Chennai Court August 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.
C. Murugesa Mudaliar Vs. C. Balasundarammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad24; 153Ind.Cas.769
Walsh, J.1. There were two brothers Venkatesa Mudaliar and Sami Mudaliar Venkatesa Mudaliar died leaving a widow Balasundarammal who is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 359 of 1933 filed in April of that year in the city civil Court. Sami Mudaliar also died leaving a son Murugesa who is the defendant in that suit. The widow's suit was for possession of a certain item of property owned by her husband as a divided brother. She relies on a partition deed between the brothers. The defence is that the partition deed was nominal and was not acted on and the brothers continued to live jointly. Murugesa Mudaliar the defendant in O.S. No. 359 of 1933 in the city civil Court had filed a suit in the High Court O.S. No. 99 of 1933 previous to the filing of O.S. No. 359 of 1933 in the city civil Court in which he claims that notwithstanding the deed of partition he is entitled to all the family properties and asks for an injunction against the widow. The petitioner asked the city civil Court to stay the s...
Rajah Saheb Maharban I-dostan Sri Rajah Rao Venkata Kumara Mahipati Su ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad7
Beasley, C.J.1. The suit under appeal was one by a landlord to recover land which he claimed formed part of this estate. The Government claimed the land as belonging to it as part of a channel irrigating lands. The Government evicted a tenant from the land. No notice of the proceedings which were taken under the Madras Land Encroachment Act, of the proposed eviction was given to the landlord and it appears that he did not come to know of the eviction of his tenant until some time afterwards. He filed his suit three years after the time when he first became aware of his tenant's eviction. He set up his own title to the land and was mot in the District Munsif's Court with the plea of limitation. Section 14, Madras Land Encroachment Act, is as follows:Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent persons deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceeding under this Act except as hereinbefore provided from applying to civil Courts if or redress. Provided that the civil Courts shall no...
Maharaja of Pithapuram Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1934
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.707
1. The suit under appeal was one by a landlord to recover land which he claimed formed part of his estate. The Government claimed the land as belonging to it as part of a channel irrigating lands. The Government evicted a tenant from the land. No notice of the proceedings which were taken under the Madras Land Encroachment Act of the proposed eviction was given to the landlord and it appears that he did not come to know of the eviction of his tenant until sometime afterwards. He filed his suit three years after the time when he first became aware of his tenant's eviction. He set up his own title to the land and was met in the District Munsif's Court with the plea of limitation. Section 14 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, is as follows:-Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent persons deeming themselves aggrieved by any proceedings under this Act except as herein before provided from applying to Civil Courts for redress; Provided that the Civil Courts shall not take co...
ithikat Gopala Menon Vs. Kallingalath Deceased Koyathi Alias Abdul Aze ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ244
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendants 1 to 12 are the appellants. The suit is upon a bond executed by one Koyathi predecessor of defendants 1 to 12 in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3. The third plaintiff in the suit has been transposed as the thirteenth defendant.2. The question for decision in the second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation.3. The bond was executed by Koyathi in connection with a chit fund in which he held a ticket. After obtaining his amount at the auction he entered into the suit bond Ex. A which refers to his obligation to pay the various instalments that would be due from him on various future dates. Then it says towards the end of the document:If at any auction the amount therefor is not paid and default is made therein the amount that should be subscribed thereto as the balance left after deducting the dividend therein, would be paid within a month with profit thereon at 2 per cent, per month, and if default is made therein also, all the amounts ...
M.R.M.A.S.P. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Mahalingam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad8
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of a petition for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1911 (on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Ramnad) by attachment of the decree in O.S. No. 153 of 1910 (Additional Sub-Court, Ramnad) obtained by the deceased defendant 1, judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 77 of 1911. The appellant before us is the son of the deceased defendant 1. He was a party to the suit as defendant 2 when the decree was passed and has been since recorded as his legal representative in E.A. No. 228 of 1928. The decree sought to be executed was passed on 27th November 1911. The execution application was presented on 27th July 1928. Obviously, the petition for execution will be barred under the twelve years rule contained in Section 48(1), Civil P.C. but the petitioner 'claimed exemption from the bar of limitation under Clause 2(a) of the-same section which says:nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude the Court from ordering the executi...
M.R.M.A.S.P. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Minor Mahalingam Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1934
Reported in: 154Ind.Cas.688
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of a petition for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 77 of 1911, on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Ramnad, by attachment of the decree in O.S. No. 153 of 1910 (Additional Sub-Court Ramnad obtained by the deceased 1st defendant-judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 7 7 of 1911.2. The appellant before us is the son of the deceased 1st defendant. He was a party to the suit as the 2nd defendant when the decree was passed and has been since recorded as his legal representative in E.A. No. 288 of 1928.3. The decree sought to be executed was passed on November 27, 1911. The execution application was presented on July 27, 1928. Obviously, the petition for execution will be barred under the twelve years rule contained in Section 48(1), Civil Procedure Code, but the petitioner claimed exemption from the bar of limitation under Clause 2(a) of the same section which says:Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude the Court from ordering the exec...
Narayanaswami Vanniar Vs. Karumbayiram Periyari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad716
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The petitioner and others were accused before the village panchayat Court, Narayanamangalam, Tanjore District, and convicted of an offence. A revision petition was filed in the Court of the Joint Magistrate, Negapatam, in Crl. M.P. No. 43 of 1932 under Section 76(9), Madras Village Courts Act. The Court found that the Bench had no legal existence at the time and hence no jurisdiction. It set aside the conviction and directed the fines paid to be refunded. On the same facts an identical complaint was filed before the same panchayat Court in C.C. No. 2 of 1932. The petitioner put in a petition to the Sub. Magistrate, Kodavassal, to stop further proceedings and discharge the accused on the ground that Section 403, Criminal P.C. barred a new trial on the same facts with regard to the same occurrence.2. The Court held that there was no bar and against this order the present revision petition is filed. The argument for the petitioner is that under Section 423(b), Criminal P....
Kailasanatha Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Parasakthi Vadivanni and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad740; (1935)69MLJ142
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the third plaintiff - the husband and Legal Representative of the first plaintiff - and relates only to a portion of the subject-matter of the suit. The plaint was presented only by two plaintiffs, the daughters of the first defendant by his deceased first wife Santhanayaki. They claimed possession of the scheduled properties and other reliefs, as the heirs of their deceased mother. The second defendant is the first defendant's son by that wife. Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the first defendant by his second wife. The first plaintiff died very soon after the institution of the suit; and after some contest as to who her legal representative was, the third plaintiff was added as legal representative, by order, dated 21st March, 1927, on I.A. No. 102 of 1927. The question decided by this order has been re-agitated before us, though not seriously and it has been argued that the husband is not the heir, because the marriage was in an unapproved ...
Kailasanath Mudaliar Vs. Parasakthi Vadivanni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1934
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.845
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by plaintiff No. 3--the husband and legal representative of plaintiff No. 1--and relates only to a portion of the subject-matter of the suit. The plaint was presented only by two plaintiffs, the daughters of defendant No. 1 by his deceased first wife Santhanayaki. They claimed possession of the scheduled properties and other reliefs as the heirs of their deceased mother. Defendant No. 2 is defendant Nos. l's son by that wife. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of defendant No. 1 by his second wife. Plaintiff No. 1 died very soon after the institution of the suit; and after some contest as to who her legal representative was, plaintiff No. 3 was added as legal representative, by order of March 21, 1927, on I.A. No. 102 of 1927. The question decided by this order has been re-agitated before us, though not seriously and it has been argued that the husband is not the heir, because the marriage was in an unapproved form. This question of heirship may ...
Rangampudi Malliah and ors. Vs. Mutta Venkateswarlu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1934Mad713
1. This appeal is by defendants 3 to 6 against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in a suit brought on a mortgage bond Ex. A, dated 8th November 1916, executed by defendant 1's father. The appellants defendants are purchasers of the equity of redemption in execution of a money decree obtained by them after the mortgage. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree. Two points are argued in appeal. The first is that the mortgage bond is not supported by consideration and is merely nominal. The Subordinate Judge discusses the evidence. We see no reason to differ from his estimate of the evidence. The burden of proof is upon the defendants. Not only have they not discharged the burden but there is considerable evidence for the plaintiff to show that consideration was fully paid. It is unnecessary to dwell on the oral and documentary evidence in detail.2. The second point argued is that there is a charge on the suit land created in 1912 in favour of the Imperial Bank of India...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »