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.
(Sri Sri) Gourachandra Deo Garu and anr. Vs. (Marella) Venkatanarayana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad147
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff who is the Zamindar of Chikati seeks to recover from the defendant who is holding a Darimilla Inam under him arrears of kattubadi; for faslis 1331 to 1336. Both the lower Courts gave him a decree only for three years holding, that the rest of the claim was barred by limitation. They followed the ruling of Krishnan, J., in Sambasadasiva Chinna Rayal Varu v. Maddulappa 1923 MWN 524. The learned Judge observed that though there may be a good deal to be said, if the matter were res integra, he felt bound to follow the rulings in Venkatagiri Raja v. Venkata Row (1893) 21 Mad 243 and Gajapathi Raja v. Suryanarayan (1899) 22 Mad 11. In Venkatagiri Raja v. Venkata Row (1893) 21 Mad 243 it was held that a claim for jodi payable by an inamdar to a zamindar being rent on favourable terms was cognisable by the Small Cause Court. In Gajapathi Raja v. Suryanarayan (1899) 22 Mad 11 where a claim was for arrears of kattubadi for four years, the lower Courts gave a...
(Dondapati) Lakshminarasimha Rao and anr. Vs. (Gundabatula) Raghavamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad380
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 583 being the balance of principal and interest alleged to be due on the foot of a simple mortgage bond dated 28th October 1918 executed by defendants 1 to 4 for Rs. 340 in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and defendant 5. Defendant 5 separated from the father of the plaintiffs and thereafter the interest in the mortgage bond vested in the plaintiffs' father and after their father's death in the plaintiffs. The defence is that in fasli 1335 the amount approximately due and payable in respect of the mortgage bond was about Rs. 400 and it was then arranged between the plaintiffs' father and the defendants that the plaintiffs' father should enjoy the land item 1 of the plaint property, being one of the items in the mortgaged property, for a period of five years from fasli 1335 in full satisfaction of the mortgage and the plaintiffs' father was accordingly let into possession of the said land and the plaintiffs' ...
Administrator-general Vs. Thotta Radhakrishna Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad434
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. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is whether the execution petition is barred by limitation. This petition is filed by the Administrator-General of Madras representing the estate of Epoor C. Ramalingam Chettiar, who, it is alleged, had become entitled to the rights of the late Thotta Rajagopala Chettiar, who was plaintiff 4 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 held 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 have the date of ...
Dondapati Lakshminarasimha Rao Dondapati Rama Rao Vs. Gundabathula Rag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.53a
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 583 being the balance of principal and interest alleged to be due on the foot of a simple mortgage bond dated October 28, 1918, executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 for Rs. 340 in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant. The 5th defendant separated from the father of the plaintiffs and thereafter the interest in the mortgage bond vested in the plaintiff's father and after their father's death in the plaintiffs. The defence is that in Fasli 1335 the amount approximately due and payable in respect of the mortgage bond was abount Rs. 400, and it was then arranged between the plaintiffs' father and the defendants that the plaintiffs' father should enjoy the land. Item No. 1 of the plaint property being one of the items in the mortgaged property for a period of five years from Fasli 1335 in full satisfaction of the mortgage and the plaintiffs' father was accordingly let into possession of the said lan...
The Administrator-general Vs. Thotta Radakrishnan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.969
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 riled 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 4th plaintiff in the suit. The final deeree in the suit, which was one for sale of the mortgaged properties, was passed on November 2, 1920; and this petition was filed on June 24, 1929. The first contention of the appellant is that as the decree was subsequently amended by an order made on July 13, 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 have the...
A.P.L.M.P.L. Muthuraman Chettiar Vs. Adaikappa Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad336
Stodart, J.1. A field which was joint family property belonging to two coparceners was sold by one of them Muthurama Chetty. In 1918 the other co-parcener filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share. Muthuraman Chetty was the first defendant in that suit. He died during the trial and his sons Adaikappa and Palaniappa were substituted. The suit was dismissed on 24th February 1923. Plaintiff appealed and his appeal was allowed on 28th August 1925. Some of the defendants filed a second appeal in the High Court and this was dismissed and finally, on 27th February 1926, the trial Court having divided the land gave the plaintiff a decree. Up to the last Adaikappa and Palaniappa remained on the record as the representatives of the deceased vendee. They had a common defence and appeared by the same vakils. In 1927 the suit now under appeal was filed on behalf of the minor son of Palaniappa. He declared that Palaniappa had died in January 1924, pending the hearing of th...
A.P.L.M.P.L. Muthuraman Chettiar Vs. Adaikappa Chetty (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.214
1. A field which was joint family property belonging to two co-paceners was sold by one of them Muthuraman Chetty. In 1918 the other co-parcener filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share. Muthuraman Chetty was the first defendant in that suit. He died during the trial and his sons Adaikappa and Palaniappa were substituted. The suit was dismissed on February 24, 1923. Plaintiff appealed and his appeal was allowed on August 28, 1925. Some of the defendants filed a second appeal in the High Court and this was dismissed and finally on February 27, 1926, the trial Court having divided the land gave the plaintiff a decree. Up to the last Adaikappa and Palaniappa remained on the record as the representatives of the deceased vendee. They had a common defence and appeared by the same Vakil.2. In 1927 the suit now under appeal was filed on behalf of the minor son of Palaniappa. He declared that Palaniappa had died in January 1924, pending the hearing of the first appea...
M.R. Ananthanarayana Aiyar Vs. Rarichan (Minor) by Guardian Unnooli Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ306
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The Respondent was the fifth defendant in a suit in which a decree had been granted in favour of the third plaintiff. He put in an application for leave to appeal as a pauper to the High Court. That application was out of time by a few clays. The application for excusing the delay and for the admission of the appeal was heard ex parte by Lakshmana Rao, J. who excused the delay and admitted the appeal and gave the necessary directions upon the question of pauperism. The appellant here, who was the successful third plaintiff in the suit, put in an application before Lakshmana Rao, J. for the setting aside of his previous order excusing the delay. Lakshmana Rao, J. saw no reason for setting aside his previous order; and it is with regard to that order that this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is before us. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent that no appeal lies from such an order under Clause 15 of the Letters Pate...
M.R. Ananthanarayana Iyer Vs. Rarichan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad387
Beasley, C.J.1. The respondent was defendant 5 in a suit in which a decree had been granted in favour of plaintiff 3. He put in an application for leave to appeal as a pauper to the High Court; that application was out of time by a few days. The application for excusing the delay and for admission of the appeal was heard ex parte by Lakshmana Rao, J., who excused the delay and admitted the appeal and gave the necessary directions upon the question of pauperism. The appellant here, who was the successful plaintiff 3 in the suit, put in an application before Lakshmana Rao, J., for the setting aside of his previous order excusing the delay. Lakshmana Rao, J., saw no reason for setting aside his previous order; and it is with regard to that order that this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is before us. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent that no appeal lies from such an order under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; and reference has been made to the well-kno...
Bava Sahib Vs. C.K. Krishna Boyan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad898
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of contribution. Defendant 2 was the owner of two houses and four items of lands bearing Survey Nos. 157/1, 158/2, 152/2 and 157/2. On 5th February 1918 he mortgaged the houses and survey Nos. 152/2 and 157/2 for Rs. 2,000 to one Rangammal. On 26th September 1919 he mortgaged the houses as well as all survey numbers for Rs. 4,000 to one Subramania Chetty. On 28th April 1920 he sold to defendant 1 survey Nos. 152/2, 158/2, 157/2 and 157/1 for Rs. 5,750. Out of the purchase money Rs. 750 was paid as advance and this was utilised in payment of interest to the two mortgagees aforesaid. Out of the balance of Rs. 5,000 Rs. 2,000 was reserved to be paid to Rangammal towards principal in full discharge and Rs. 3,000 was reserved to be paid to Subramania Chetty in part discharge. On 25th January 1922, defendant 2 sold the two houses to the plaintiffs by Ex. A. Under the said purchase he was asked to pay Rs. 1,200 towards the mortgage ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »