Chennai Court September 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.
Muddala Venkatareddi Naidu Vs. Dharwada Venkata Varaha Narasimharao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad115(1); (1935)68MLJ159
Stone, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant in this case. He is the purchaser of property that was mortgaged to the plaintiff from the mortgagor, and it was arranged at the time of the purchase that part of the purchase price, viz., Rs. 2,900 should be retained in the hands of the second defendant to pay to the mortgagee to discharge the mortgage amount then owing by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. In pursuance of that arrangement, the second defendant, having this money which was due to the vendor in his hands, wrote on the 10th of July, 1923, to the mortgagee saying that the property had been sold to him and a portion of the sale amount paid to the vendor, and as for the balance 'it is arranged as between us (i.e., the vendor and vendee) that I should pay you the same towards your mortgage-debt, and obtain the return of the mortgage bond with payment endorsement noted thereon. Accordingly, I should have already brought your money, but delay occurred on account of some transactions ...
Minor Lakshmanan Chettiar Represented by Mother and Guardian Lakshmi A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ318
Curgenven, J.1. The appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken in a suit filed to recover some property from a number of defendants. We are here concerned with ninth defendant. With the others he contested the suit and it was dismissed with costs. The plantiff appealed to the High Court, ninth defendant being impleaded as eighth respondent. On 2nd May, 1926, he was served with notice of the appeal but he failed to comply with the terms of the notice by entering an appearance within the 30 days allowed. The appeal was disposed of in December, 1930, and sometime in June, 1927, while it was pending, the eighth respondent died. After his death three petitions were filed by the appellant in the appeal, (1) to excuse the delay which had occurred, (2) to set aside the abatement of the appeal, and bring on the legal representative of the eighth respondent, namely the present first appellant, as tenth respondent and (3) to appoint his mother as his guardian, he being a minor. In disposing...
Vungarala Venkanna Vs. Anisetti Rama Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad234
ORDERWalsh, J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit on an alleged lost promissory note said to have been executed by the defendant and be states in the plaint that he had certain account books which show the transactions between himself and the defendant. On 11th February 1933, the defendant issued though his pleader a notice under Order 11, Rule 15 to produce the plaintiff's account books for inspection before himself or his pleader. That notice was received on the same date but no reply was sent by the plaintiff. The latter filed certain account books into Court on 13th February 1933. The hearing of the suit came up on 10th March 1933 and on that date the plaintiff wished to exhibit and put in evidence these account books. The defendant 'put in a counter objecting and stating that he had not been given inspection of them as demanded and consequently under Order 11, Rule 15, the plaintiff was not at liberty to put them in evidence unless he satisfied the Court that there was sufficient reason...
Lakshmanan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad236
Curgenven, J.1. The appeal arises out of execution proceedings taken in a suit filed to recover some property from a number of defendants. We are here-concerned with defendant 9. With the others he contested the suit and it was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court, defendant 9 being impleaded as respondent 8. On 2nd May 1926, he was served with notice of the appeal but he failed to comply with the terms of the notice by entering an appearance within the 30 days allowed. The appeal was disposed of in December 1930, and sometime in June, 1927, while it was pending, respondent died. After his death three petitions were filed by the appellant in the appeal: (1) to excuse the delay which had occurred, (2) to set aside the abatement of the appeal, and bring on the legal representatives of respondent 8, namely the present appellant 1, as respondents 10, and (3) to appoint his mother as his guardian, he being a minor. In disposing of these petitions, the learned Judge...
Chivaukula Sheetharamayya and anr. Vs. Mulpuru Rathamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad399
Walsh, J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions arise from an order passed under Section 73, Civil P.C. I may note at the outset that one of the petitioners,. i.e. petitioner, 2 who is a decree holder, has no locus standi. The decree-holders who raised objection to the distribution of rateables in the lower Court were these in O.S. Nos. 60 and 61 of 1927 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Masulipatam. Petitioner 2 in this Court is Gottamukkula Eamayya. He is not a decree-holder in either of the decrees. At the time of the presentation of the petition, the office raised a query as to how it could entertain the petition, in reply to which a note was made that he was the decree holder in O Section No 65 of 1926. It is now admitted that is a wrong number and that he is not a decree-holder in any of the decrees in question. On account of this, he must be eliminated, and we have only to deal with petitioner 1 who is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 61 of 1927. Petitions, as far as ...
Chivukula Seetaramayya and anr. Vs. Mulpuru Rathamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.631
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise from an order passed under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code. I may note at the outset that one of the petitioners, i.e., the second petitioner, who is a decree-holder has no locus standi. The decree-holders who raised objection to the distribution of rateables in the lower Court were these in O.S. Nos. 60 and 61 of 1927 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Masulipatam. The second petitioner in this Court is Gottamukkula Ramayya. He is not a decree-holder in either of the decrees. At the time of the presentation of the petition, the office raised a query as to how it could entertain the petition, in reply to which a note was made that he was the decree-holder in O.S. No. 65 of 1926. It is now admitted that that is wrong number and that he is not a decree-holder in any of the decrees in question. On account of this, he must be eliminated, and we have only to deal with the first petitioner who is the decree-ho...
Mudala Venkatareddi Naidu Vs. Dhorwada Venkata Varaha Narasimharao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1934
Reported in: 155Ind.Cas.302
Stone, J.1. Second defendant is the appellant in this case. He is the purchaser of property that was mortgaged to the plaintiff from the mortgagor, and it was arranged at the time of the purchase that part of the purchase price, viz., Rs. 2,900 should be retained in the hands of the 2nd defendant to pay to the mortgagee to discharge the mortgage amount then owing by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. In pursuance of that arrangement, the 2nd defendant, having this money which was due to the vendor in his hands, wrote on July 10, 1923, to the mortgagee saying that the property had been sold to him and a portion of the sale amount paid to the vendor, and as for the balanceIt is arranged as between us (i.e. the vendor and the vendee) that I should pay you the same towards your mortgage debt and obtain the return of the mortgage bond with payment endorsement noted thereon. Accordingly, I should have already brought your money, but delay occurred on account of some transactions and urgent busi...
Subbaya Maniyagarar Vs. Kandaswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad105; 153Ind.Cas.329
ORDERWalsh, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a maintenance order passed by the lower Court in a partition suit. The suit was brought by two minors with their mother as guardian for partition against their father being members of a joint family. The written statement admitted that the plaintiffs were defendant 1's children and also admitted that the property was joint family property. It is necessary in order to understand the order to see to the circumstances under which it was passed. The suit filed in July 1932 and issue 1 was whether it is maintainable, defendant 1 contending that it was not in the interest of the minors to have a partition. It is admitted that the plaintiffs left their father as long ago as 1928 with their mother and defendant l's allegation is that the mother is an unchaste woman. From that date up to now, defendant 1 has made no attempt to get back the-minors for himself and apparently ho has married another wife. Under these circumstances, when the suit...
Mahaganpathi and anr. Vs. Natesa Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-25-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad112; 155Ind.Cas.1002
ORDERWalsh, J.1. These are revision petitions against the order of the District Munsif of Mannargudi refusing to stay the suits brought by the creditors of defendants 1, 2 and 3. In those suits defendant 1 is the father; defendants 2 and 3 are the sons and the suits are filed to recover sums of money alleged to have been borrowed by defendant 1. These suit were filed at various times from December 1932 up to June 1933. In June 1932 the petitioners had filed a partition suit O.S. No. 138 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif of Mannargudi and the plaintiffs in these money suits have been in pleaded as defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7. For the sake of convenience, it was arranged to try the suits together as there was a common issue as to whether the debts incurred by the father were for immoral purposes and not binding on the sons. But on a preliminary point the learned District Munsif held' that he had no jurisdiction to try the partition suit as the amount involved was beyond his powers ...
Vedagiri Sastriar Vs. Jagathguru Sankarachariar Swamigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Mad128; 155Ind.Cas.591; (1935)68MLJ132
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Pakenham Walsh, J. in S.A. No. 396 of 1929. The plaintiff is the appellant here and was a hereditary stanika office-holder of the temple of Sri Kamakshi Amman in Conjeeveram. The first defendant in the suit is the trustee of the temple and the second defendant is his agent. The suit was for the recovery of emoluments due to the plaintiff from 31st December, 1918 to 11th February, 1919. The suit was filed on 10th January, 1924, more than three years and less than six years from the date of the cause of action. One plea taken at the trial was that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court, the lower Appellate Court and Pakenham Walsh, J. have upheld that plea. At the outset it must be stated that the emoluments sued for were received by the appellant in kind, that is to say, so many measures of rice and also food offerings. These have been assessed in the plaint at Rs. 81-14-4. The question here is whi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »