Chennai Court October 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.
Peram Chennamma Vs. Peram Mangamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad709; 158Ind.Cas.121
1. This is an appeal from the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur and raises the question of limitation. The claim is for possession of property which is claimed by the plaintiff as the widow of the deceased proprietor of the property against various persons whose substantial defence is that they are entitled under the terms of a will. The will has not been probated, but there have been two proceedings involving in some way or another, the will. Of these proceedings we need not deal with the mutation proceedings because counsel for the respondents admits that in view of Achut Raysappa v. Gopal Subbaya 1915 Bom. 136 he cannot rely upon the mutation point. There remains the other proceeding which was for issue of a succession certificate. There defendants 1 and 2 applied and the plaintiff and defendant 7 were impleaded as counter claimants, and in the result defendants 1 and 2 were granted succession certificate. The order granting the succession certificate was dated 5th Nove...
Veerappa Chettiar Vs. S.A. Ar. M. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad316; 156Ind.Cas.439
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, who are uncle and nephew, against a decree which dismissed their suit to have it declared that a half share in certain properties is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree, obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant, in Order No. 215 of 1929. The debt for which that decree was obtained was contracted by the second defendant on December 14, 1928. On February 1, 1929, the second defendant, under the advice of certain elders and mediators, executed a release deed Ex. A in favour of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff being his younger brother and the 2nd plaintiff being his minor son. That document recites that the second defendant since he attained majority has not been properly looking after the family or its affairs and that he has taken to bad ways. These recitals are now confirmed by the evidence of P.Ws. Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff Witness No. 2, is no doubt interested in the minor plaintiff, being the grandfather o...
Khumchand Dhulaji Paladuvala Vs. Gomraj Fatechand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad219; (1935)68MLJ205
King, J.1. Six plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Madras against two Defendants for dissolution of partnership. As one of these Defendants was admittedly not living in Madras, leave to sue in the City Civil Court had to be obtained. Leave was granted by the City Civil Judge although it was applied for only after the plaint had been filed, and the question at issue in this revision petition is whether it is not obligatory in the City Civil Court for such leave to be applied for before the suit is filed.2. In support of this position reliance is placed upon Section 8 of the Madras City Civil Court Act which runs as follows:All questions which arise in suits or other proceedings under this Act in the City Court shall be dealt with and determined according to the law for the time being administered by the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction3. And it is admittedly one of the rules of practice in the High Court that leave to sue i...
Srila Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi (Deceased) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad161; 155Ind.Cas.327; (1935)68MLJ261
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The execution proceedings in this case have had a curious and interesting history. The defendant died soon after the passing of the decree. Ignorant of this fact, the plaintiff filed the first four execution petitions against the dead judgment-debtor. The fifth petition he filed, bringing a wrong person on the record as the debtor's representative. The present petition is the sixth one filed against the same wrong representative; but the plaintiff amended it after the expiry of the 12 year period prescribed by Section 48, Civil Procedure Code by bringing the right representative on the record. The lower Court's finding, which is not contested, is that the plaintiff throughout acted bona fide.2. On these facts, three questions arise:(1) Are the first four petitions against the dead judgment-debtor steps-in-aid of execution within Article 182 (5) of the Limitation Act?.(2) Is the fifth petition against the wrong representative a step-in-aid of execution?(3) Does th...
Dandu Sivaramaraju (Died) Dandu Raghunatha Raju, Legal Representative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad354; 159Ind.Cas.750; (1935)68MLJ630
Cornish, J.1. The point for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff--appellant's suit is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act, in which case it is time barred, or by Article 120, in which case the suit will be in time.2. The appellant was auction-purchaser at a Court-sale of certain items of property sold by defendants 5 to 10 in execution of a decree obtained by them in a Rent suit against defendants 3 and 4. The date of the sale was 25th September, 1918, and it was confirmed on 11th December, 1918. The purchase price was Rs. 2,525 which was duly deposited in Court. In the meantime a stranger in these proceedings had brought a suit O.S. No. 723 of 1918, for recovery of possession, alleging that in as much as the judgment-debtors had already sold the lands to him they had no saleable interest in the land, and that there were irregularities in the sale to the appellant. This suit was decreed on 15th December, 1919, the Court holding that there were irregularities in the...
Madhavarapu Sathiraju and ors. Vs. Madhavarapu Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad333; 157Ind.Cas.1056
Veradachariar, J.1. The plaintiffs-appellants purchased some properties from defendants 2 to 6 under a sale deed, Ex. A dated 28th January 1928, and they obtained possession. This sale was executed in pursuance of an agreement, Ex. N, dated 26th January 1928. The present defendant 1, however claimed to have obtained an earlier agreement for sale of the same properties (Ex. 4) though dated the same date as Ex. N and he filed 0.S. No. 8 of 1928 for specific performance of that agreement. The properties which formed the subject of these sales and certain other properties were liable to a mortgage claim in favour of defendant 7 under Ex. B dated 19th January 1916. 0.S. No. 8 of 1928 was filed on 13th February 1928 and during the pendency of that suit the present plaintiffs, as vendees under Ex. A, paid a sum of Rupees 12,000 odd to defendant 7, on 29th February 1928, in discharge of Ex. B. The suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of the present defendant 1 and by that decree...
Kumchand Dhulaji Paladuvala Vs. Gomraj Fetechand
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.527
1. Six plaintiffs filed a suit in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Madras, against two defendants for dissolution of partnership. As one of those defendants was admittedly not living in Madras, leave to sue in the City Civil Court had to be obtained. Leave was granted by the City Civil Judge although it was applied for only after the plaint had been filed, and the question at issue in this revision petition is whether it is not obligatory in the City Civil Court for such leave to be applied for before the suit is filed.2. In support of this position reliance is placed upon Section 8 of the Madras City Civil Court Act which runs as follows:All questions which arise in suits or other proceedings tinder this Act in the City Court shall be dealt with and determined according to the law for the time being administered by the High Court, in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdictionand it is admittedly one of the rules of practice in the High Court that leave to sue in circumstan...
A. Ramamurthi Vs. Ootacamund Municipal Council and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad48; 153Ind.Cas.257
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari in respect of the order of the Election Commissioner, viz., the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris dated 10th August 1934 which dismissed the petitioner's application to declare the election of respondent 2 Mr. J.A. Davis as Chairman of the Ootacamund Municipal Council void under the rules framed by the Government for deciding disputes regarding the validity of elections. There can be no doubt that the Election Commissioner, viz., the Subordinate Judge, had jurisdiction to deal with the petition presented to him by the petitioner; in fact he was the only authority who had jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding the validity of the election in question. The petitioner himself invoked that jurisdiction, and it does not lie in his mouth to deny that the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris had jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question. It is however contended that ho acted in excess of jurisdiction or without ...
Mallavarapu Narasamma and ors. Vs. Boggavarapu Bulli Veerraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad769; 160Ind.Cas.768
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits instituted by different plaintiffs against the same defendant, for varying sums of money claimed to be due under promissory notes executed by the defendants. As the defence was to a certain extent common to all the suits they were tried together and the whole evidence for the defendants was recorded in O.S. No. 42 of 1927 (A.S. No. 250 of 1930). In two of the suits, the defendant admitted receipt of small sums and to that extent those suits were decreed; the other two suits were dismissed.2. The defendant is the youngest son of a rich Vysia family of Cocanada. Born in July 1907 he was married in 1921 into a rich family of Akkiveedu and his wife joined him early in 1925. Nevertheless, in the course of 1926, he seems to have taken to bad ways, with the help and under the evil influence of two of his father's dismissed clerks - Bhaskara Row and Majeti Venkataramana - and one Immidi Sooryam, the husband of a deceased sister. The transact...
Murugappa Chetti Vs. Ramanathan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad734; 157Ind.Cas.274
Stone, J.1. This is a claim by the plaintiff, a Nattukottai Chetcy money lender, against nine defendants on a promissory note. Defendant 1 is the maker of the promissory note. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are his sons. Defendant 5 is a brother and defendants 6 to 9 are defendant l's nephews. The issues as originally framed, despite the facts that in para 7 of the written statement of defendant 2 the plea of limitation is raised, do not raise the question of limitation at all. The learned Subordinate Judge as regards issue 2 and issue 4 amends them both. Issue 2 as it stood before his judgment was delivered is as follows:Did defendant and 5 become divided from the other members of defendant's family as alleged by defendant 2 and defendants 5 to 9?2. That is amended by adding, Are defendants 6 to 9 divided from the other defendants'? No question arises on this point before us. The fourth issue stood as follows:Did he (i.e. defendant 1) borrow the amount for which he executed it for any necessit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »