Chennai Court November 1934 Judgments
A.P.K.C. Periakaruppan Chetti and ors. Vs. Mottayya Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad240; (1935)69MLJ30
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by these plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs. 2,900, principal and interest due on the promissory note Ex. A, dated 30th June, 1923, executed by the first defendant in favour of the third defendant. This promissory note was endorsed over to the deceased father of the plaintiffs on the 19th January, 1924, by the third defendant. On the same date he wrote a letter - see Ex. 1 - to their deceased father in which, after stating that there was a decree debt due to him (the father) and that he was in need of Rs. 400 that day, he stated:A security for the aforesaid decree debt, for the sum of Rs. 400 which I borrow this day from you, and for the amounts which I may hereafter borrow from you I have assigned over to you the promissory note for Rs. 2,000 which was on 30th June, 1923, executed in my favour by Annamalai Mudaliar, son of Kuppuswami Mudaliar, of the said village. If at any time...
Tag this Judgment!Arathil Kandoth Madathil Janaki Amma Vs. Kinakkol Kuheema Umma and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.452
Stone, J.1. In this matter I am of the opinion that it is not possible to value the subject-matter of the suit as low as Rs. 3,000. The claim for maintenance and arrears of maintenance account for Rs. 2,875-12-0 and there is in addition a claim to set aside an order dismissing a claim petition. It is urged that the value of that remedy should be found by looking at Schedule II(17)(1) of the Court Fees Act, observing that a fee of Rs. 15 is payable then looking at the table of ad valorem fees, observing that that is the appropriate ad valorem fee, for a claim of Rs. 190--200 and thus valuing that remedy for the Court Fees Act. Then to get the value for jurisdiction it is said one has to go to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The fallacy lies in this that Section 8 relates to suits where ad valorem court-fees are payable and in cases falling under Schedule II(17)(1) the fee is a fixed and not an ad valorem fee. That mode of determining value failing, one is driven to Section 12 of t...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnuswami Nadar and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.454; (1935)68MLJ327
Venkatasubba, J.1. The serious contest is in regard to the Court-fee payable on the amount covered by the land acquisition award. The plaintiff claiming to be the reversioner of Annaswami Nadar, the last Male-holder, has filed the present suit. Annaswami Nadar's widow mortgaged certain items and eventually the interest of the mortgagees vested in one Danda-yudapani. In certain land acquisition proceedings, some portions of the mortgaged items were acquired and the sum represents the amount paid in respect of these portions. The money is now in Court and stands to the credit of the last male-holder. The question is, what is the proper relief that the plaintiff must pray for in regard to this amount? The plaintiff says he is entitled to ask for a declaration plus consequential relief. He says that he can claim an injunction restraining the defendants from applying for the payment of the sum and the consequential ielief he has accordingly prayed for in an injunction. In my opinion there i...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaram Pillai Vs. Kanakasabai Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad327; 157Ind.Cas.602; (1935)68MLJ354
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I think the lower Court's order strictly speaking, so far as its wording goes, is wrong. But I am concerned with the question whether it is substantially correct; in the event of its being right in substance, I shall not be justified in the exercise of my revisional powers, in interfering with the order. The lower court's view seems to be that there is no need to appoint Kanakasabhai as a trustee, as he, being a 'Vamsastha' of Chidambara, becomes a trustee without appointment and all that has to be done by the Court is merely to recognise him as trustee. I do not think this is right; but I am prepared to construe the order as amounting to an appointment of Kanakasabai.2. The following genealogical table shows that Kanakasabai. is the daughter's son of Parameswara and it must be noted that no personal disqualification is alleged against him. Chidambaram Pillai. | Ambalavana Pillai | Muthu Pillai. _________________________________________ | |Sundaram Pillai. Appa ...
Tag this Judgment!Lanka Ramiah and anr. Vs. the President of the Board of Commissioners ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad396; 157Ind.Cas.818; (1935)68MLJ494
Curgenven, J.1. These three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of three of a large number of applications made by; the Hindu Religious Endowments Board to the District Court of Kistna to enforce the payment of certain contributions leviable under Sections 69 and 70 of the Madras Religious Endowments Act. The District Court, proceeding under Sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act, has ordered that the properties specified in the schedules to the applications should be proceeded against for the realisation of these amounts. The appellants, who are persons in possession of these properties, raised a large number of objections in the Court below as to the validity of the Act itself and of the action of the Board, as well as a number of specific objections on the merits of each case. Some of these have been given up, including those relating to the validity of the Act.2. Before turning to those which are still pressed we have to consider what are the limits of the powers of a Court in ...
Tag this Judgment!Subhan Singh Vs. Rukma Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad768; 159Ind.Cas.737
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This is an application to review the order on Full Bench. Application 99 of 1930 passed on 18th January 1932 under Order 41, Rule 7(c), Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, by which the counter-petitioner was allowed to file a copy of a certain document for purposes of new trial. The facts which led up to this order are as follows : One Deva Singh died on 3rd September 1926 leaving a minor defendant-petitioner and a, widow and the plaintiff-petitioner. He also left a will and the minor through his maternal aunt Devaki Bai, filed O.P. No. 72 of 1928 in the District Court of Cuddapah for a succession certificate and he obtained it after notice to the present plaintiff who opposed the petition. The plaintiff filed a Small Cause No. 10319 of 1929 on a promissory-note alleged to have been executed by Devaki Bai as guardian of the minor. The trial Judge dismissed the suit on 22nd February 1930 and the plaintiff preferred an application for a new trial on the ground that the do...
Tag this Judgment!Veena Lana Ana Roona Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Kana Ana Vellachami Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.512; (1935)68MLJ229
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. This suit was brought for a declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff exclusively and that his son who had been declared an insolvent had no interest in it. The Official Receiver had sold the share of Plaintiff's son in the properties to the defendant.2. Several preliminary issues were raised, Nos. 2 to 6, and on one of them, issue No. 4, which was the only one decided the suit was dismissed. That issue was: is the suit for a mere declaration without a prayer to set aside the sale by the Official Receiver and for possession sustainable? The Court did not even decide the matter as to whether the suit without a prayer for possession was maintainable as will be seen from paragraph 8 of the judgment. It dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit could not be maintained without a prayer to set aside the sale by the Official Receiver.3. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Basava Sankaran v. Arjaneyulu I.L.R.(1926) 50 Mad. 135 : 51 M.L....
Tag this Judgment!Narpina Veeramma Vs. Gadde Venkatarasamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad313; 159Ind.Cas.532; (1935)68MLJ280
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this case is whether proper court-fee has been paid on the plaint. One Venkataratnam died leaving the first defendant, his widow; the second defendant is said to have been adopted by him on the 6th May, 1928. On the 6th November, Venkataratnam made a will giving authority to the first defendant to make another adoption in the event of the second defendant dying. On the 21st November, he made another will bequeathing his share of the property to the first defendant, on the footing that he had become divided in status from his adopted son. Three reliefs are prayed for in the plaint(1) a declaration that the adoption made by Venkataratnam is invalid(2) that his will dated 6th November, 1928, is invalid and(3) that his will dated 21st November, 1928, is also invalid.2. In regard to the first relief, the case directly falls within Section 17-A, the second defendant's adoption is invalid and the suit has been filed in the Sub-Court; the value of ...
Tag this Judgment!The King-emperor Vs. Ramanuja Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ73a
Cronish, J.1. The learned Chief Justice acting under Clause 25 of the Letters Patent has reserved as a point of law for determination under Clause 26 the question whether certain statements given in evidence at the trial of M. Ramanuja Aiyangar for murder were admissible. The statements which are in question were made by the prisoner while he was in the custody of a police-officer at the shop of a witness P.W. 10, and had relation to the sale of a mattress by that witness at that shop to the prisoner on the 12th January, and to the carriage of the mattress by a coolie woman, P.W. 11 from the shop.2. The circumstances in which the statements came to be made may be briefly narrated. It is in evidence that the murdered woman had left her husband on the 4th August last year and from that date had been living with the prisoner at different places in Madras. From the 23rd December until the evening of 11th January, which was the last occasion according to the evidence on which she was seen a...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalam and ors. Vs. V.R.M. Peria Karuppan Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad377
King, J.1. In 1889 there was a mortgage of the melwaram interest in certain land and a lease back to the mortgagors under a lease deed for a term of fousr years. The interests of the mortgagee have now devolved upon plaintiff and defendants 6 to 8, and these of the mortgagors upon defendants 1 to 5. Plaintiff sued for the recovery of the mortgage money and for profits for faslis 1328 to 1330 (1918-21). None of the defendants except defendant 3 had been paying any rent, and as against defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 both plaintiff's claims! were held to be barred by limitation in; both the Court of first instance and' lower appellate Court. In second appeal however Madhavan Nair, J., held that the claim for profits was not barred and defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 have accordingly filed their Letters Patent Appeal.2. In coming to this decision Madhavan Nair, J., relied upon Article 131, Lim. Act!,; which lays down that a suit to establish a periodically recurring right' is noil barred until 12 years...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »