Chennai Court January 1935 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.
Bhaghavathi Vannan Vs. Veera Vannan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.107
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dated July 11, 1931, setting aside in appeal the decrees of the District Munsif of Kulitalai, dated September 23, 1930, in O.S. No. 290 of 1928 and 498 of 1929, and directing the trial Court to restore the suits to its file and dispose of them after giving them opportunity to let in evidence. The plaintiff who is the same in both the suits challenged the defendant to take oath in a certain temple in a certain manner with regard to two principal allegations made in the plaint, and this challenge was accepted by the defendant. When a commission was issued for the taking of the oath and everything was ready, a difficulty arose by reason of the claim made by a temple servant of certain fee for the purpose of meeting 'Samprokshana' expenses as preliminary to the taking of the oath. The plaintiff would not pay the fee, and apparently the defendant did not offer to pay, and both the partie...
Y. Mahabaleswarappa Vs. M. Gopalaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad673; (1935)69MLJ589
Curgenven, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Bellary refusing to prefer a criminal complaint of forgery against the respondent, Mr. M. Gopalaswami Mudaliar. Up to 10 A.M. on the 1st November, 1932, Mr. M. Gopalaswami Mudaliar was President of the District Board of Bellary. He was succeeded in that office by the petitioner before the District Judge, one Mr. Mahabaleswarappa. In an election petition which Mr. Gopalaswami Mudaliar filed in the Court of the Election Commissioner to unseat Mr. Mahabaleswarappa the document now in question was produced. We are not at the present stage concerned with the merits of the case, and it is sufficient to remark that the document, which embodies an order of appointment, is alleged to have been antedated to make it appear that the order originated while Mr. Gopalaswami Mudaliar was still President of the District Board.2. The election petition was heard and decided by Mr. P. Rajagopalan, at the time the Subordinate Judge...
Palaniandi Gramani Manickammal Vs. V. Murugappa Gramanani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad483; 157Ind.Cas.181
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is defendant 4 in the mortgage suit brought by the appellant in O.S. Appeal No. 87 of 1933. The mortgage was executed by-one Appadurai Gramarti, the father of defendants 1-4, and by defendants 1-3, and Appadurai also executed it on be-behalf of defendant 4 who was then a minor. The mortgage comprised a plot of land which Appadurai's father, Tanikachala, had dedicated to a private temple built by Thanikachala on the land. The first three defendants were ex parte. But defendant 4 defended the suit. In his written statement he raised the plea (inter alia) that the particular plot having been dedicated to charity could not be bound by the mortgage. The learned Chief Justice who tried the case permitted the plaintiff-mortgagee to file an additional statement wherein the plaintiff pleaded that Appadurai and his sons had acquired title to the plot by adverse possession and that they were therefore competent to mortgage it. The learned trial Judge found that a title...
N. Thangavelu Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Chengalvaroya Gurukkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.273; (1935)69MLJ250
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. There were four defendants in the suit under appeal. Defendants 1 and 2 are the present trustees and dharmakarthas of the Siddi Buddi Karpaga Vinayagar temple. Defendant 3 and the father of defendant 4 were the trustees and dharmakarthas of the same temple at all material times although they were not so, on the date of the trial. The only contesting defendants were defendants I and 2, the other two defendants being ex parte. The plaintiff's claim was upon a promissory note dated the 25th August, 1927, for Rs. 927 being the principal and balance of interest due on that promissory note which was executed by the third defendant and the deceased father of the fourth defendant who were the then trustees of the temple. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the amount borrowed was for a purpose binding on the temple, namely, for effecting repairs to its property. According to the plaintiff's case, in 1924, the then temple trustees, defendant 3 and the f...
Ayilur Gramom Harihara Pattar's son Aghileswara Ayyar Vs. Nochur Gramo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad411
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The substantial and the only question for determination in this second appeal is whether the original of Ex. A evidences a lease from year to year or a lease for 12 years. The District Munsif held that the lease evidenced by the original of Ex. A was one from year to year, determinable on notice. The Subordinate Judge set aside this finding and came to the conclusion that the lease must have been one for 12 years.2. Exhibit A is simply a kychit. It does not specifically say that it is either for 12 years or it is from year to year. The previous history of the holding of the property is referred to in Ex. A. It shows that the earliest demise of the property was of the year 1889. Then there was a melcharath on 2nd August 1897, which is expressly stated to have been for a period of 12 years : see Ex. 1. The original demisee took an assignment of this melcharath right. It is with respect to the property held under this right that a renewal was executed and this is the s...
Aghileswara Aiyar Vs. Shamu Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.147
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The substantial and the only question for determination in this second appeal is whether the original of Ex. A evidences a lease from year to year or a lease for 12 years.2. The District Munsif held that the lease evidenced by the original of Ex. A was one from year to year, determinable on notice. The Subordinate Judge set aside this finding and came to the conclusion that the lease must have been one for 12 years.3. Exhibit A is simply a kychit. It does not specifically say that it is either for 12 years or it is from year to year. The previous history of the holding of the property is referred to in Ex. A. It shows that the earliest demise of the property was of the year 1889. Then there was a melcharth on August 2, 1897, which is expressly stated to have been for a period of 12 years. (See Ex. I). The original demisee took an assignment of this melcharth right. It is with respect to the property held under this right that a renewal was executed and this is the s...
Chinnathayee Vs. Lakshmi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad675; 163Ind.Cas.619
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that the decrees in O.S. Nos. 16 of 1922 and 11 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Dindigul obtained by defendants 1 to 3 and the subsequent execution proceedings are not binding on her and on the suit property. The facts are briefly these : The suit property along with the other properties had been mortgaged on 5th March 1914 by the son of the original owner, and on that mortgage the present defendants 1 and 2 instituted a suit against the mortgagor, defendant 1, in that suit. The present plaintiff's husband was defendant 9 in the suit. He was impleaded as a party as he was a subsequent purchaser of a portion of the hypotheca included in that suit. Item 10 in the schedule to the plaint is the present plaint item. A preliminary decree was passed in that suit and subsequent to that decree the plaintiff's husband died and the present plai...
V. Ramaswami Ayyar and ors. Vs. S.S. Krishnasa and Sons and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad904; 162Ind.Cas.221
Ramesam, J. 1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these: Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are a firm of merchants trading in Madura, Defendant No. 5 and his undivided son, defendant No. 6 are merchants carrying on business in Tiruvalur. The plaintiffs are cloth merchants in Conjeeveram. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 became indebted to the plaintiffs and various other creditors to the extent of nearly Rs. 45,000. They had outstandings due to them to the extent of Rs. 12,000, and their stock-in-trade amounted to Rs. 30,000. Under these circumstances they entered into an arrangement with defendant No. 5 according to which defendant No. 5 should take over the stock-in-trade of defendant No. 1, put on his own signboard and carry on the business. Ganpathi Ayyar, defendant No. 5's brother, should also remain in the shop to see that everything is properly done and only Ganapathi Iyer should be in charge of collecting the outstandings due, to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 5 undertook to realise R...
Sri Raja Inuganti Venkata Rajagopala Rama Suryaprakasa Rao Vs. Sree Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ133
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant took a lease of a rice mill from the Polavaram Zamindar under Ex. A in 1926 and by Ex. B he assigned the lease to the defendants. It is not correct to construe Ex. B as a sub-lease; it is really an assignment of the term. It follows both from the terms of Ex. B and under the general law that the defendants, as assignees, became liable to pay the rent due to the Zamindar and it is also well established that as the assignor nevertheless continued liable for the rent on his personal covenant, he is entitled to an indemnity from the assignees as regards the payment of rent to the superior landlord. The plaintiff instituted this suit for the recovery of the amount of the rent by payment to himself, alleging that the defendants had not paid rent to the superior landlord and that the landlord had given to the plaintiff a notice on 28th July, 1929. It has not been shown to us that, beyond giving this notice, the Zamindar took any steps for recovering...
Pandiri Satyanandam and ors. Vs. Paramkusan Mangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad342a
Walsh, J.1. This was a suit brought 4>y the plaintiffs on certain dealings in Khata between plaintiff l's wife and the defendants. The khata was settled in 1923 and a sum of about Rs. 40,000 was found due. Plaintiff l's wife died on 9th June 1923 leaving an unregistered will in favour of the plain-stiffs. The will is dated 5th June 1923. This suit was filed on 10th September 1925 and no probate had been taken out nor succession certificate before the filing of the suit. An application for attachment before judgment was taken out by the plaintiffs on 6th October 1925. We find from Ex. 11, a reply notice sent by the defendant's pleader to the plaintiffs' pleader, that the defendants had no objection to pay the suit amount if proper security was furnished or if probate of the will had been obtained. This notice was said to have been received on 12th October 1925 and on 17th October 1925, plaintiff 1 filed a further affidavit (Ex. 16) in the attachment proceedings in which he stated that:T...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »