Chennai Court November 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.
Raju Goundan Vs. Kappu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.463
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for possession of the suit properties ' on the ground that he purchased them from one Subba Reddi who purchased them at a rent sale. The suit lands are comprised in Morappathangal village which belongs to two Mokkassadars, Sundararaja Rao Saheb and Ramchandra Rao Saheb. They owned and passessed the same in two undivided halves. From the evidence in the case it appears that these two mokkassadars were issuing separate pattas to the same tenant each for his undivided half, (vide the evidence of P. Ws Nos. 1 and 2). The patta mention the entire survey numbers which are owned by the two mokkassadars jointly and the amount of rent which the various survey numbers will have to bear and the total rent, and in the end, it is-staled that the amount due in respect of the pattadar's half is Rs. 19-4-7. For arrears due to Sundararaja Rao Saheb as per the patta issued by him for Fasli 1331 the su...
In Re: R.R. Gopalachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.175; (1936)70MLJ308
Beasley, C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Munsif of Madura Town under Order. XLVI, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, and raises a question of court-fees in relation to the plaints in two Small Cause suits there (S.C.S. No. 2508 of 1934 and S.C.S. No. 2509 of 1934). In each of the two cases the plaintiff claims a sum of money as being due from the defendant in respect of dealings, those dealings being the sale and delivery of goods which the plaintiffs in the suits claim have not been paid for In the particulars filed with the plaints the various dealings are set out and also the amounts due in respect of them. In S.C.S. No. 2508 of 1934, there is in addition a claim in respect of the following matters. Rs. a. p. 6-2-33. Debit to Vakil's clerk for sending lawyer's notice ... 0 6 0 25-2-33 Debit Re. 1 as fees for sending lawyer's notice through Vakil P.S. Nagasamy Ayyar regis- tration charges for the same.0-5-3 out of Re 1-5-3 in all deduct- ing 0-6-0 paid to the Vakil'...
Valiyakath Periyattal Vs. (Karumathil Palakot) Govinda Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad655
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main point argued in this appeal by Mr. Sitaratna Rao is one of limitation. The facts necessary for the disposal of this point may be briefly stated. Defendants 2 to 7 mortgaged certain items of property to one Parukutty under Ex. H dated 14th June 1912. On 13th July 1918 they purported to transfer certain items of property, which were not covered by mortgage, to defendant 1 (vide Ex. A) for a consideration of Rupees 585-9.0 of which a sum of Rs. 186-10-8 was reserved with defendant 1 on the understanding that he should pay the same with future interest to the mortgagee Parukutty and discharge the mortgage debt. By Ex. B, dated 10th November 1922, defendants 2 to 7 sold a part of the property comprised in Ex. H to the plaintiff free of encumbrances, and it was stipulated that the amount of Rs. 186-10 8 which was reserved under Ex. A would be paid by defendant 1, but that in case he failed to pay, the plaintiff was given the right to recover the amount, which...
In Re: Mr. M.P. Narayana Menon for Renewal of Second Grade Pleadership ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ498
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The respondent is an applicant for the renewal for the year 1935 of a second grade pleadership certificate. This application he sent to the High Court through the District Judge of South Malabar. In his application he stated that he was a second grade pleader, that his certificate was last renewed on the first of January, 1921, that he was unable to apply for the renewal of the certificate because on the 10th of September, 1921 he was arrested under the orders of the District Magistrate of South Malabar under the Mopla Outrages Act and kept as a detenue and subsequently was charged with the offence of waging war against His Majesty, tried by the Special Court at Calicut presided over by Mr. Pakenham Walsh and convicted and sentenced to transportation for life on the 25th of September, 1922 and that he was released only on the 1st of October, 1934. His application is dated the 14th of March, 1935. On the 17th of October, 1935 the High Court issue...
In Re: M.P.N., a Second Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad318
Beasley, C.J.1. The respondent is an applicant for the renewal for the year 1935 of a second grade pleadership certificate. This application he sent to the High Court through the District Judge of South Malabar. In his application he stated that he was a second grade pleader, that his certificate was last renewed on 1st January 1921, that he was unable to apply for the renewal of the certificate because on 10th September 1921 he was arrested under the orders of the District Magistrate of South Malabar under the Moplah Outrage Act and kept as a detenue and subsequently was charged with the offence of waging war against His Majesty, tried by the Special Court at Calicut presided over by Mr. Pakenham Walsh and convicted and sentenced to transportation for life on 25th September 1922 and that he was released only on 1st October 1934. His application is dated 14th March 1935. On 17th October 1935 the High Court issued a notice to him of proceedings under Section 12, Legal Practitioners' Act...
Peruvaniyan Krishna Kurup and ors. Vs. Chowwakaran Razhukkath Pokki an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad598
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of item 1 of the plaint schedule. The plaint comprises two items of properties namely item 1 being Kanancheri paremba and item 2 being Nata paremba which admittedly belonged in jenm to Peruvianayan Thazhekunnath tarwad of defendants 3 to 6. By Ex. 1 dated 16th March 1880 the said properties were leased by its karnavan to Mathancheri Kannan and he obtained a renewal from the succeeding karnavan by Ex. A dated 5th October 1892. In or about 1895 the plaint properties were in pursuance of a rezinamah set apart by the then karnavan for the maintenance of Lakshmi Amma and her descendants who form a tavazhi of the main tarwad and possession was delivered to her and she was collecting the rents from the lessee Kannan. On 2nd May 1900 Lakshmi Amma gave a melcharth to one Kumhammed Kutti with authority to recover possession of the property from Kannan after payin...
Kondi Rena Athmaram Chettiar Vs. Kondi Mana Saraswathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.837; (1936)70MLJ542
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petion raises a question of Court-fees. The plaintiff claimed that one Mannarsami Chettiar the son of his senior paternal uncle, and he were members of a joint Hindu family. The first defendant is Mannarsami Chettiar's wife; the second defendant is his daughter; and the third defendant is the brother of the first defendant. The plaintiff claimed that as undivided family members they carried on the ancestral family business, that the properties mentioned in the B and C Schedules to the plaint belonged to the joint family and that he was entitled to the properties by survivorship. In the plaint he alleged that a will which Mannarsami Chettiar had left bequeathing his properties to his widow and daughter was a forgery. The learned Subordinate Judge says:Reading the plaint as a whole we find that the plaintiff himself realises that this will is an obstacle in the way of his getting at the properties mentioned in B and C schedules...
Minor E.R. Gurunatha Chettiar by Next Friend Angammal Vs. the Secretar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad201; 160Ind.Cas.939; (1936)70MLJ625
Varadachariar, J.1. This Revision Petition raises a question of court-fee. The plaintiff-petitioner, who is a Mittadar, brought the suit for a declaration that in respect of certain lands in his mitta he is entitled to take water from the Cauvery free of irrigation cess and for a refund8 of a sum of Rs. 50 and odd which, according to him, had been illegally levied from him. The Court below has called upon the plaintiff to pay court-fee under Section 7, Clause (iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act read along with the proviso added by the Madras Amendment to that clause. In effect it has held that the plaintiff should value the suit and pay court-fee on the basis of half the value of the plaint-mentioned properties calculated under Clause (v) of Section 7.2. In the Revision Petition it has been contended before me that this is not a correct view. It is not impossible to read the plaint in such a way as to make the prayer for declaration ancillary to the prayer for refund. But assuming for the sa...
(Kondi Rana) Athmaram Chettiar Vs. (Kondi Mana) Saraswathi Ammal and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad344
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of Court-fees. The plaintiff claimed that one Mannarsami Chettiar, the son of his senior paternal uncle, and he were members of a joint Hindu family. Defendant 1 is Mannarsami Chettiar's wife; defendant 2 is his daughter; and defendant 3 is the brother of defendant 1. The plaintiff claimed that as undivided family members they carried on the ancestral family business, that the properties mentioned in the B and C schedules to the plaint belonged to the joint family and that he was entitled to the properties by survivorship. In the plaint he alleged that a will which Mannarsami Chettiar had left bequeathing his properties to his widow and daughter was a forgery. The learned Judge says:Reading the plaint as a whole we find that the plaintiff himself realises that his will is an obstacle in the way of his getting at the properties mentioned in B and C schedules. So it is clear that the will has to be cancelled and set asid...
The Administrator-general Representing the Estate of Eapoor C. Ramalin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ700
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly, dismissing E.P. No. 205 of 1929 in O.S. No. 16 of 1914 on the ground that it is barred by limitation.2. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the Execution Petition is barred by limitation.3. This petition is filed by the Administrator-General of Madras representing the estate of Eapoor C. Ramalingam Chettiar, who it is alleged, had become entitled to the rights of the late Thotta Rajagopala Chettiar, who was the fourth plaintiff in the suit. The final decree in the suit, which was one for sale of the mortgaged properties, was passed on 2nd November, 1920; and this petition was filed on 24th June, 1929. The first contention of the appellant is that as the decree was subsequently amended by an order made on 13th July, 1929, (Ex. G) on an application made by one of the defendants in the suit and one of the items of the decree was deleted, he is entitled to...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »