Chennai Court May 1934 Judgments
Koya Ankamma Vs. Konaganchi Kameswaramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ87
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal raises a point of limitation. There were two undivided cousins and at a time when both of them were minors, their mothers acting as guardians alienated certain properties belonging to the two minors. One of the minors died later on and the present suit is brought by the surviving minor to recover the property from the alienee on the ground that the alienation was beyond the power of the guardians to make. The suit has been instituted within twelve years of the alienation but more than three years after the plaintiff attained majority. The Courts below have dismissed the suit as barred by Article 44 of the Limitation Act, so far as these items are concerned.2. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Lakshmiah has raised three points:(1) that Article 44 has no application to the case at all, because the two minor cousins being members of a joint Hindu family it will not be correct to speak of their mothers as guardians in any legal sense, as contemplated by...
Tag this Judgment!Andalammal Vs. A. Marga Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad634; 152Ind.Cas.64
Walsh, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question of considerable difficulty. Defendant 1 in the suit who was heavily indebted executed a trust deed on 29th November 1929 and appointed defendants 2 to 6 who were five of his creditors as trustees. They were directed to discharge all his debts to his creditors, who were mentioned in the document together with the amounts due to them. On the same day another consent deed was entered into which is noted in the trust deed itself, by which the plaintiff and a certain number of other creditors compounded the debts due to them by defendant 1 with the trustees for lesser amounts. The plaintiff sued defendant 1 for the full amount due to her and defendants 2 to 6 (trustees) were impleaded as co-defendants. The plea of the defendants was that the suit is not maintainable on account of the consent deed which the plaintiff had signed. The plaintiff's case was that she put her thumb-impression on soma paper on which she was told that the mo...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Ramaswami Naidu Vs. Vaiyapuri Nadan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad653; 152Ind.Cas.135
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of Madura by which he refused permission to the petitioner to prosecute the appeal tiled by him as a pauper. In the first Court the District Munsif gave the petitioner permission to sue as a pauper. In that Court he obtained a decree for partition and separate possession of a half share of the suit properties subject to his liability for half the debts under Exs. 4, 5 and 6. In appeal the petitioner contended that he was not liable for the debts.2. The learned District Judge has rejected the petitioner's application without giving any reasons. The order states simply 'pauper application rejected. To 28th for payment of court-fees.' This Court therefore is not in a position to understand exactly on what grounds the lower Court passed its order. But it may be presumed, from the circumstances of the case that the learned Judge must have thought that having obtained a decree in the first Court the pet...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Janaki Vs. Kalliani Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad675; 152Ind.Cas.643
Butler, J.1. This is an appeal by a kanomdar. The terms of the kanom (14th June 19544)permitted the jenmi to re-enter on the breach of certain conditions imposed on the kanorndar, or without such breach after six years, the full term being 12. The first Court held that there had been a breach of two conditions and decreed forfeiture refusing to relieve against it. The District Judge did not consider whether there had bean a breach entailing forfeiture, but held that the six years' term having expired at the date of the appeal the jenmi was entitled to re-enter without proving a breach of the conditions. Belying on Mammad v. Veerarayan (1929) M.W.N. 165 based on 1917 Mad 198(2), he held that the Court was entitled to take into consideration events subsequent to the date of plaint, provided this could be done without prejudice to the parties and dismissed the appeal. Before me it is argued that he was wrong in doing so as, if the plaintiff had waited till the six years' period had expire...
Tag this Judgment!Kailasam Pillai Vs. Chidambaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad22a; 152Ind.Cas.129
ORDERWalsh, J.1. Defendant 2 raised the point in his written statement that he had had no notice of dishonour. The lower Court has not dealt with the point and it is clear from the ruling in Hemadri v. Seshamma 1931 Mad. 113, which follows Jagannatha Reddiar v. Lakshamna Reddiar 1925 Mad. 132, that in the absence of notice of is honour the endorsee of a promissory note is not liable unless a special contract to the contrary is proved. Plaintiff no doubt sets up such a contract in the plaint. Defendant 2 denied it and no evidence of it was adduced. This petition must therefore be allowed with costs throughout and the decree as against defendant 2 set aside....
Tag this Judgment!Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Ar. S. Sp. Arunachalam Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad146; 153Ind.Cas.259
Ramesam, J.1. The facts out of which-this second appeal arises may be first stated. Two Chetti families who maybe referred to as the Chatram family and the Vinagaram family jointly advanced moneys to the Zamindar of Am-mayanayakanoor on mortgage. The-document was taken in the name of the-Vinagaram family only; but now it may be taken as either found or proved that the Chatram family had also a half, share in it. A suit was filed only by the Vinagaram family against the Zamindar of Ammayanayakanoor to realize' the amount. This was O.S. No. 58 of 1915. The matter came upon appeal to-the High Court and it was remanded and finally a revised decree was passed on 7th February 1916, the suit itself being re-numbered as O.S. No. 58 of 1915, there being originally an earlier number. The members of the Vinagaram family,, who are now the present defendants 4 and 5, went on executing the decree and collecting the amounts due under the decree from the Zamindar of Ammayanayakanoor. It would appear t...
Tag this Judgment!Pendyala Subba Rao Vs. Lingamallu Ramalingayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad619; 152Ind.Cas.157
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. In this case there was a reference to arbitration on February 27, 1932. The award dated March 23, 1932, was filed on March 31, 1932, and on the same day a decree was passed in terms of the award. It would appear that the plaintiff reported that he had no objections but at the outset the defendant raised various objections. The Court found it necessary to consider objection No. 4 only where it is stated that the arbitrator has given his award in favour of the plaintiff without examining the plaintiff's witnesses or his account books. From the fact that it is called objection No. 4 it may be inferred that the defendant put in written objections. The objection was dismissed. This petition is on two grounds: (1) that the learned District Munsif did not give time to the defendant to substantiate his objections nor did he deal with them judicially; and (2) that in any case the decree passed within ten days after the award was filed-- which is the period under Article 158...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboob Sir Frajavantu Sri Rajah Parthasarathy Appa Rao, Savayi Asva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ409
Ramesam, J.1. These appeals arise out of suits brought by Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao, Zamindar of one-third share of the Zamindari of Nidadavolu. All the suit villages are situate in the Amberipetta purgana of the Zamindari. The plaintiff files these suits for a declaration that the Government is not entitled to enfranchise certain service inams in these villages on the ground that they are included in the assets of the Zamindari and not excluded from them at the time of the Permanent Settlement and that the right of resumption is in the Zamindar and not in the Governmeut. So far as the inamdars are concerned, the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to resume the lands whenever their services are not required and that he gave notice to them to quit the suit lands. Similar questions have arisen before us in connection with a number of Zamindaries in the Kistna District. Those cases are Section As. Nos. 648 to 832, 974 to 1058 of 1927, and other connected second appeals and the quest...
Tag this Judgment!Mahaboob Sir Fajvantu Sri Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao and anr. Vs. Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Mad313
Ramesam, J. 1. These appeals arise out of suits brought by Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Rao, zamindar of one-third share of the zamindari of Nidadavolu. All the suit villages are situate in the Amberipetta pargana of the zamindari. The plaintiff files these suits for a declaration that the Government is not entitled to enfranchise certain service inams in these villages on the ground that they are included in the assets of the zamindari and not excluded from them at the time of the Permanent Settlement and that the right of resumption is in the zamindar and not in the Government. So far as the inamdars are concerned, the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to resume the lands, whenever their services are not required and that he gave notice to them to quit the suit lands. Similar questions have arisen before us in connexion with a number of zamindaries in the Kistna District. Those cases are S. As. Nos. 648 to 832, 974 to 1058 of 1927, and other connected second appeals, and the question...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuraman Chettiar Vs. Adaikappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad730a; 153Ind.Cas.325
Vardachariar, J.1. This second appeal raises a point of processual law, namely whether the plaintiff can maintain this suit for a declaration that the judgment in A.S. No. 85 of 1924 on the file of the Ramnad Sub-court and the proceedings subsequently taken on the basis there of are null and void as against him or whether his only remedy is to apply to the Court which passed that decree to vacate it. That appeal arose out of a suit O.S. No. 766 of 1918 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Sivaganga which at later stages by reason of transfer to different Courts came to be numbered as O.S. No. 348 of 1922 and O.S No. 412 of 1925, the last being the stage after the remand consequent upon the appellate decision in A.S. No. 85 of 1924. That suit had been instituted by the present 1st defendant claiming a half share in certain properties as against the 2nd defendant and one Muthuraman Chetti, the grandfather of the present plaintiff. The District Munsif dismissed that suit but on a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »