Chennai Court November 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.
K.N. Varadaraja Aiyar Vs. K.N. Parameswara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad280; (1935)68MLJ277
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal must be dismissed with costs. The Subordinate Judge in execution proceedings arising out of a partition suit awarded the execution petitioner the sum of Rs. 750 by way of damages. The matter arose in the following way. There was a certain property which in the partition fell to the share of the execution petitioner. Between the date of the decree and the execution proceedings that property was deliberately damaged. The case of the execution petitioner was that the third defendant in the partition suit, who was one of the co-sharers, at the instance of the second defendant, dliberately damaged this property, the second defendant having previously given an undertaking that he himself would not damage the property. Presumably he was able to satisfy his conscience, if he possessed such a thing, by getting somebody else to do the damage instead. This apparently he considered was within the terms of the undertaking and not in violation of ...
Subbarama Ayyar Vs. Chinnaswami Thanjirayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad295
Walsh, J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1929 on the file of the East Tanjore District Court and in execution thereof brought the properties of the judgment debtor to sale. The sale was fixed for 9th January 1931 and at the request of the judgment debtor was adjourned to 30th January 1931 to enable him to arrange for a private sale. It was further adjourned on that date at the request of the judgment debtor to 6th February 1931 on which date a third party who was present, respondent 1, namely, Chinnasami Thanjirayar, presented an application purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 69, Civil P. C, asking for an adjournment on the ground that he was prepared to purchase and an order was passed on this:Sale to go on from day to day till 13th February 1931 by which time the proposed purchaser Chinnasami Thanjirayar will pay into Court Rs. 2,000 to show his bona iides.2. On 13th February an order was passed that the sale was to go on from day to day till the 17th. On the...
Vadavatte Gopalan Nair Vs. Moideen Madar Rowthen
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad680; 157Ind.Cas.1050
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. This second appeal raises a pure-question of law, and that question is whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 132, Lim. Act. The facts are these. The owners of the suit properties granted two mortgages (Exs. F and G) over the suit properties in favour of one Eaman Nair. They subsequently granted a usufructuary mortgage of the same properties in favour of, one Raghunatha Sastri for Rs. 475 (see Ex. 11), authorizing him to pay off the prior mortgages in favour of Raman Nair and reduce the properties into possession. He paid in cash Rs. 125 to the mortgagors but he never paid off the prior mortgages. Raman Nair, the original mortgagee, assigned his rights under the two mortgages in favour of one Bada. Bivi under Ex. 13. The original mortgagors also assigned their mortgagor's rights in the properties to the said Bada Bivi. Thus Raman Nair's mortgages have become extinguished and the only outstanding mortgage on the properties ...
Subbarama Iyer Vs. Chinnasami Thanjirayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.492
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree in Order 8. No. 20 of 1929 on the file of the East Tanjore District Court and in execution thereof brought the properties of the judgment-debtor to sale. The sale was fixed for January 9, 1931 and at the request of the judgment-debtor was adjourned to January 30, 1931, to enable him to arrange for a private sale. It was further adjourned on that date at the request of the judgment-debtor to February 6, 1931, on which date a third party who was present, the let respondent, namely, Chinnasami Thanjirayar, presented an application purporting to be under Order XXI, Rule 69, Civil Procedure Code, asking for an adjournment on the ground that he was prepared to purchase and an order was passed on this. 'Sale to go on from day to day till February 13, 1931 by which time the proposed purchaser Chinnaswami Thanjirayar will pay into Court Rs. 2,000 to show his bona fides.' On the February 13, an order was passed that the sale was to go on from...
Chitikala Peda Yerranna Vs. Chitikala Somanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad320; (1935)69MLJ115
Curgenven, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit filed to eject the defendants, who are in possession under what is called a Khandagutta cowle of a land described as carpenter's service inam. This land was in 1915 the property of a minor named Satyanarayana and in that year his mother as his guardian executed the document in question, Ex. I to the first defendant, of whom the second and third defendants are brothers. The document has been abstracted in paragraph 8 of the District Munsif's judgment. A sum of Rs. 693 was received for the purpose of paying certain debts and in consideration of it the first defendant was put in possession for 33 years. In 1920 the Government resumed and fully assessed this inam and regranted it on patta to Satyanarayana. At about the same time Satyanarayana was sued, and this property was attached under the decree, sold in Court auction and purchased by the plaintiff in the present suit. He has endeavoured to show that the instrument under w...
Desamsetti Venkanna Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad250; 157Ind.Cas.559; (1935)68MLJ57
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question that arises is, whether the mortgage impugned comes within the mischief of Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. To deal with the question properly, the distinction between Sections 53 and 54 must be borne in mind. The mortgage in the present case is in favour of a creditor of the insolvent (also a relation of his) and the bulk of the consideration is alleged to be a past debt due to him. It is well settled that apart from the law of bankruptcy, a creditor may take a transfer, although he is fully aware that the other creditors are thereby defeated and even when proceedings at their instance are pending. The principle is this: what the law contemplates is the defeating or the delaying of creditors, by which is meant the whole body of creditors and so long as there is even a single creditor who takes the benefit, it cannot be said that the transfer amounts to a fraud, all the creditors not having been defrauded Musahar Sahu v. Hakim Ali . In sh...
The President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ200
King, J.1. The appellants in these appeals is the President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. In May 1930 the Board made a demand under Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act upon the Respondent the trustee of two Mutts in Udipi, for contributions for several years beginning with the fasli ending with 30th June, 1925. The contributions were not paid, and in due course the Board applied (November, 1930) under Section 70(2) to the learned District Judge of South Kanara to recover the amount of the contributions. The Board's applications were allowed in so far as the period subsequent to 30th June, 1926 was concerned but the demands for the two faslis ending with that date were held to be barred by limitation. Against this part of the District Judge's order the Board has appealed.2. The clause in Section 70(2) of the Act which regulates the Courts proceedings is the following:The Court shall, on the application of the President of the B...
Muthammal Vs. Gurusami Nayakkan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad158
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The petitioner contends that the lower Court ought not to have allowed the amendment of the plaint. Mr. K.V. Ramchandra Aiyar relies upon the well-known rule that no amendment should ordinarily be allowed, which has the effect of taking away an existing right from the defendant. In the first place, it is important to note that this very statement of the rule assumes that it is not an inflexible one. As the Judicial Committee observe in Charan Das v. Ameer Khan 1921 P.C. 50 (l), the special circumstances of a particular case may outweigh the considerations underlying this rule. Secondly, in the present case, by the proposed amendment, neither is a new relief prayed for based on the same cause of action nor is a fresh cause of action added. The kind of amendment which the decisions say, ought ordinarily not to be allowed, is that which takes away an existing right from the defendant. That is one thing, but it is a very different thing to say, that no amendment...
Board of Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments Vs. Shirur Mutt
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad217
King, J.1. The appellant in these appeals is the President of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. In May 1930 the-Board made a demand under Section 70, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, upon the respondent, the trustee of two Mutts in Udipi, for contributions for several years beginning with the fasli ending with 30th Juno 1925. The contributions were not paid, and in due course the Board applied (November 1930) under Section 70(2) to the learned District Judge of South Kanara to recover the amount of the contributions. The Board's applications were allowed in so far as the period subsequent to 30th June 1926 was concerned, but the demands for the two faslis ending with that date were held to be barred by limitation. Against this part of the District Judge's order the Board has appealed. The clause in Section 70(2) of the Act which regulates the Courts proceedings is the following:The Court shall, on the application of the President of the Hoard reco...
Chitkala Peda Yerranna Vs. Chitkala Somanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.873
1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit filed to eject the defendants, who are in possession under what is called a Khandagutta cowle of a land described as carpenter's service inam. This land was in 1915 the property of a minor named Satyanarayana and in that year his mother as his guardian executed the document in question, Ex. I, to the 1st defendant, of whom the 2nd and 3rd defendants are brothers. This document has been abstracted in para. 8 of the District Munsifs judgment. A sum of Rs. 693 was received for the purpose of paying certain debts and in consideration of it the 1st defendant was put in possession for 33 years. In 1930 the Government resumed and fully assessed this inam and regranted it on patta, to Satyanarayana. At about the same time Satyananayana was sued, and this property was attached under the decree, sold in Court auction and purchased by the plaintiff in the present suit. He has endeavoured to show that the instrument under which the defendants are ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »