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.
Chorotti Alias Chinna Amma and anr. Vs. P. Karunakaran Nair (Deaceased ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad88; (1935)68MLJ24
King, J.1. A decree was obtained in 1916 against the karnavan of a tarwad. The tarwad was partitioned in 1918 into a number of tavazhies. In 1926 the decree amount was discharged by the representatives of two of these tavazhies, and in 1929. These representatives sued the representatives of the remaining tavazhies which had formed the original tarwad, for contribution. The suit was brought as a small cause suit and the trial court held that it had jurisdiction so to treat it. The question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether that decision is right.2. Article 41 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act (IX of 1887) removes from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court 'a suit for contribution by a sharer in joint property in respect of a payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer' and the question is whether such a suit is one brought by a person who at the time of bringing it was a sharer in joint property, or one brought by a person whose cause of action depends upon the ...
Dasari Nagabhushanam Vs. Kunameeni Venkatappayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad203; 155Ind.Cas.948; (1935)68MLJ95
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In my opinion, the view of the Court-fee Examiner and the decision of the District Munsif supporting that view, are clearly wrong. There is a distinction between the getting rid of a document to which a person is a party and one to which he is not. The plaintiff in the suit complains that the sale-deed was forged by the defendant, that in spite of his objection, the Registrar directed its registration and he prays that the instrument may be declared to be a forgery.2. When a person impeaches a deed as having been forged, to refer to him as being a party to it, is an obvious misuse ofss words. Mr. K. Subba Rao, who supports the lower Court's view, contends that the provision applicable is Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act, which runs thus:In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value, or other document securing money or other property having such value, according to the value of the subject-matter of the suit, and such...
G. Ponniah Asari Vs. Suppiah Asari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad363; 158Ind.Cas.1; (1935)68MLJ213
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Ramnad at Madura and there is also a memorandum of objections to that order. A petition was filed in the District Court under the Guardian and Wards Act. The first petitioner was the father of the minor girl in question and the second petitioner her elder brother. The petitioners asked for an order directing her to be placed in the custody of the first petitioner together with her jewels. The respondents were the maternal uncles of the minor girl. The petitioners alleged in the petition that the minor girl was aged and that she had been taken by the respondents out of the custody of the first petitioner, her father, a fortnight before the presentation of the petition on the pretext that her grandmother wanted to see her. The minor girl's mother died when she was about one year old. It was also alleged in the petition that the respondents were trying to bring about the marriage of th...
Muthuswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. K.M. Chinna Muthuswami Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad195
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura. The petition was one under Section 25, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, praying for an order directing the respondents to produce a minor girl with her jewels and deliver her to the petitioner in the presence of the Court and in default for an order that the minor be delivered into the custody of the petitioner. The Subordinate Judge directed the respondents to produce the minor before the Court on 10th December 1933 and deliver her to the petitioner. The question with regard to the jewels was left open. This is a contest between the father of the minor girl and her maternal grandfather and maternal uncle. It seems that the petitioner's first wife who was the mother of the minor daughter died and a year after the minor girl was allowed to be taken by her maternal grand-father to his house and to be brought up by him. On behalf the petitioner, the father of the minor, it is alleged that the respon...
Nageswara Ayyar Vs. M.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad468; 157Ind.Cas.232
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the mortgagor, against a decree for sale passed in the mortgagee's suit. Only two points have been raised in the appeal: One relates to an item of Rs. 7,000, which formed part of the consideration recited in the mortgage bond; the other question relates to the rate t f interest.2. The first question formed the subject of issue 6 and has been discussed pretty fully in para. 9 of the lower Court's judgment. Before the lower Court, the accounts showing a loan of Rs. 6,000 to defendant is mother were not available, as they were in the records of the High Court in a pending appeal. Defendant 1 did not deny the arrangement that the sum of Rs. 7,000 now claimed was to be utilised in discharge of the above debt due by his mother to the plaintiff. His only contention was that the plaintiff promised to satisfy him that such a debt was really due from the mother by the production of the accounts, but that he had not done so. We are not prepared to accept h...
Muthusami Chettiar and anr. Vs. K.M. Chinna Muthusami Moopanar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.430
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura. The petition was one under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, praying for an order directing the respondents to produce a' minor girl with her jewels and deliver her to the petitioner in the presence of the Court and in default for an order that the minor be delivered into the custody of the petitioner. The Subordinate Judge directed the respondents to produce the minor before the Court on December 10, 1933, and deliver her to the petitioner. The question with regard to the jewels was left open.2. This is a contest between the father of the minor girl and her maternal grandfather and maternal uncle. It seems that the petitioner's first wife who was the mother of the minor daughter died and a year after the minor girl was allowed to be taken by her maternal grandfather to his house and to be brought up by him. On behalf of the petitioner, the father of the minor, it is alleged that the responde...
P.C. Muthu Chettiar Vs. R.M. Venkatachalam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad287
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Two points arise for determination in this second appeal, (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of Rs. 700 claimed by him in the plaint and (2) whether his suit is barred by limitation. The lower Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the return, of the money because the breach of the contract under which the money was claimed was due to the default on the part of the defendants : But agreeing,, with the first Court it held that the suit was barred by limitation and hence the. suit was dismissed. On the merits the' lower Court's finding was that there was really no contract entered into between the parties as each one had a different idea as to the nature of the contract that he was entering into with the other and that the contract was the result of a mistake. This would mean there was no contract at all between the parties. If So, I could not understand how the question of default is material. On the merits I am i...
P.C. Muthuchettiar Vs. R.M. Venkatachalam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.486
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Two points arise for determination in this second appeal: (1) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of Rs. 700 claimed by him in the plaint, and (2) whether his suit is barred by limitation. The lower Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the money because the breach of the contract under which the money was claimed was due to the default on the part of the defendants. But agreeing with the first Court it held that the suit was barred by limitation and hence the suit was dismissed.2. On the merits the lower Court's finding was that there was really no contract entered into between the parties as each me had a different idea as to the nature of the contract that he was entering into with the other and that the contract was the result of a mistake. This would mean there was no contract at all between the parties. If so, I could not understand how the question of default is material. On the merits I am incli...
Kordatu Gurayya Vs. Vuppalapati Sathiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad307; 157Ind.Cas.246; (1935)68MLJ196
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit was filed as one of a small cause nature and the learned Subordinate Judge, holding that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The correctness of that order is questioned before me.2. The allegations in the plaint are, that the defendant took the land on lease for one year, that on the expiry of the period he continued to be in possession for another year, refusing to surrender it in spite of demands and that the plaintiff is therefore entitled to Rs. 170 as 'damages for use and occupation', that amount being a year's rent as provided by the lease deed. The short question is, whether the suit is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court by Article 31, Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That Article reads thus:Any other suit for an account, including a suit by a mortgagor, after the mortgage has been satisfied to recover surplus collection received by the mortg...
S. Krishnaswami Aiyar, Late Minor by Guardian Meternal Uncle, Doraswam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ251
Varadachariar, J.1. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) has reported no instructions and the appeal has, therefore, been heard ex parte.2. The appeal is by the third defendant, against so much of the decree of the lower Court as declared that his interest in the joint family properties is also liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of the plaint claim. The material facts are as follows: defendants 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of one Sundaram Aiyar who died in May, 1922, leaving him surviving, three sons-the first defendant (then aged about 20 and the other two-defendants, minors at that time). The third defendant attained majority only pending this appeal. During his lifetime, Sundaram Aiyar started a mundy business in February, 1920, in partnership with one Narasinga Rao and in the course of this business he had dealings with the plaintiff's firm. It has been stated on behalf of the appellant - and we see nothing on record to the contrary - that at t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »