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.
Seetharama Ayyar and ors. Vs. Sama Subba Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad445
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 226 of 1928 in the Court of the District Munsif of Kollegal for a declaration of his title to his share of the plaint-mentioned properties by virtue of a sale-deed from defendant 1, for partition and division of the same by metes and bounds and for possession of the same from defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers of a joint family. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant 2. Defendants 5 to 8 are alienees from defendant 2. The properties in suit consist of three items. Defendant 1 remained ex parte. The Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in item 1, but was entitled to a half share in item 2 and half of a two-thirds share in item 3 and that the plaintiff is at liberty to apply for the appointment of a commissioner to take an account as to the amount of liability of the family as it stood up to the date of the decree, as also to find out the value of the said family property and that the plaintiff should acc...
S. Krishnasamy Ayyar Vs. Rava Ramanathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad314; 156Ind.Cas.418
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. This appeal is by the 3rd 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 Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of one Sundaram Ayyar who died in May 1922, leaving him surviving three sons, the 1st defendant (then aged about 20) and the other two defendants minors at the time). The 3rd defendant attained majority only pending this appeal. During his lifetime, Sundaram Ayyar, started a mnndy 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 the time of his death ...
D.S. Kanniah Chetty and Co. Vs. Pulipati Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad244; 159Ind.Cas.319; (1935)68MLJ203
Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this case is whether the District Munsif should have ordered the travelling expenses of the petitioner and a subsistence allowance, the petitioner having been the successful defendant in the suit in the sense that he was a partner in the firm sued. Being a partner in the firm, he may be taken to be a party to the suit. He gave evidence in support of the defendants' case. He resides in Madras where the partnership to which he belongs carries on business. In order to fight the case he had to go from Madras to Bezwada, I am told on two occasions and of course incurred railway travelling expenses and there may have been some other small expenses which he also incurred. His expenses as a witness have been disallowed; and the question is whether that was a correct order. The only order of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with a position anything like this appears to me to be Order 16, Rule 21 which reads.where any party to a suit is re...
P.N. Raghavan Pattar and ors. Vs. Minor S. Arumugham by His Mother and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad385; (1935)68MLJ283
Stone, J.1. This appeal raises a simple point in connection with a chit fund transaction. The Subordinate Judge has treated a certain clause in a mortgage bond as a penalty clause and has varied its terms in favour of the defendants. The question is whether he was right in so doing. The examination of the point is to be found on page 16 of the printed pleadings under the heading of the 4th issue. The learned Judge does not refer to any cases. He does not definitely give the reasons why he considers that the clause in question is penal but he puts it on the following ground.2. 'As the plaintiffs are mere stakeholders who have merely to collect the instalments at stated intervals and as they do not require the entire amount from the first defendant for distribution among the share-holders at once, the ends of justice will be met with in this case if a decree is passed for the instalments that are overdue on the date of the plaint with interest at 18 percent. per annum on the amount of ea...
Subramania Padayachi and ors. Vs. Pakkiri Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad119
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The facts of the case are very simple and may be briefly stated. 'The suit property belonged to one Subbaraya Padayachi. His wife predeceased him. He had only a minor son Pavadai by name. On 26th November 1918 Subbaraya Padayachi executed a will Ex. B. His son died in 1914 and he himself died in July 1916. The suit property was sold to the plaintiff under Ex. A by Anjalai Ammal who is a sister of Subbaraya Padayachi. The plaintiff's case is that under the will the property came to Anjalai Ammal and since he purchased the same from her he is now entitled to it. In other words, his title to the suit property is based upon Exs. A and B. The defendants are people in possession of the suit property and they say that they obtained the property under an oral gift from Subbaraya Padayachi. This oral gift has been found against by both the lower Courts. After the death of his son, under Ex. 1 some of the properties included in the will were...
The Municipal Council, Salem Represented by Its Chairman Vs. B. Gurura ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad249; 157Ind.Cas.608; (1935)68MLJ118
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent is a retired Subordinate Judge. He retired from service on 6th September, 1930, on a pension. Under the Madras District Municipalities Act he was liable to pay profession tax to the Petitioner, the Municipal Council, Salem, half-yearly. In 1931 he commuted a portion of his pension, viz., Rs. 150 a month for a lump sum of Rs. 17,820. The Petitioner levied profession tax on that sum in addition to the tax payable on the uncommuted pension treating it as a receipt of pension. The Respondent refused to pay the tax in respect of that sum, but later on paid it under protest and sued the Petitioner in the District Munsif s Court for a refund of the tax paid. The District Munsif gave a decree in favour of the Respondent here holding that the sum received in lieu of the portion of his pension when it was commuted was no longer pension and therefore was not taxable under the Act. With this view we entirely agree. Pension has been defined in...
Sadanalla Gangaraju Vs. Indraganti Subbayya (Died) Represented by Vign ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad188; 155Ind.Cas.864; (1935)68MLJ119
King, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the Decree-holder in O.S. No. 283 of 1916 on the file of the Additional District Munsif of Rajamundry. The Respondent is a surety for the satisfaction of the decree by the judgment-debtor. The decree in question was confirmed in appeal on 23rd February, 1922. In 1922 and again in 1924 execution was taken out by the Appellant against the Legal Representatives of the judgment-debtor. Some of the assets of the judgment-debtor were sold and the decree was satisfied in part. In April 1927 and again in October 1927 execution was taken out against the surety. When his property was about to be sold in March 1928 the surety (Respondent) raised the objection that execution as against him was barred, and this objection was upheld both by the executing court and on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Rajamundry. Hence the Second Appeal by the decree-holder to this Court.2. The article of the Limitation Act which governs this case is Article 182, Clause (5)...
Gadula Rami Naidu Vs. Meesala Seethan Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad276
Walsh, J.1. The respondent in this petition filed a suit (O.S. No. 301 of 1929) to recover Rs. 900 from the' defendant. While the suit was being tried, the parties entered into an agreement Ex. A without reference to the Court to submit the matter to arbitration and 'the other disputes between us.' Ex. A ends as follows:We having agreed to this willingly, the first executant has withdrawn the suit O.S. No. 301 of 1929 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Eajam.2. One of the five arbitrators appointed could not act and therefore it was necessary to make a second reference, Ex. B. This begins:We were having disputes and fighting with each other in Courts and to settle all disputes between us we executed in favour of you four persons and another, Rowthu Swami Naidu, a reference to arbitration on 21st April 1930.It ends:It is agreed that the award passed by you shall be binding on us as per terms of the previous agreement dated 21st April 1930.3. This is dated 16th May 1930. Thereup...
Swami Kotayya Vs. Thunuguntla Venkata Rangarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad239; (1935)68MLJ148
King, J.1. This petition raises the question whether when a debtor has been adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act his creditor can, without the leave of the insolvency court, file an execution application against him with a prayer for his arrest. Our decision depends upon the interpretation of Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act which runs as follows:On the making of an order of adjudication the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the court or in a receiver as hereinafter provided, and shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter, except as provided by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect, of any debt provable under this Act shall during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceedings, except with the leave of the court on such terms as the Court may impose.2. At first sigh...
Laguduva S. Krishnaswami Iyer Vs. Sankarappa Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad175
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The petitioner here was a joint decree-holder in a certain suit. The respondent here was the judgment-debtor in that suit. Against an order passed in execution on 21st October 1932 the judgment-debtor filed an appeal (A.S. No. 191) of 1932 within time. In that appeal he omitted the name of Laguduva S. Krishnaswami Ayyar, the present petitioner, and on 1st November 1933, in the cause of the appeal, he put in two Interlocutory Applications (I.A. Nos. 425 and 426 of 1933). The first application asked for a relief to add the petitioner as a respondent. The second asked for permission under Section 5, Limitation Act, to excuse the delay in preferring the appeal against him, which was out of time. The lower Court, granted both the petitions. There is no revision-petition against the order on I.A. No. 426 extending the period of limitation and that order has become-final. The present petition is against the order on I.A. No. 425 of 1933 giving, permission to add the petitione...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »