Chennai Court October 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.
Rangachariar and ors. Vs. J. Rengasawmy Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad190; 161Ind.Cas.219
Varadachariar, J.1. The only question of law arising in the case is the plea of res judicata raised on the strength of the compromise decree in O.S. No. 534 of 1930 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Tiruvattipuram. That was a representative suit and the decree therein establishes the title of the nanja ayacut dams to the. VizKal in the suit tank. The District Munsif dismissed the present suit on a finding under Issues Nos. 1 and 4 against that title. On behalf of the petitioners it has been contended that as the decree in O.S. No. 534 of 1930 has become final, it constitutes the question of title, res judicata, even for the purpose of this Civil Revision Petition, though that decree was given only after the decision of this suit in the trial Court. The balance, of authority is in favour of upholding the plea of res judicata. See Mariam Nissa Bibi v. Jorjnab Bibi 33 C 1101 at pp. 1106, 1116 and 1117. Though the Full Bench decision in Panchanada Velan v. Vaiihinatha Sastrial 2...
Thiagarajan Minor by Mother and Next Friend Ananthalakshmi Ammal, Alia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ581
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of some importance. One Rama Ayyar was a member of the Non-Gazetted Government Officers' Association, Madras, Mutual Benefit Fund Limited. He became a member of it on 19th March 1925 and died on 9th July, 1931. Under the rules of the Fund certain sums of money became payable to his nominee or legal heirs In the event of his death. During his lifetime Rama Ayyar became indebted to the Plaintiff who after his deatkjfiled Small Cause Suit No. 564-of 1931 against the son and the widow of Rama Ayyar and obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 268-3-3 payable from the assets of the late Rama Ayyar in their hands. He attached a sum of Rs. 800 as due and payable by the Fund as the assets of the said Rama Ayyar. Both the defendants, his son and widow, as well as the Fund, resisted the claim on the ground that the said sum did not form part of the estate of Rama Ayyar and it was payable to his legal heirs. The learned District Mun...
Nidamarti Jaladurga Prasadarayudu Vs. Ladooram Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad687
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a dispute between neighbours. S.A. No. 894 (O.S. No. 267 of 1923) relates to the suit brought by the present appellant claiming that the lane between the two properties is joint and should continue right along the northern boundary of his land and praying for an injunction directing the removal of structures encroaching on the appellant's land. S.A. No. 895 (O.S. No. 92 of 1923) arises out of the suit by the present respondents claiming exclusive property in the land leading to their house (which lane according to them ends at that house and does not continue westwards as alleged by appellant). Both the lower Courts have found that the respondents' case regarding the lane is proved and I see no reason to question the correctness of the inferences drawn from the recitals regarding boundaries in the title deeds of both sides. Nor can I accept the contention of the appellant that the trial Court erred in allowing the respondents to let in reb...
Thiagarajan, Minor and anr. Vs. K. Venkatrama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.889
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of some importance. One Rama Ayyar was a member of the Non-gazetted Government Officers' Association, Madras, Mutual Benefit Fund, Limited. He became a member of it on March 19, 1925, and died on July 9, 1931. Under the rules of the Fund, certain sums of money became payable to his nominee or legal heirs in the event of his death. During his lifetime Rama Ayyar became indebted to the plaintiff who after his death filed Small Cause Suit No. 564 of 1931 against the son and the widow of Rama Ayyar and obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 268-3-3 payable from the assets of the late Rama Ayyar in their hands. He attached a sum of Rs. 80 as due and payable by the Fund as the assets of the said Rama Ayyar. Both the defendants, his son and widow, as well as the Fund resisted the claim on the ground that the said sum did not form part of the estate of Rama Ayyar and it was payable to his legal heirs. The learned District Munsi...
J. Mciver and H. Hadow Partners Carrying on Business Under the Name an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ545
Mockett, J.1. This is a petition to adjudicate as insolvents Mr. J. Mclver and Mr. H. Hadow, who carry on business as partners under the name of Huson. Tod & Co., Stockbrokers in Madras. The petition alleges that the debtors owed the petitioner on the 25th May of this year Rs. 1,32,915-10-11, of which a payment of Rs. 33,338-14-9 had been made leaving on the date of the petition a balance of Rs. 99,686-12-2 due. It is convenient to state at this stage that it is not denied by the debtors that this amount is due to the petitioner. The acts of bankruptcy upon which the petition is laid are three in number. Paragraph 11 of the petition alleges a preferential payment in favour of Mr. J.W. Macfarlane of Rs. 4,062 on 3rd May 1935, and a similar preferential payment of Rs. 24,986 to Mr. W. H. Warren on the 9th May, 1935. With regard to this latter payment it was stated from the Bar by Mr. Grant that it was paid to Mr. Warren not in his personal capacity but as the representative of a missiona...
Perumal Konar Vs. Maruthanayagam Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad433; 165Ind.Cas.559
ORDERMadhavan Nair, J.1. The case decided in Ma Gun v. Mg. Lu Gale 1925 Rang 130, is identical with the present case. That decision is based on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Magan Lal v. Shakra Girdhar (1898) 22 Bom 945, which says that:By sale of a mortgaged property in execution of a decree obtained by a mortgagee against the mortgagor upon the mortgage the interest of both the mortgagor and mortgagee passes to the purchaser.2. This principle has been accepted by this Court in Govindan Asari v. Nagayam Chettiar 1932 MWN 160. If this principle is right then it follows that the mortgagor must make good to the mortgagee the loss sustained by him for breach of the covenant regarding his title involved in the contract of mortgage: (Section 65.) The amount sued for in the present case represents the value of the property of which the mortgagee-purchaser was deprived in O.S. No. 456 of 1925. The decisions relied on by the lower Court have no application to this case. I set aside th...
Trustees, Chokkanathaswami Temple Vs. Poovanna Navanna Vadivelmuruga N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad220
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the trustee for the time being of Chokkanathaswami temple, Virudunagar. The defendant is a raiyat holding two parcels of land, namely, (1) pymash Nos. 90 and 91 and (2) pymash No. 207 under a patta No. 225 in the village of Allampatti. He put up a building on pymash Nos. 90 and 91 and thereupon the plaintiff instituted this suit praying for two reliefs : (a) To direct the defendant to remove the building which the defendant unlawfully put up as being prejudicial to agricultural operations on the land and to render it fit for cultivation and (b) in case the defendant does not do so, to evict the defendant from the land. The extent built upon is 7 cents and the total area of the land included in the patta is about 56 cents. The Sub-Collector of Sivakasi who tried the suit found that the land by reason of the defendant's act became uncultivable and was rendered substantially unfit for agricultural purposes. He held that money compensation under Sec...
Shanmugavel Goundan and ors. Vs. Venkitaswami Asari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad202; 161Ind.Cas.55
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from flooding his land. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants own a tank Survey No. 823 and the plaintiff owns lands south of it, that its storage capacity was only 30 kulies and its ayacut 18 kulies and that they extended the northern and eastern bunds of the tank and put up a new bund, increased the height of bunds and shifted the surplus weir and in consequence whereof his land was flooded and he suffered damage. The defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff to the land claimed by him and denied having made any alterations as alleged but they also asserted that the ayacut of the tank was not 18 kulies but 53 kulies.2. The learned District Munsif of Dindigul found for the plaintiff in regard to the title of the land claimed but held that no alterations were made and dismissed the suit. He refused to rely on the report of the Comm...
P.S.P. Piranmalai Rowther and anr. Vs. S.P.N.M. Mohamed Ibrahim Rowthe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad105; 160Ind.Cas.684
Burn, J.1. It is quite obvious that the order of the learned Election Commissioner in this case was wholly without jurisdiction. Rule 10 of the rules for the settling of disputes about Elections to Local Board is as follows:2. If in the opinion of the Election Commissioner(a) the returned candidate, his agent or any other person with the connivance of such candidate or agent, has committed, or abetted the commission of any Election offence falling under Section 58 of the Act or Ch. 9-a I.P.C., or .(b) the election of the returned candidate has been procured or induced or the result of the election has been materially affected, by any of the following corrupt practices:(i) any Election offence falling under Section 54 of the Act or under Ch. 9-a I.P.C., when committed by a person who is not a candidate or his agent or a person acting with the connivance of a candidate or his agent;(ii) any payment or promise of payment to any person whomsoever on account of the conveyance of any Elector...
Agnes Sumathi Ammal Vs. D. Paul
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ321
Stone, J. 1. The question that has been referred is whether a decree passed by the Court sitting for the disposal of matrimonial work of this High "Court in a petition for nullity of marriage should be a decree nisi, or a decree absolute. It has been the practice in this High Court hitherto to make the decree in the first place a decree nisi. It would appear that the practice in the other High Courts and In particular Bombay has been different, those High Courts having in nullity suits made the decree absolute in the first place. 2. Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act provides that a decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a High Court inter alia shall in the first instance, be a decree nisi and shall not be made absolute till after the expiration of such time, not less than six months from the pronouncing thereof, as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs. Provision is made for the intervention originally of any person, now, since the passing of Sec...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »