Chennai Court February 1934 Judgments
Arunachala Mudali Vs. Venkatachala Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad425; (1934)66MLJ677
Butler, J.1. The question arising here for determination is whether where the executant of a transfer of a mortgage dies after the execution of the transfer, and the document is presented for registration by the transferee and execution is admitted by a person purporting to be but not in fact the representative of the deceased, the registration of the document on such admission is a nullity as made without jurisdiction, or whether the defect was one of procedure falling within Section 87 of the Registration Act and therefore not invalidating the document. Section 35(1)(c) of the Act provides that if the person executing the document is dead and his representative or assign appears before the registering officer and admits the execution, the registering officer shall register the document. This appeal has been argued on the assumption that the person, who appeared before the registering officer, was not in fact a person legally entitled to represent the deceased transferor, the transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. T.P. Shanmuga Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad435a
Bardswell, J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the two respondents. There was a private complaint made against them to the Joint Magistrate of Shermadevi of offences punishable under Sections 485 and 486, I.P.C. The Joint Magistrate after hearing, the prosecution witnesses found that a prima facie case was made out only of an offence under Section 482 which offence is triable by a Second Class Magistrate and so, having framed a charge of an offence punishable under that section, he transferred the case to the file of the Second Glass Stationary Sub-Magistrate at Ambasamudram. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate proceeded with the case and acquitted the respondents.2. If the transfer could be effeoted at all it must have been under Section 192, Criminal P.C., Clause 1 which runs as follows:Any Chief Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate may transfer any case, of which he has taken cognizance, for inquiry or trial, to any Magistrate s...
Tag this Judgment!Narayandas Girdhardas Vs. P. and O. Banking Corporation Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad476; 150Ind.Cas.591
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Stone, J., and arises out of the liquidation of the Madras Cloth Market Ltd. The Managing Directors of the company were the firm of Callianjee & Sons, whose sole proprietor was Ramjee Callianjee. He held 5,000 fully paid up shares in the company in his own name. On 10th September 1924, he being on that date indebted to the company to the extent of Rs. 36,000, borrowed Rs. 2,00,000 from the P. & O. Bank and gave them an equitable mortgage of some of his immoveable property and the 5,000 shares already referred to as security for the loan. In 1925 the Bank filed a suit (C.S. No. 283 of 1925) against Callianjee & Sons, on the equitable mortgage obtaining a preliminary decree for sale on 4th September 1925, and a final decree on 9th October of the same year. On 22nd February 1926, the liquidation of the Madras Cloth Market Ltd., was ordered by the High Court. Upto this time no notice of the equitable mortgage had been given by the Bank to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalambal Vs. M. Purushotam Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad644; 152Ind.Cas.437
Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. The suit was by a second mortgagee against the legal representatives of the deceased mortgagors. The prior mortgagee brought the property to sale and it failed to realise a sufficient amount to pay the appellant's mortgage debt or indeed sufficient to pay the whole of the amount owing under the first mortgage. The plaintiff then filed the suit claiming that the mortgagor had failed to repay the amount which he had covenanted to repay in the mortgage deed and that the mortgagee had been deprived of the whole of the security in consequence of the wrongful act or default of the mortgagor is not keeping up the interest, payments or redeeming the prior mortgage. The case therefore was presented in the plaint as one under Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section 68, T.P. Act. The question which arose and which arises here was and is, first of all, what was the suit bond, that is to say, when did the money under it become payable? It is...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.A. Murugappa Chetty Vs. N.V.N. Nachiappa Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad503; 155Ind.Cas.164
Stone, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is suing defendant 1 personally and defendant 2 in respect of his share in the joint family property for the sum of Rs. 12,000 with interest on the principal sum of Rs. 10,000 with half-yearly rests calculated at Re. 0-12-6 per cent, per mensem until the date of decree and thereafter at 6 per cent, on the total amount until realisation in the following circumstances. On 17th November 1930 defendant 1 went to the plaintiff and asked him to give a letter that would enable him (defendant 1) to obtain from the plaintiff's Madras Office the sum of Rs. 10,000. That was a matter that took place outside the jurisdiction of this High Court. A letter was given which empowered the holder of that letter to go to the plaintiff's Madras firm and require the plaintiff's agent at Madras to pay at Madras to the order of defendant 1 Rs. 10,000 together with the nadapu rate of interest from 17th November 1930 to the date of presentation and debit the said amount in ...
Tag this Judgment!(Penumetcha) Seetharama Raju Vs. Kalidindi Narayanaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad685; 152Ind.Cas.462
Butler, J.1. The plaintiff m O.S. No. 287 of 1929 and defendant in O.S. No. 203 of 1930 is the appellant. He sued for possession of certain land which he claimed to have been demarcated as his by orders of a Survey Officer dated 30th September 1926 while plaintiffs in O.S. No. 203 of 1930 sued to set the order aside. The latter suit; was instituted on 1st July 1930 and was clearly out of time. The appellant's suit was decreed by the District Munsif and dismissed by the Subordinate Judge in appeal who also gave the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 203 of 1930 a decree. The Subordinate Judge found that the defendants had a title by adverse possession and that plaintiff had not proved possession within 12 years of suit, in appeal it is contended that the decision of the Survey Officer was conclusive against the defendants. It is therefore necessary to enquire what the Survey; Officer decided. Ex. A is appellant's petition to him. In it he claims title to the lands as forming part of suit No. 251 of...
Tag this Judgment!Akavande Mulahur Vatakethil Kizhakke Nayar Veetil Karna Vastri Sreedev ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad71
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for partition and recovery of their share of the plaint properties, together with mesne profits. The properties belonged to one Kunhu Nethiar who was the last member of a tarwad. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following geneological table found in the Munsif's. judgment. Chummu Nethiar | |---------------------------------------| Ittiyachi Nethiar Kummini Nethiar | | Kunhu Nethiar | |--------------------------|------------------| Defendant 1 Plaintiff 1 Defendant 2. |---------------------|----------------| | Defendant 3 Defendant 1 Defendant 5 | | | Defendants 6 to 10 | |----------------|-----------------------------|--------------------| Plaintiff 2 Plaintiff 5 Plaintiff 6 Kunhikarru Nethiar | | | Plaintiffs & and 7 to 9 Plaintiffs 14 to 16 Plaintiffs 3 and 10 to 132. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 10 are the descendant...
Tag this Judgment!Akavande Mulanhur Vatakethil Kizhakke Nayar Veettil Karnavastri Sreede ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.524
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit out of which this Letters Patent Appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for partition and recovery of their share of the plaint properties, together with mesne profits. The properties belonged to one Kunhu Neithiar who was the last member of a tarwad. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table found in the Munsif's Judgment. Ohummu Neithiar | ____________________ | | Ittiyachi Nethiar Kummini Nethiar | | Kunhu Nethiar. | | _______________ | _______________________________ | | | 1st 1st 2nd defendant plaintiff defendant. | | | __________________________ | | | | | | 2nd 5th 6th Kunhikavu | plaintiff plaintiff plaintiff Nethiar | | | | | plaintiffs plaintiffs plaintiffs | Nos. NOS. NOS. | 4 and 7 14 to 16. 3 and 10 | to 9. to 13. |_________________ | _________________________ | | | 3rd 4th 5th defendant defendant defendant defendants Nos 6 to 10.2. The plaintiffs and defen...
Tag this Judgment!Appakoth Kombi Avulla Karnavan and Manager and ors. Vs. Erachavanveeti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad199; (1935)68MLJ289
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiffs appeal from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry reversing a decree of the District Munsif of Nadapuram and dismissing their suit brought to recover certain properties leased by the first plaintiff's predecessor-in-title one Kunhisoppi to Chappari by Ex. E in 1887 and renewed by Ex. A in 1898 to the original lessee's wife from whom Ummachi the ancestor of the contesting defendants(8 to 14) respondents here, obtained the leasehold right and possession thereunder by assignment. The suit was thus extremely simple in character but has been complicated by the introduction of several irrelevant matters which have lengthened the trial and in the end misled the learned Judge.2. The properties belonged to one Beeyathumma whose descendants effected a partition by Ex. L, in December, 1886 It is now established that the parties to the partition were Muhammadans governed by the Muhammadan Law and not Marumakathyis. In the partition however ...
Tag this Judgment!Kathara Lakshmi Bai Vs. Bandubodo Rukmaji Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad465
Beasley, C.J.1. The question raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the words used in the proviso to Section 78(2), Provincial Insolvency Act, namely 'debt provable but not proved under this Act,' are to be read as meaning that the debt must have been admitted by the Official Receiver under the provisions of the Act, that is to say, satisfactorily established before him; or whether 'proved' means that a proof of the debt has been lodged within the provisions of Section 49. The question arose on a plea of limitation. The petitioner here, a woman, was the payee of a promissory-not a alleged to have been executed in her favour by a person who subsequently became insolvent. The promissory note was for Rs. 100 and after the execution of the promissory note the drawer was adjudicated insolvent. The adjudication was on 8th December 1923, and it is alleged that the promissory note was executed about the middle of 1922. The adjudication was annulled on 8th March 1929, the Official Re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »