Chennai Court November 1935 Judgments
Sellammal Alias Suppammal Vs. Jothimani Nadar Alias Vellai Veda Nadar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ398
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of Court-fee. The point having been decided by the lower Court in plaintiff's favour, I should ordinarily have declined to interfere in revision but for the fact that it has been held by a Bench of this Court in Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai : AIR1929Mad396 that where the decision on the court-fee question also bears upon the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and the suit may have to be filed in a higher Court if the court-fee question should be decided in a different way, this Court is justified in interfering in revision.2. The suit has been filed by two sons of a Hindu father against their step-brother and step-mother. The plaint alleges that certain properties which really belonged to the joint family were made to appear to have been sold away by the father on 27th September, 1923, in favour of his junior wife the fourth defendant, that in fact there was no sale, no payment of consideration and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Sellammal Vs. Jothimani Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad411
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of court-fee. The point having been decided by the lower Court in plaintiff's favour, I should ordinarily have declined to interfere in revision but for the fact that it has been held by a Bench of this Court in Kattiya Pillai v. Ramaswami Pillai 1929 119 IC 35, that, where the decision on the court-fee question also bears upon the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and the suit may have to be filed in a higher Court if the court-fee question should be decided in a different way, this Court is justified in interfering in revision. The suit has been filed by two sons of a Hindu father against their step brother and step mother. The plaint alleges that certain properties which really belonged to the joint family were made to appear to have been sold away by the father on 27th September 1923 in favour of his junior wife, defendant 4, that, in fact, there was no sale and no payment of consideration and that t...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.R.M.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar by Authorised Agent Harihara Aiyar Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.209; (1936)70MLJ683
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura dated 23rd December 1930 confirming with a slight modification the decree of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura dated 9th September 1929 in O.S. No. 135 of 1927, a suit for refund of money drawn from Court by the first defendant in the suit by way of rateable distribution. The first defendant had obtained two decrees, whereas the plaintiff had obtained one decree against one and the same judgment-debtors. The plaintiff's decree was in O.S. No. 1 of 1922 and the first defendant's decrees were in O.S. Nos. 12 and 67 of 1924. The first defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. He applied to execute the decree in O.S. No. 12 of 1924 in E..P. No. 102 of 1924 on first September 1924. It was returned and later on re-presented on 10th October, 1924, There had been an application by the defendants 2 to 4, who were the judgment-debtors, for stay of execution proceedings and that was dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!S.V.B.M.A. Ramanatha Chettiar Vs. A.S. Alaganan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad437
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura, dated 23rd December 1930, confirming with a alight modification the decree of the first Additional Subordinate Judge of Madura dated 9th September 1929, in O.S. No. 135 of 1927, a suit for refund of money drawn from Court by defendant 1 in the suit by way of rateable distribution. Defendant 1 had obtained two decrees, whereas the plaintiff had obtained one decree against one and the same judgment-debtors. The plaintiff's decree was in O.S. No. I of 1922 and defendant 1's decrees were in O.S. Nos. 12 and 67 of 1924. Defendant 1 is the appellant in this second appeal. He applied to execute the decree in O.S. :No. 12 of 1921 in E.P. No. 102 of 1921 on 1st September 1921. It was returned and later on re-presented on 10th October 1924., There had been an application by defendants 2 and 4, who were the judgment-debtors, for stay of execution proceedings and that was dismissed on 8th October 1924. Thereupon ...
Tag this Judgment!Kandadi Appana Krishnamachary Vs. Sriman Madabhushi Simhadri Appalacha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad494; 161Ind.Cas.751
Wadsworth, J. 1. The appellant sought to execute a decree and the respondents pleaded an adjustment which had not been certified under Order XXI, Rule 2. It appears that after the decree had been passed and while an appeal was pending, the parties met together and arranged a settlement of all their outstanding disputes and one of the terms of that settlement was that the decree which had been obtained should be cancelled and that the adjustment should be certified in Court in the appeal. This apparently was not done but the appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn.2. It is argued that the adjustment is a predecretal arrangement which could be proved in bar of execution and the respondent quotes a decision of Curgenven, J., in Narayanan Nambudri v. Damodaran Nambudri A I R 1931 Mad. 26 : 120 Ind. Cas. 187 : Ind. Rul. (1931) Mad. 363, in support of the proposition that when an arrangement is come to while an appeal is pending, that arrangement is not one which requires to be certifi...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Sankara Aiyar Vs. Muhammad Gani Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad276; (1936)70MLJ257
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from an order made by K.S. Menon, J., restraining the appellant here from bringing the property of the respondents to sale in execution of the decree which he had obtained in O.S. No. 31 of 1932 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam. That was a mortgage suit and the appellant was the plaintiff in it. One Abdul Karim, the brother of the three respondents in this appeal, executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant for Rs. 10,000 on the 1st October, 1928. Abdul Karim died leaving the respondents his three brothers and they were made defendants 4 to 6 in the suit. The mother of the respondents filed a suit for partition (O.S. No. 59 of 1931) in the same Court and on her death the three respondents were transposed as the plaintiffs and the appellant was added as the eleventh defendant as it was alleged in the suit that the mortgage by Abdul Karim in the appellant's favour was not binding on the shares of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Seethamraju Ramanarayana Rao Alias Ayyadevara Siva Rao Vs. Seethamraju ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ400
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an order recording a compromise.2. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. It has been held in the case Onkar Bhagwan v. Gamna Lakhaji and Co. I.L.R.(1932) 57 Bom. 206 that in spite of the terms of Order 43, Rule (1)(m) no appeal lies against an order recording a compromise unless there was a contest before the Court at the time when the compromise was recorded, the reasoning being that if the compromise was recorded by consent, that consent order itself is practically tantamount to a consent decree which is not appealable with reference to Section 96(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. With very great respect I must say that I find some difficulty in accepting the view laid down by the learned Judges who decided that case. Order 43, Rule (1) (m) gives a right of appeal against an order recording a compromise without any restriction as to the nature of that order, whether passed after contest or without contest. To assume that the ord...
Tag this Judgment!(Seethamraju) Ramanarayana Rao Vs. (Seethamraju) Ramkrishna Rao and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad385
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an order recording a compromise. A preliminary objection is taken that no appeal lies. It has been held in Onkar Bhagwan v. Gamna Lakha ji & Co. 1933 57 Bom 206 that in spite of the terms of Order 43, Rule 1(m), no appeal lies against an order recording a compromise unless there was a contest before the Court at the time when the compromise was recorded the reasoning being that if the compromise was recorded by consent, that consent order itself is practically tantamount to a consent decree which is not appealable with reference to Section 96(3), Civil P.C. With very great respect I must say that I find some difficulty in accepting the view laid down by the learned Judges who decided that case. Order 43, Rule 1(m), gives a right of appeal against an order recording a compromise without any restriction as to the nature of that order whether passed after contest or without contest. To assume that the order is in fact a consent order, because ther...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Ramaswami Naick Vs. Lakshmana Kudumban and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad408
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These two connected second appeals arise out of two suits, O.S. Nos. 237 and 274 of 1928, on the file of the District Munsif 's Court of Koilpatti for a declaration that the properties which they purchased in Court auction in execution of a decree in S.C.S. No. 939 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court at Koilpatti against the 2nd defendant belong to the 2nd defendant.2. The case for the plaintiffs is that one Alagirisami Naick, P.W. 3, instituted S.C.S. No. 939 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Koilpatti and obtained a decree on 28th January 1927 against defendant 2, obtained an attachment of his properties on 12th March 1927, and the properties were brought to sale in execution of the decree obtained therein; and on 17th November 1927 the plaintiff in O.S. No. 237 of 1928 purchased seven items and the plaintiff in O.S. 274 of 1928 purchased two items on 4th January 1928 and when the plaintiffs applied for delivery of possession...
Tag this Judgment!V.M. Kumaraswami Goundan Vs. Ayya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad695; 165Ind.Cas.258
Beasley, C.J.1. These two appeals can he dealt with together. The appellant was appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor in March 1931 and thereafter the minor was in the custody of the appellant. Subsequently the minor seems to have run away, and at any rate gone through some sort of marriage with a young girl of sixteen which the learned Judge in the Court below describes as an invalid marriage. The present petition which originated in an attempt by the appellant to recover custody of the minor resulted in an application for his removal from guardianship, and in the affidavit it is stated that the appellant had been ill-treating the minor. Beyond that affidavit and the evidence of the minor himself in Court, which is far from convincing, there was no other evidence with regard to ill-treatment. The appellant did not give evidence himself or call any evidence; and he was removed from guardianship and the present guardian was appointed instead. In making the order app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »