Chennai Court February 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.
Raman Nambyar and ors. Vs. Kizhakkekootil Pulasseri thekkee and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad484; 150Ind.Cas.98
Jackson, J.1. In the case under appeal the learned Judge passed an order under Rule. 21, Order 11 which is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1. This Court on C.M.A. held that the order should have been one following upon non-compliance with Order 6, Rule 5 which presumably would be under Section 151. The question for our determination is whether when a Judge purports to act under an order which is appealable, an appeal lies, even though he ought to have acted on some other order which is not appealable. No doubt in considering whether an appeal is admissible the Court always looks to the substance rather than the form of the order so as not to deny a party his right of appeal. But it would be a very dangerous analogy to deny a party the right of appeal on the ground that only the substance and not the form can be looked into. Because, although the form may be technically wrong, until it is appealed against, it is substantially effective. That is to say, a party confronted with an order p...
Rao Bahadur Suna Ana Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Meyna Pana Palaniappa Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad386; (1934)66MLJ609
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,446 alleged to be due on account of the payment of a decree debt in C. R. No. 55 of 1912 in the Chief Court of Lower Burma, instituted by the Bank of Rangoon, against the present plaintiff's firm as 1st defendant and S. A. Firm as the 2nd defendant. The suit is one for contribution, and interest also is claimed at what is called the Rangoon Nadappu rate, namely, 0-13-6 per cent. per mensem. In paragraph 4 of the plaint it is alleged that in respect of a joint loan of Rs. 20,000' contracted by the aforementioned two firms from the Bank of Rangoon, the said decree was obtained. The defendant in his written statement raised several pleas, one of which is that he was not really a party to the said suit, as there was no S. A. Firm as a legal entity and no business was carried on under that style by the defendant or by any persons on his behalf. He further stated t...
T.S. Sankaranarayana Pillai Vs. A.M. Ahmed Miran Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad357; 150Ind.Cas.911; (1934)66MLJ601
ORDERBardswell, J.1. These are two applications made by the same party for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing proceedings of the Election Commissioner of Tenkasi. C.M.P. No. 5275 of 1933 relates to O.P. No. 41 of 1933 on the file of that officer and C.M.P. No. 5276 of 1933 relates to O.P. No. 40 of 1933 on his file.2. On 21st March 1933 the President of the Tenkasi Panchayat Board resigned. The Vice-President in accordance with the rules took steps for a meeting to be held to elect a new President and sent out notices on that behalf on the 23rd. But the President of the Taluk Board, being under the impression that the Vice-President had taken no steps, proceeded to take action such as can be taken in such an event under Section 42, Madras Local Boards Act, and wrote on the 24th to the Vice-President of the Panchayat Board asking him to convene a meeting on 30th March 1938 for the election of a President. An inadequate time was allowed to the Vice-President for replying to t...
Seethai Achi Vs. Meyyappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ517
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1930 on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottah, against the order passed on her petition (I.A. No. 249 of 1933) under Section 151 and Order 23, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, in which she reported to the Court her withdrawal from the suit as she had no longer any interest in the estate of her husband, by reason of her having adopted a son to him, and asked the Court to strike the suit off the file. That petition was dismissed by the Lower Court. The correctness of that order is challenged in this Revision Petition.2. The question arising for decision in this case is of some importance and has been elaborately argued on both sides. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff who is the widow of the late Muthu Veerappa Chettiar, against two brothers of her deceased husband, vis., defendants 1 and 3, the 2nd defendant being the son of the 1st defendant, for a decree directing the defendants to r...
K. Pitchiah Chettiar Vs. G. Subramaniam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad494; 150Ind.Cas.777
Ramesam, J.1. This appeal arises out of a partnership action. The plaintiff and the three defendants carried on the partnership. Towards the end it was working at a loss and the plaintiff filed the suit on 16th November 1931, for winding up the partnership. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the shares were as follows: Plaintiff, 4 annas, defendant 1, 4 annas; defendant 2, 4 annas and defendant 3, 2 1/2 annas, out of a total of 14 1/2 annas, in other words, the shares were 8/29, 8/29, 8/29 and 5/29. It is unnecessary to notice the written statement of defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a joint written statement in which they admitted that there was a partnership of which they were members but denied that they were liable to bear any portion of the losses. At the first hearing two issues were framed : '(1) What are the terms of the partnership agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants? (2) Are defendants 2 and 3 partners, and if so are they not liable for the losses of...
(Kaipath) ModIn Kutti and ors. Vs. Karuvadakkandi Parambil Veshala Put ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad563
Curgenven, J.1. This petition raises two questions : (1) whether the defendant is legally liable to pay rent to the plaintiff and (2) whether the matter has been so decided as to constitute res judicata between them. On the first point the learned District Munsif is right in following the Full Bench decision in Thethalan v. Eralpod Rajah 1918 Mad. 425. The plaintiff's brother is the original usufructuary mortgagee who had as such leased the property back to the mortgagor, Koran Nambiar. Kelu Nambiar took a usufructuary mortgage of Koran Nambiar's rights, which included the leaseholder's rights, and was put in possession and thus became usufructuary mortgagee of the lessee. The fact that the usufructuary mortgage was also of the equity of redemption does not I think affect that position. The defendant who bought Kelu Nambiar's' rights in Court auction occupied the same position as mortgagee of the lessee and it has been held in the Full Bench case, above referred to that there is no pri...
Krishna Ayyangar Vs. MohidIn Sahib Towther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad275a
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised turns upon the effect of the order, to which I shall presently refer, dismissing the plaintiff's execution petition. The plaintiff filed a suit against one Thooru Padayachi and attached the latter's properties before judgment. Subsequent to his obtaining a decree in the Court of first instance, he filed in due course an execution petition and attached the properties again. Muthuswami, the father of Thooru Padayachi, preferred a claim on the ground that the properties were his self-acquisitions and that his son had no interest in them. It must be mentioned that by then Thooru Padayachi had died; but the Court, holding that the effect of the attachment previous to Thooru Padaya-ehi's death was to suspend the operation of the rule of survivorship, decided (the father's plea as regards the properties being his self acquisitions having been negatived) that Thooru Padaya-chi's half share was liable for the debt. Prom this decision, Muthuswami filed ...
Seethai Achi Vs. Meyappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad337; 150Ind.Cas.582
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This civil revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 56 of 1930 on the file of the sub-Court, Devacottah, against the order passed on her petition (I.A. No. 249 of 1933) under Section 151 and Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C., in which she reported to the Court her withdrawal from the suit as she had no longer any interest in the estate of her husband, by reason of her having adopted a son to him, and asked the Court to strike the suit off the file. That petition was dismissed by the lower? Court. The correctness of that order is challenged in this revision petition. The question arising for decision in this case is of some importance and has been elaborately argued on both sides. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff, who is the widow of the late Muthu Veerappa Chettiar, against two brothers of her deceased husband, viz. defendants 1 and 3, defendant 2 being the son of defendant 1, for a decree directing the defendants to render an account of the...
Ramanuja Ayyangar Vs. V.S. Gopalan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad561; 152Ind.Cas.938
Ramesam, J.1. In this case the present two respondents who are brothers were allowed to sue as paupers in the Court below. Respondent 4 in the lower Court (present petitioner) his filed this revision petition. Mr. Muthuswami Ayyar who appeared for the petitioner here argued that as it appears from the evidence of the present respondent 1 that the respondents are entitled to a certain mortgage on which they have already filed a suit in the Mayavaram Court for Rs. 600 odd, they should not be considered to be paupers. The court-fee required for this suit is more than Rs. 200. It is clear that the plaintiffs have no other property besides the claim on the above mortgage in the Mayavaram Court. In that Court they were allowed to sue as paupers. Mr. Muthuswami Ayyar relies on the decision in Kapil Deo Singh v. Ram Rikha Singh (1911) 33 All. 237, where it was held that in a suit for; redemption if it can be shown that the plaintiff can raise money on his equity 'of redemption he cannot be all...
Kaipath MoidIn Kutti and ors. Vs. Karlvarakkandi Parambil Veshala Puth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.541
1. This petition raises two questions: (1) whether the defendant is legally liable to pay rent to the plaintiff and (2) whether the matter has been so decided as to constitute res judicata between them. On the first point the learned District Munsif is right in following the Full Bench decision in Thethalan v. Rajah Eralpad 40 Ind. Cas. 841 : 40 M. 1111 : 32 M.L.J. 442 : 21 M.L.T. 401. The plaintiff's brother is the original usufructuary mortgagee who had as such leased the property back to the mortgagor, Koran Nambiar. Kelu Nambiar took a usufructuary mortgage of Koran Nambiar's lights, which included the lease-holder's rights, and was put in possession and thus became a usufructuary mortgagee of the lessee. The fact that the usufructuary mortgage was also of the equity of redemption does not, I think, affect that position. The defendant who bought Kelu Nambiar's rights in Court auction occupied the same position as mortgagee of the lessee and it has been held in the Full Bench case a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »