Chennai Court March 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.
V. Kuppusami Pillai Vs. Jayalakshmi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.537
1. Plaintiff sues for a declaration that certain alienations made by her deceased husband are inoperative beyond his life-time. She contends that under the will of her father-in-law (Ex. A, dated August 28, 1901) her husband was given only a life-interest in the properties in question, that she was given a life-interest by way of remainder after her husband's death, with a farther gift by way of remainder, of after her death, to certain other persons. In this appeal we are concerned only with one of the husband's transactions, vis., a mortgage dated May 5, 1921, in favour of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant, who is the appellant, contends that as the plaintiff was not in existence at the testator's death and as the gift under Ex. A in her favour is not of the full interest in remainder, that disposition is void under Section 100 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, (corresponding to Section 113 of the Succession Act of 1925) and that the plaintiff, therefore, cannot maintain the sui...
Vedavathi (Alias) Lakshmi Amma Vs. S. Sadasiva Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad149; 153Ind.Cas.167; (1935)68MLJ65
Jackson, J.1. In this case the appellant knew of the order passed by the Official Receiver rejecting the proof of her debt in 1926 by 1927 and did not appeal till 1930. She argues that her knowledge was immaterial so long as formal notice was not conveyed to her, under this Court's rules. None of the cases cited before us go so far as this; cf. Swaminathan v. Latchmanan I.L.R.(1929) 53 Mad. 491 : 59 M.L.J. 585 and Secretary of State for India in Council v. Gopisetti Narayanasami Naidu I.L.R.(1910) 34 Mad. 491 : 59 M.L.J. 585. And it is clear from the dictum of Blackburn, J., quoted on page 506 than an order is complete and appealable before notice is issued. When an order has been duly issued, and a party is apprised of that order, time will run, even though it is directed that a notice of an order shall be sent.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Savatha Goundan Alias Thambi Goundan Vs. Pappammal Alias Pongiammal an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ332
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of restitution proceedings under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, commenced by one Pongiammal, the first defendant in O.S. No. 1040 of 1924, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore. The facts of the litigation that led to the present proceedings are clearly set out in the judgment of the Appellate Court and need not therefore be re-stated for purposes of this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.2. The appellant before this Court is a transferee of the properties involved in this suit pendente lite. One Ramaswami Goundan instituted O.S. No. 1040 of 1924 to recover possession of certain properties as reversionary heir to an alleged infant son of Chinna Ramana Goundan. It was contended that the infant son took the property to the exclusion of his sister Chinnakkal and that the 1st defendant Pongiammal the present respondent and the step-mother of Chinna Ramana Goundan (now in possession as guardian...
H.D. Rajah Vs. C.H. Witherington and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad423; (1934)66MLJ650
ORDER1. The respondents, the editor and printer of a magazine called 'Review of India' have been ordered to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court.2. The facts are not in dispute.3. An order was issued by the Presidency Magistrate, Madras, against one Harihar Dharma Rajah under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, to show cause why he should not be bound over under Section 110(f), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate finding that Harihar Dharma Rajah was instilling revolutionary ideas in the minds of young persons, ordered him to find security and on his failure committed him to jail on 20th September, 1933. He appealed to this Court and in order not to undergo imprisonment he furnished the required security on 25th October, 1933. While the appeal was pending a paragraph appeared in the November number of the respondents' review to the effect that a terrorist who was in jail in connexion with a scheme in Madras to send poisoned handkerchiefs to of...
Muhammad Esuff Rowther Vs. M. Hateem and Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad581; 153Ind.Cas.111
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 50 said to be the advance sent by him to the defendant firm with respect to certain goods ordered by him. The plaintiff's case is that he had given orders to the defendant firm not to send the goods per V.P.P. but that in as much as the defendant sent the goods per V.P.P. in contravention of his order, he refused to receive the goods and that he is now en-titled to the refund of the Rs. 50 advanced by him. The other contention raised by the plaintiff need not be referred to for purposes of this Revision Petition. The defendant denied having received any intimation from the plaintiff before they sent the goods that the goods were not to be sent by V.P.P. The defendant also contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit since the cause of action arose at Madras and not within the jurisdiction of the trial Court, namely, ...
Sevatha Goundan Vs. Pappammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad476; 156Ind.Cas.85
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of restitution proceedings under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, commenced by one Pongiammal, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 1010 of 1924, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Coimbatore. The facts of the litigation that led to the present proceedings are clearly set out in the judgment of the Appellate Court and need not, therefore, be restated for purposes of this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.2. The appellant before this Court is a transferee of the properties involved in this suit pendente lite. One Ramaswami Goundan instituted O.S. No. 1040 of 1924 to recover possession of certain properties as reversionary heir to an alleged infant son of Chinna Ramana Goundan. It was contended that the infant son took the property to the exclusion of his sister Chinnakkal and that the 1st defendant Pongiammal the present respondent and the step-mother of Chinna Ramana Goundan (now in possession as guardian ...
M.A. Rm. Prianan Chettiar Vs. P.V.A.R.K.R. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad212; (1935)68MLJ265
Jackson, J.1. In O.S. No. 34 of 1912, Ramnad Sub-Court, for framing a scheme this Court ultimately allowed both parties costs out of the temple funds. The surviving plaintiffs 2, 7, 9 were entitled to Rs. 7,458-7-6.2. Second plaintiff filed E.P. No. 76 of 1921 to attach Rs. 8,000 lying to the credit of the temple in the India Bank. The attachment was effected and the petition was endorsed as 'closed'.3. On 25th October, 1921, second plaintiff filed 'E.A. No. 502 of 1921 in E.P. No. 76 of 1921' praying to be allowed to draw on his own behalf Rs. 1,780-11-11 and the balance after notice to respondents. The Court ordered that the Rs. 8,000 should be sent for and a cheque for the above amount should be issued to the second plaintiff, and notice should go to the other plaintiffs for the balance. Then after various notices had been issued, second plaintiff was ordered to apply to bring legal representatives of plaintiffs 3 to 5 on the record. Second plaintiff petitioned to this effect in E.A...
S.M. Kadirvelu Ambalam Vs. Alegappan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad725; 152Ind.Cas.350
Pandalai, J.1. The only question in these appeals is whether the sales of the respective ryots holdings in pursuance of notices under B. 112, Estates Land Act at which the appellant became the purchaser were valid or liable to be set aside as not having complied with the requirements of that Act for the proper conduct of sales. The sales were attacked on various grounds which are not now material because the only ground on which the learned Judge below has declared against the sales is that the provisions of Sections 116 and 117, Estates Land Act have not been complied with. What happened was that after the landholder had issued the notice and the fact was intimated to him, no suits having been instituted according to Section 114, the Deputy Collector issued proclamations of sale on 12th February 1927. These were served on the ryots on 24th February 1927. No officer to conduct the sale had been till then appointed by the Deputy Collector but on 11th March 1927 a sale warrant was issued...
Vasa Panchakshari and ors. Vs. Manem Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad430; 150Ind.Cas.87
Curgenven, J.1. The appellants are some of the plaintiffs in a suit filed by the weavers of Narasapur against two Dharmakarthas of a local temple in respect of a certain right claimed with regard to the location of their weaving appliances. The plaintiffs won their cause in the trial, in the first appeal and in second1 appeal before this Court, it being held that they had a customary right to set up their looms at the places objected to by the defendants. The second appeal was accordingly dismissed, the decree providing thatthe appellants do pay to respondents 1 to 4 Rs. 76 for their costs in opposing this second appeal.2. In order to enforce this decree the1 plaintiffs took out execution personally against the defendants by applying for their arrest. The learned District Munsif disallowed the application on the-ground that the suit was against the defendants as Dharmakarthas and that the applicants in execution could recover their costs only against them as Dharmakarthas, the capacity...
A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. Subbaraya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad246; 155Ind.Cas.611
ORDERSundaram Chetty, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the judgment of the District Judge of Coimbatore in O.M.A. No. 31 of 1928 confirming the decision of the trial Court in an application under Sections 53 and 54, Provincial Insolvency Act 5 of 1920, for the annulment of the mortgage deed, Ex. 1, dated 9th October 1924, and executed by one Subbaraya Goundan (who was subsequently adjudged an insolvent) in favour of Subramaniam Ohettiar, by his agent Narayanan Ohettiar for Rs. 7,000. The applicant was one of the petitioning creditors at whose instance the debtor, Subbaraya. Goundan, was declared an insolvent. Both the lower Courts have given a concurrent finding that the aforesaid mortgage was a fraudulent preference in favour of one of the creditors within the meaning of Section 54 of the Act and on the strength of that finding annulled the mortgage as against the Official Receiver. The petition for annulment had to be filed by one of the creditors as the Official ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »