Chennai Court March 1934 Judgments
Subbalakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. A. Narayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad535; 152Ind.Cas.391
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the validity of a surrender made by a Hindu female with a limited estate. The last maleholder was one Sellamier, and the plaintiff, who as the reversioner to his estate impeaches the transaction, is his half-brother's son. After Sellamier's death, the property was taken by his widow, who in turn was succeeded by his daughters, Subbalakshmi and Alamelu, of whom the latter died in 1925, leaving a son Yaideeswara. Subbalakshmi, the surviving daughter executed the settlement deed in question on 28th October 1926 in favour of Vaideeswara's son Subbaratnam. On the following day, i.e., on 29th October Vaideeswara died. Toe lower Courts have found that the object of the surrender was to benefit, Subbaratnam, to whom Subbalakshmi was attached and. in whom she was interested and to divert the succession from the plaintiff, who in the ordinary course would, as the nearest reversioner, have succeeded, Vaideeswara being then seriously ill an...
Tag this Judgment!iswara Shetty Vs. Ramappa Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad658
Pandalai, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this Court. The following: facts are material : One Venku Shetty was the mulgenidar of some immoveable property. He mortgaged his interest in the same to Appanna Rai and Kantha Rai, two brothers, for Rs. 500, on a simple mortgage dated 4th May 1892. Venku Shetty sold his interest to one of the mortgagees, Kantha Rai, on 2nd December 1910. Thus Kantha Rai having become himself the owner of the mortgagor's interest, his own half interest in the mortgage was satisfied by the purchase and he became liable to pay the other half, Rs. 250, and interest thereon, to the other mortgagee Appanna Rai. Immediately after the purchase, Kantha Rai granted a sub-mulgeni to the plaintiff and one Muthaya Manai on 3rd December 1910. On 4th January 1912, Kantha Rai sold his interest to defendant 1, appellant. Manai's interest was subsequently acquired by the plaintiff, who is therefore the only person entitled to the sub-mulgeni right. Soon after the creation ...
Tag this Judgment!Ayya Pillai Vs. Ayyadurai Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad81
Pandalai, J.1. The plaintiff, a minor, appeals from the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Vellore, reversing a decree of the District Munsif of Eani-pot, and dismissing his suit brought for recovery of possession of 2 acres 3 cents of wet land from the defendants who were it was alleged, in possession under a mortgage granted to them and their ancestors by the plaintiff's father in 1891, and, after the mortgage was paid off in 1910, under a lease for five years from that year. The plaintiff alleged that there had been a previous litigation, O.S. No. 201 of 1916, brought by a subsequent mortgagee under the plaintiff to recover the same property from the defendants, that in that suit the plaintiff was added as defendant ,4 and his mother appointed guardian-ad-litem, that in the Munsif's Court defendants 1 to 3 in that case represented by the present defendants repudiated the mortgage of 1891 and set up long adverse possession but the Munsif held against that plea, that in appeal...
Tag this Judgment!ishwara Shetty Vs. Ramappa Shetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.201
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant in this Court. The following facts are material:--One Venku Shetty was the mulgenidar of some immovable property. He mortgaged his interest in the same to Appanna Rai and Kantha Rai two brothers for Rs. 500, on a simple mortgage dated May 4, 1892. Venku Shetty sold his interest to one of the mortgagees Kantha Rai on December 2, 1910. Thus Kantha Rai having become himself the owner of the mortgagor's interest, his own half interest in the mortgage was satisfied by the purchase and he became liable to pay the other half Rs. 250, and interest thereon to the other mortgagee Appanna Rai. Immediately after the purchase, Kantha Rai granted a sub-mulgeni to the plaintiff and one Muthaya Manai on December 3, 1910. On January 4, 1912, Kantha Rai sold his interest to the 1st defendant-appellant. Manai's interest was subsequently acquired by the plaintiff who is, therefore, the only person entitled to the sub-mulgeni right. Soon after th...
Tag this Judgment!Duraipandiyan Vs. Solaimalai Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad467
Bardswell, J.1. The petition (O.P. No 21 of 1933) for leave to sue in forma pauperis was presented by the father of the present respondents. Before final orders could be passed on that petition the person who had presented it died. His sons, the respondents to this petition, then applied to be joined as his legal representatives. They did not want to sue in forma pauperis but sought to go on with the suit which their father had wanted to file, on payment of the necessary court-fees. The Additional Subordinate Judge has ordered that the petitioners are to be added as petitioners 2 to 4 in O.P. No. 21 of 1933, and that that petition is to be registered as a suit on their paying the necessary court-fee. This petition is for the revision of that order.2. The learned advocate for the petitioner relies on Lalit Mohan v. Satish Chandra (1906) 33 Cal. 1163, in which it was pointed out that the right to apply to sue as a pauper was obviously a personal right and could not survive in the legal r...
Tag this Judgment!S.T. Rm. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. S.A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad593; 152Ind.Cas.519
Jackson, J.1. In O.S. No. 95 of 1911, Ramnad Additional Sub-Court, a decree was passed on a mortgage and the mortgaged property was brought to sale in E.P. No. 884 of 1923. Defendants 19 to 21 objected to the execution, their objection was dismissed and they took the matter on appeal to the High Court. Defendants 15 to 17 attacked the sale under Order 21, Rule 90. Defendants 2 and 3 attacked the sale under Order 21, Rule 90.2. Defendants 19 to 21 also deposited the decree amount on 3rd September 1924 and prayed to have the sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89 (E.A. No. 193 of 1924). They obtained a stay of any further proceedings under Rule 89 pending disposal of their appeal in the High Court objecting to the execution itself. On 30th September 1925, the applications under Order 21, Rule 90 were allowed and the sale was set aside. Against this the vendee interested in items 1 to 4 appealed to the High Court on 26th October 1925 and the vendee interested in items 5 and 6 appealed to ...
Tag this Judgment!Devi Singh Vs. Mangathayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad322
Beasley, C.J.1. The suit under appeal was one brought by the respondent who was the mother of a boy named Ponnusami, aged about 13, who was in the employment of one of the bailiffs of this Court, Mr. Boyton. On 27th April 1928 at about noon this boy was knocked down and killed by a motor omnibus of which the appellant was the owner. The omibus was coming from Saidapet down the Mount Road in the direction of George Town. This accident happened opposite to the building of Messrs. Fiat and Co. Motor Dealers. The boy appears to have been killed instantaneously and it was alleged by the respondent who filed the suit that the accident was the result of negligent driving of the driver of the motor omnibus. If that allegation was proved, then clearly the appellant would be liable to pay damages being responsible for the negligent act of his driver. Rs. 2,000 damages were claimed. The learned trial Judge found that the appellant's servant had driven the omnibus negligently and that as a result ...
Tag this Judgment!Davi Singh Vs. Mangathayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.307
Beasley, C.J.1. The suit under appeal was one brought by the respondent who was the mother of a boy named Ponnusami aged about 12 who was in the employment of one of the bailiffs of this Court , Mr. Boyton. On April 27, 1928, at about noon this boy was knocked down and killed by a motor omnibus of which the appellant was the owner. The omnibus was coming from Saidapet down the Mount Road in the direction of George Town. This accident happened opposite to the building of Messrs. Fiat and Co., motor dealers. The boy appears to have been killed instantaneously and it was alleged by the respondent who filed the suit that the accident was the result of negligent driving of the driver of the motor omnibus. If that allegation was proved, then clearly the appellant would be liable to pay damages being responsible for the negligent act of his driver. Rupees 2,000 damages were claimed. The learned trial Judge found that the appellant's servant had driven the omnibus negligently and that as a res...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Kudva Vs. Mulki Sri Venkataramana Temple and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad542; 152Ind.Cas.345
Varadachariar, J.1. The defendant was the trustee of a temple and the plaintiffs succeeded him in January 1922. They filed this suit in 1923 to recover from the defendant a certain sum of money which be had taken from the temple funds for the expenses of a. litigation, to remove him from the trusteeship and have a scheme framed. Both the lower Courts have given the plaintiff a decree for the amount claimed. Mr. B, Sitarama Rao (for the appellant) contends that the claim must be held to be barred by limitation as it cannot be held to fall under Section 10, Lim. Act, in view of the observations of the Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Aiyar 1922 P.C. 123 that in the case of these temples it cannot be said that there is any property vested in the trustee in the English sense. It seems to me unnecessary to deal with that contention though there are one or two observations in the lower Court's judgment which rest upon the basis of the applicability of Section 10. As the lower Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Ayisa Beevi Ammal and ors. Vs. Nagaratna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad573; 152Ind.Cas.891
Jackson, J.1. I have had the advantage of reading my learned brother's judgment and agree that on the question of waiver these appeals must fail. I also think that the learned Judge's order can be supported on the authority of Rajagopala Pandarathiar v. Thrupathi Pillai 1926 Mad. 421. The Sub-Judge of Mayavaram forwarded the execution petition and transferred the decree to the District Court of East Tanjore and that Court transferred the petition to the Sub-Court of Negapatam which had territorial jurisdiction over lot 5 but not over lots 3 and 4 which were within the Tiruvarur jurisdiction. In these circumstances was the Sub-Court of Negapatam a Court of 'competent jurisdiction' to sell lots 3 and 4 as contemplated in Order 21, Rule 8? Competent jurisdiction is not usually referable to territorial jurisdiction, and there seems to be no reason for making an exception in the matter of executions under Order 21. This point was threshed out in Rajagopala Pandarathiar v. Thrupathi Pillai 1...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »