Chennai Court April 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.
Sarvathada Iswarayya Vs. Kurubasubbanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad637a
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioning creditor, who sought to get respondent 1 adjudicated an insolvent, is the appellant before us. His petition was dismissed on the ground that the act of insolvency on which the petition was grounded, did not occur within three months before the presentation of the petition. The act of insolvency consisted in the execution of a sale deed by respondent 1 in favour of respondent 2 Ex. C. The document was executed on 10th January 1930, and it was registered on 13th February 1930. The petition for adjudication was filed on 23rd June 1930, on the re-opening day after the midsummer vacation. If the three months' period is calculated from 10th January 1930, it is obvious that the petition was presented more than three months after the act of insolvency and the petitioner had therefore no locus standi to present the petition. But if the time is calculated from 13th February 1930, he will be in time on 23rd June 1930, the three months' period from 13th February...
Sarvathada Iswarayya Vs. Kuruba Subbanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1934
Reported in: 151Ind.Cas.1054
1. The petitioning creditor, who sought to get the 1st respondent adjudicated an insolvent, is the appellant before us. His petition was dismissed on the ground that the Act of insolvency on which the petition was grounded, did not occur within three months before the presentation of the petition. The act of insolvency consisted in the execution of a sale deed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent Ex. C. The document was executed on January 10, 1930 and it was registered on February 13, 1930. The petition for adjudication was filed on June 23, 1930, on the reopening day after the mid-summer vacation. If the three months' period is calculated from January 10, 1930, it is obvious that the petition was presented more than three months after the act of insolvency and the petitioner had therefore no locus standi to present the petition. But if the time is calculated from February 13, 1930, he will be in time on June 23, 1930, the three months' period from February 13, 1930, ...
Emani Venkataramayya and anr. Vs. Lalbibi Saheba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad90; 152Ind.Cas.1049
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised is one of res judicata. The original owner is one Lai Muhammad who died in 1902. The, plaintiffs, his daughters, have brought this suit for partition of his properties. Defendants 1 and 2 are his sons, and defendant 3 is his wife. In 1904, defendants 1 and 2, treating the properties as their own, mortgaged them to defendant 4. In 1922 the latter filed a suit upon the mortgage in his favour, obtained a decree and in the Court sale that followed defendants 5 and 6 purchased the properties. Thereupon, defendant 3 filed O.S. No. 335 of 1923, alleging that the properties had been gifted to her by her husband and that no title passed under the Court sale to defendants 5 and 6. That suit was dismissed. In the present suit the lower Courts have held that the properties of Lai Mohammad became liable to be partitioned on his death among his heirs and that the mortgage by his sons was not binding on the shares of Lai Mohammad's daughters (i.e., the plain...
Gurusami Nadar Vs. Irulappa Konar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad630; 155Ind.Cas.708
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a litigation between rival transferees from defendants 1 and 2 and from defendants 5 and 6 respectively of properties belonging to one Vedanayaga, deceased. It is common ground that by birth he was a Hindu and that later in life he became a Christian and married defendant 1 who was admittedly a Christian. Defendant 2 is the issue of that marriage sometime after the marriage, defendant 1 would appear to have gone over to Colombo and whatever the reason for the estrangement may be, both the Courts below seem to think that thereafter Vedanayaga and defendant 1 did not live as husband and wife. The next stage in the story is that Vedanayaga married defendant 5.2. The evidence is conflicting, as to the religion of Vedanayaga at the time of the marriage with defendant 5 and at the time of his death. The materials are very scanty and it is not perhaps too strong an observation to make if I say that in view of what would appear from the evid...
Kalimuthu Pillai (Minor) Vs. Ammamuthu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad611; 153Ind.Cas.107
Ramesam, J.1. The question arising in this Second Appeal is one of Hindu Law, the facts not being disputed. The plaintiff is the daughter's daughter's son of the last male-owner Kalimuthu Pillai who died in 1883. Kalimuthu had four wives, of whom two survived him. The last of these died in January 1923. According to the plaintiff the property has devolved under the Hindu Law on him as (he nearest Banhdu. The first defendant is the sister's son of Kalimuthu. He had previously obtained a decree for possession of the properties of Kalimuthu on the ground that he is the reversioner but the present plaintiff was not a party to that suit. The plaintiff in this suit now seeks to recover the properties from him. The present suit was filed on January 24, 1928, and there is no question of limitation in the case.2. The only question for decision therefore is, who according to Hindu Law is the preferential heir--the plaintiff (the daughter's daughter's son) or the 1st defendant (the sister's son)?...
Pulikkot Puthan Veetil Madhavan Nair and anr. Vs. Choorapra Unnitha
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad562a
Curgenven, J.1. This case relates to the execution of a decree for redemption of a mortgaged property. It declared defendants 1, 2 and 5 entitled to the mortgage amount of Rs. 1,000 and the decree-holder entitled to arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,569-13-9, together with future rents and the latter was further authorized to set off his dues against the mortgage amount. There was then this provision : that the plaintiff do recover from defendant 1 and from the assets of the deceased Chandu, the original mortgagee, the arrears of rent, future rent and costs as declared above; less the mortgage amount of Rs. 1,000. The decree-holder proceeded to attach some property, as the assets of Chandu, in the possession of defendant 5, a surviving widow. The District Munsif held that the properties so attached were liable to sale in execution of the decree. The District Judge has reversed this decision, on the ground that the decree made no order against defendant 5 for payment of the money. Its ...
Subbakke Shettithi Vs. Anthamma Shettithi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad628; 153Ind.Cas.318
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff became the owner of certain properties in 1925 by purchase from her father under Ex. F. At the date of this transfer, the properties were subject to the liabilities imposed upon them by the decree in O.S. No. 248 of 1917 in which her father was defendant 3. That was a suit by a sub-mortgagee from the first mortgagee and plaintiff's father was impleaded therein because he held a second mortgage over the same properties. In 1915 the present defendant as assignee from the first mortgagee had filed O.S. No. 52 of 1915 against the mortgagors and the plaintiff's father as second mortgagee but without impleading the sub-mortgagee. It is stated that at that time the second mortgagee might not have been aware of the sub-mortgage, but it is unnecessary to speculate as to that matter. A decree was passed in C.S. No. 52 of 1915 for the full amount of the first mortgage. The result in law would be that the first mortgagee decree-holder when he receives that amount ...
Chinnasami Goundan Vs. A.S. Balasundara Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad575; 152Ind.Cas.216
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, is at present the owner of S. No. 6/2 in the village of Keeza Ami and he sued to restrain defendants 1 and 2, who claimed to be the trustees of a neighbouring Pillayar temple, from interfering with the plaintiff's use of a pathway across S. No. 1 (marked B in the plaint plan) leading from his smithy in S. No. 6/2 to a public road. The averment in the plaint was that defendants 1 and 2 had no right to or interest in S. No. 1 and the plaintiff had a right to use the pathway as an easement of necessity or by prescription or by mamul. Defendants 1 and 2 pleaded that S. No. 1 belonged to the Pillayar temple of which they were the trustees and they denied that the plaintiff had acquired any right to use the pathway whether by prescription or by mamul or as an easement of necessity. The Government was added as defendant 3 and as Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyar had laid great strees upon the attitude taken by the Government in this litigation it ...
Rangasami Goundan Vs. (Zamindar Kumarakurupara) Ramanatha Malayandi Er ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad537
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The lower Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff (the appellant) had not, before instituting it, given the notice prescribed by Section 49, Madras Court of Wards Act (Act 1 of 1902). For the appellant the contention is that, owing to the peculiar character of the present suit, the serving of the notice under Section 49 is not a necessary requirement. In the course' of a survey carried out in the defendant's estate, under the Madras Surveys and Boundaries Act (Act 8 of 1923), the survey officer's decision was against the plaintiff in respect of the boundary dispute in question. The appellant's authority having confirmed that decision, the present suit has been brought under Section 14 of that Act. The relevant sections are Sections 10 to 14 and Section 18. Section 10 deals with the power of the survey officer to determine and record a boundary dispute. Sections 11 and 12 deal with appeals against orders inter alia made under Section 10. Se...
Nelakanti Sundara Sivarao and anr. Vs. Sammangi Gangamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad506; (1935)68MLJ66
Pandrang Row, J.1. The District Judge of East Godavari heard arguments in A.S. No. 129 of 1930 on his file on 27th, 28th and 29th March, 1933, a reference was thereupon made to the Deputy Tahsildar, Pithapuram, about the value of the suit properties and on receipt of his report the appeal was posted for hearing regarding the question of Court-fee to 21st July, 1933 and orders were reserved. On 14th August, 1933, the District Judge pronounced judgment allowing the appeal with costs. The very next day the respondents applied under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to vacate the judgment and rehear the appeal on the ground that judgment had been given without hearing their Counsel fully. The learned District Judge in his order, dated 30th August, 1933, allowed the application on the ground that he had given judgment under the mistaken impression that the appeal had been fully heard.2. It is contended in revision that the learned District Judge had no power to allow the application. There...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »