles, being the-brothers of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff has become the purchaser of the one-third undivided share belonging to the 1st Defendant in the suit items.2. The Appellant says that no decree should have been passed against him as he and his father were not in possession of the family properties and as the profits of the properties were all along being enjoyed by Defendants 3 and 4. The learned Judge did not accept this view of the case. Defendants 3 and 4 say that the profits of the properties were being enjoyed in shares by the Defendants. The leases of the properties were sometimes given by the 3rd Defendant and sometimes by the 4th but t...
Dara Sivarao Vs. Kola Subbarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ563
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Jackson, J. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff who is the assignee of a mortgage held by the 4th defendant, for the recovery of a sum of money, by enforcing the mortgage. The 1st defendant was the mortgagor. Two items of properties are comprised in the mortgage. The 3rd defendant happened to be a subsequent purchaser of item 2 for a sum of Rs. 725. It is clear from the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court, that this transaction of sale by the 1st defendant to the 3rd defendant was brought about with the full knowledge and concurrence of the mortgagee (4th defendant) who was more or less instrumental in bringing about this purchase and who derived the benefit of this purchase, inasmuch as he credited the purchase money, viz., Rs. 725, towards the debt (between Rs. 800 and Rs. 900) due from the 1st defendant. This amount covers the debt due on the mort...
Singaravelu Pillai Vs. Board of Revenue and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad333
ORDERBardswell, J.1. The petitioner has applied for a writ of certiorari with a view to quashing the proceedings of the Board of Revenue by which respondent 2 in this petition was appointed to the office of karnam. The Zamindar of Ariyalur appointed the petitioner as karnam on 2nd January 1929. The petitioner was an outsider with no mirasi right. In 1932 two suits were brought under Section 13, Madras Act 3 of 1895, with a view to obtaining the post of karnam. One of these suits was brought by respondent 2 and the other was brought by his brother. In accordance with the provisions of Rules 24-A and 27 of the rules framed by the Board of Revenue under Section 20 of the Act, as to the procedure in suits, the present respondent 2 was joined as defendant in the suit brought by his brother. After this had been done, he withdrew his own suit without obtaining permission to bring a fresh suit. The suit by his brother was then heard by the Deputy Collector of Ariyalur who gave a decree not in ...
Kotla Venkataswamy Vs. Chinta Ramamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad579
Curgenven, J.1. The plaintiff, who appeals, sued to enforce a mortgage bond for Rs. 1,000 purporting to have been executed on behalf of a company calling itself the South Indian Agricultural and Industrial Improvement Co, Ltd., to one Venkamma, who assigned her interest to the plaintiff. The company subsequently went into voluntary liquidation and the mortgaged property was sold and eventually purchased by defendant; 4. The mortgage deed was signed by the Working Director and by the Secretary to the company (defendants 1 and 2). The plaint avers that the debt was regularly contracted in accordance with the powers and authority possessed by the said director and secretary under the articles of the said company and the special resolutions passed from time to time.2. Defendant 4 in his written statement says that he does not admit that the document was executed by and on behalf of the company, defendants 1 and 2 not being competent to contract loans, much less to charge the property of th...
Nagalingam Pillai Vs. Alagia Manavalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.226
Beasley, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order of Lakshmana Rao, J. holding that the Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to decide whether or not Act II of 1929 is applicable to the case and deciding that there was no ground for the issue of a writ of certiorari. He, therefore, rejected the petition. He had before him, as his order indicates, a petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari directed to the Court of the Sub-Collector of Ramnad and the Court of the District Collector also of Ramnad. The Sub-Collector had before him a suit under Act III of 1895. The first plaintiff in that suit claimed that he was entitled to be appointed to a certain Village Office, the predecessor in that office having resigned in 1932. Acting under Sections 9 and 10 of the Madras Proprietary Estates' Village Service Act (II of 1891) the proprietor of the village had appointed to the office the defendant in the suit in the Revenue Court in preference to the first plaintiff. The first plaint...
Gopalu Pillai Vs. N.R. Kothandarama Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad529; 153Ind.Cas.916
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Kothandarama Ayyar to recover his half-share of a debt evidenced by a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of his deceased brother Natesa Ayyar and to get the other half-share paid to defendant 3 who is Natesa Ayyar's widow. The promissory note was executed on 21st July 1925 for Rs. 3,945-8-10 according to the particulars given therein. The plaintiff alleged that at the time of the execution of the suit note, the plaintiff and his brother were undivided. Natesa Ayyar died on 22nd March 1926 leaving a widow Avayambal Ammal the present defendant 3. The relative rights of the plaintiff and defendant 3 in the properties of the family being the subject of doubt a partition-deed and an agreement were executed between them on 6th June 1926. The partition-deed generally provides that the family properties not expressly mentioned in it should be taken equally, (Ex. 1). But the agreement (Ex. E) expressly...
M.P. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. S.A. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad320; 150Ind.Cas.934
Curgenven, J.1. The appellants in the miscellaneous appeal, who are also the petitioners in the revision petition, applied to the Subordinate Judge, Ramnad, for restitution in the following circumstances. In O.S. No. 6 of 1911 on the file of the same Court they obtained a decree upon a promissory, note for a sum of Rs. 28,575, and as a result of adjustment between the parties the judgment-debtors paid into Court a sum of Ea. 17,618. Respondent 1 filed the suit O.S. No. 14 of 1921 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Sivaganga for a declaration that he was entitled to the amount of this decree, the appellants being only his representatives, and obtained a declaration to this effect and further that he was entitled to continue the execution proceedings of the said decree. An appeal (A.S. No. 135 of 1924) was preferred to this Court and this judgment was modified, the respondent being declared entitled only to a 5/17ths share in the promissory note and therefore in the decree. In connexion...
Chathangali Rarichan Vs. Puvvammparambath Kunhamu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad392; 150Ind.Cas.113
ORDERAnanthakrishna Iyer, J.1. The application filed by the decree-bolder oa 17th March 1932, for execution of the decree in S.C.S. No. 234 of 1932, has-been dismissed by the learned District Munsif on the ground that execution of the decree is barred by limitation. The learned District Munsif held that E.P. No. 173 of 1930, should not be taken to be a step in aid of execution, because the defendant was an undischarged insolvent at that time. In this revision petition filed by the decree-holder, it is argued that there was Article I.A. No. 424 of 1930 filed by the decree-holder on 23rd July 1933, for leave to execute the decree against the defendant under Section 28(2), Provincial Insolveney Act, and that leave was granted' to the decree-holder on 26th August 1930. It is argued by the petitioner decree-bolder that assuming that E.P. No. 173 of 1930 would not be available, as the starting point for limitation yet;,, as I.A. No. 424 of 1930 was filed within three years of final orders pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »