Chennai Court May 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.
Muthala Reddiar and anr. Vs. Sankarappa Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad3a
Varadachariar, J.1. These second appeals coming on for hearing, the Court delivered the following judgment : These two second appeals arise out of O.S. No. 298 of 1925, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Turaiyur. Defendant 1 is the appellant in Second Appeal No. 463 of 30 and defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in S.A. No. 462 of 30. It will be convenient to state a few preliminary facts to elucidate the questions argued before me. The plaintiffs claimed to recover certain properties as reversioners to the estate of one Sankarappa Reddi whose widow Muthammal died in or about July 1922. According to the findings of the Courts below, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the grandsons of Vridhachala Reddi the brother of Muthu Reddi, father of Sankarappa Reddi. There can be no doubt that they will be entitled to succeed in the absence of a nearer reversioner. Defendant 1 claims that he is the nearer reversioner because he is the son's son of one Krishna Reddi who was the Illatom son-in-law...
Sripada Satyanarayana Sarma Vs. Ravikanti Venkataramamurthy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad454; 157Ind.Cas.801
Jackson, J.1. This appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the lower Court and the material papers in the suit and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate for the appellant, and of Mr. B. Jagannadha Das Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. G. Lakshmanna Advocate for respondent 1 and respondent 5 not appearing in parson or by pleader, it is ordered that the District Judge of Ganjam do within two months from the date of the receipt of this order submit findings on the following issues, namely:(1) Whether the receipt of rent on 14th December 1926, by defendant 1 as set forth in Ex. I-A amounts to waiver by defendants 1 to 3 of the right of forfeiture within the terms of Ex. A.(2) Whether the failure to pay instalments due upon 15th Jauuary 1927 and 15th February 1927, amounts to a failure to pay consecutively for three yean within the terms of Ex. A, and entails forfeiture and that the parties be at liberty to a...
Marwadi Doolaji Siremal Vs. Nasuvali Kulusum Bee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-07-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad66; 151Ind.Cas.765
Ramesam, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no civil revision petition lies and Barn Madho Ram v. Mahadeo Pandey : AIR1930All604 is relied on. I am not inclined to agree with that decision Order IX, Rule 9, explicitly permits the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the dismissed petition. Once a petition to restore lies, the party has necessarily the right, to question the correctness of the order on it in appeal and on revision. It is another matter--whether there are adequate grounds for interference in revision The fact that an appeal lies against the decree in the suit vide Muniswami Gouda y. Janjadu, 35 Ind. Cas. 65 (2) is therefore irrelevant and cannot stand in the way of the petition under Order IX, Rule 9, being considered and the matter carried to higher Courts. I overrule the objection.2. On the merits, though the matter seems to be a hard case, I do not see any reason to interfere. The facts proved and found by the Courts below are (1): The plaintiff has giv...
Ramasami Iyer and anr. Vs. Vedambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad604
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The petitioners are the decree-holders in Small Cause Suits Nos. 747 of 1928 and 1021 of 1927, of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin who obtained decree in those suits against the same judgment-debtor. The respondent obtained a preliminary decree in O.S. No. 8 of 21, of the Sub-Court, Mayavaram, for possession and mesne profits against the same judgment-debtor under Order 20 Rule 12, Civil P.C. declaring her right to the properties and ordering an inquiry into mesne profits. In execution of his decree in S.C.S. No. 1021 of 1927, money in the hands of the garnishee was attached and deposited in Court to the credit of the decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 1021 of 1927 on 2nd December 1929, In E.P.R. No. 19 of 1925 the responded had applied for attachment of the very amount under Order 21, Rule 42, Civil P.C., and the attachment had been ordered on 18th March 1925. On 14th December 1929 she filed M.A. No. 435 of 19291 for the ascertainment of mesne profits. On 25th January 1930 she fi...
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madhava Sidhanta Onnahini Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad653a; 152Ind.Cas.927
Beasley, C.J.1. The assessees are a Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act with an authorised capital of Rs. 3,00,000 divided into 12,000 shares of Rs. 25 each. The subscribed and paid-up capital on 30th November 1932 was Rs. 2,47,475 in 9899 shares. The objects of the company as set out in its Memorandum and Articles of Association are-(1) to enable shareholders to save money; (2) to grant loans on jewels, landed property, Government promissory notes and other approved securities; (3) to receive fixed deposits from the public on such terms and conditions as may he fixed by the managing committee from time to time : (4) to make permanent provision for payment of a grant in aid to the Sriman Madhava Siddhanta Onnahini Sabah.; (5) to do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objects.2. The important Articles of Association are Article 2(b) which provides that the full amount of capital due on a share is to be paid in one lum...
Venkatarayudu and ors. Vs. Sivaramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad676
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal by defendants 2 and 4 to 9 is against the decree of the District Judge of Guntur in Appeals Nos. 50 and 77 of 1925 directing the partition of the suit properties into seven shares and delivery of one-seventh share to the plaintiffs together with mesne profits, which modified the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in O.S. No. 55 of 1922. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are briefly these. The suit properties belong to a Joint Hindu family consisting of defendants 2 to 9. Defendant 2 is the father and defendants 3 to 8 are his sons. Defendant 9 is the son of defendant 3. In I.P. No. 14 of 1915 on the file of the District Court of Guntur, defendant 3 was adjudicated an insolvent and defendant 10 was appointed the Official Receiver. In the course of his administration of the insolvent's estate, defendant 10 sold by public auction the one-seventh share of defendants 3 and 9 in the suit p...
Putraya Vs. Krishna Gota
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad31; 152Ind.Cas.579
Butler, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who sued for a mandatory injunction compelling the defendant to cut back the branches of certain trees, standing on the: northern bund of a channel, which the plaintiff alleged overhung his lands and caused damage to the crops by their shade, by the fall of leaves and by the dripping of the rain from the branches. The plaintiff held land to the south, and the defendant land to the north of the channel. A Commissioner was appointed to make a plan of the locality and his plan clearly shows that the trees overhang the plaintiff's lands to a considerable extent and I should have thought it obvious from the extent of the overhanging that damage must have been caused to the plaintiff's crop. But the lower Courts have found against this. The learned District Munsif does not make any mention of shade or the dripping of rain from the branches. He only speaks of the falling of the leaves. Whereas the lower appellate Court purporting to follow the l...
R.M.A.R.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. Official Assignee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad60; 155Ind.Cas.772
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Stone, J., and is a matter arising out of the insolvency of a firm known as the Ar. Ar. Sm. Firm. There are two insolvents, namely, Arunchalam Chettiar and Sundaresan Chettiar, sons of Ar. Ar. Sm. Somasundaram Chettiar (deceased). The petitioner is the brother's son of Ar. Ar. Sm. Somasundaram Chettiar. In his petition in the Insolvency Court he asked for a direction that the Official Assignee should pay him out of the assets of the insolvents the sum of Rs. 19,481-7-2 alleging that that sum was due to a charity beling the principal and interest of half of a trust fund. The question before our learned brother was whether there had in fact been an irrevocable trust created in favour of a charity of which the amount claimed by the petitioner was half.2. The petitioner's case is that for the purpose of conducting Uchikala Kattalai in Sri Nataraja temple in Chidambaram Em. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar, the lather of Ar. Ar. Sm. Somasunda...
(Dhanakodi) Balasubramania Chettiar Vs. Venkatrama Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad253
Varadachariar, J.1. The appellant instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rupees 1,658-8-0 as balance due under a promissory note, Ex. A, executed on 4th April 1924, by the defendant at Coimbatore. Though the plaint speaks of it as executed for money borrowed on that day, it would appear from the recitals in Ex. A, which are not disputed, that it was executed in discharge of the defendant's liability under an earlier promissory note dated 19th May 1921, for a sum of Rs. 9,500. The evidence and the recitals in Ex. A show that on the earlier promissory note the plaintiff had instituted O.S. No. 80 of 1924 on 3rd April 1924, claiming that a sum of Rs. 11,955 was due on that date under the earlier promissory note. Ex. A was executed on the very next day after the institution of the suit, that is on 4th April 1924 and it recites the institution of the suit and adds that the defendant executed that note as he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,750 including the Court costs in that suit. Ther...
Mallela Venkatarayudu and ors. Vs. Mallela Sivaramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1934
Reported in: 153Ind.Cas.368
1. This second appeal by defendants Nos. 2 and 4 to 9 is against the decree of the District Judge of Guntur in Appeals Nos. 50 and 77 of 1925 directing the partition of the suit properties into seven shares and delivery of one seventh share to the plaintiffs together with mesne profits, which modified the preliminary decree for partition passed by the Subordinate Judge of Guntur in O.S. No. 55 of 1922.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal are briefly these. The suit properties belong to a joint Hindu family consisting of defendants Nos. 2 to, 9. The 2nd defendant is the father and defendants Nos. 3 to 8 are his sons. The 9th defendant is the son of the 3rd defendant. In I.P. No. 14 of 1915 on the file of the District Court of Guntur the 3rd defendant was adjudicated as insolvent and the 10th defendant was appointed the Official Receiver. In the course of his administration of the insolvent's estate, the 10th defendant sold by public auction the one-seventh share...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »