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.
K.S. Ananthanarayana Iyer Vs. Rarichan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.416
Beasley, C.J.1. The respondent was the 5th defendant in a suit in which a decree had been granted in favour of the 3rd 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, days. 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 3rd 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 Patent: and reference has been mad...
P. Rama Aiyar Vs. T. Bagavathimuthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad473; 163Ind.Cas.834; (1936)70MLJ506
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the twenty-ninth defendant in a mortgagee's suit for sale. The plaintiff sued for sale on foot of a mortgage Ex. A dated 21st December, 1922, for a sum of Rs. 10,000. The twenty-ninth defendant was the holder of a mortgage(Ex. VIII) dated 19th July, 1922, for Rs. 5,000, but the amount due under this mortgage has been, from time to time paid up in the following manner; by a sale to the appellant himself under Ex. I dated 26th January, 1925, of some of the items comprised in the mortgage and certain other items for a sum of Rs. 3,250; again by a sale by the mortgagor's brother under Ex, XIII dated 8th February, 1925, for a sum of Rs. 3,500 out of which a sum of Rs. 2,500 was paid to the twenty-ninth defendant; and lastly, by a sale under Ex. II dated 21st December, 1926, by the mortgagor to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 3,075. It may be mentioned that between the dates of Ex. XIII and II, the twenty-ninth defendant had instituted a suit (O.S. No....
Hari Ramayya (Dead) and anr. Vs. Bhagavatula Venkatachalapati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.90; (1936)70MLJ619
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by a reversioner who sued to recover possession of the estate of one Ananthayya. The last male owner died in 1886, leaving a widow and a daughter. The widow died in October, 1925, and as the daughter and a son born to the daughter had predeceased the widow, the plaintiff filed this suit in January, 1927, claiming to recover possession of the properties alleged to belong to the estate. Several sets of defendants were impleaded in the suit and various questions were raised by the different sets of defendants. For the purpose of this appeal, it is sufficient }O deal with one question raised by the forty-seventh defendant, who claims to have been adopted to Ananthayya by his widow on the 10th June, 1925.2. There is scarcely any dispute before us either as to the truth of relationship alleged by the plaintiff or as to the factum of the, adoption of the forty-seventh defendant. The only question argued before us is as to the validity of the adoption.3. T...
A.L.V.R. Ct. Veerappa Chettiar Vs. Arunachalam Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad200; 160Ind.Cas.993
ORDERMenon, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Tirumangalam, made in O.S. No. 39 of 1932, directing the plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding a prayer for a declaration of title to the properties mentioned in the plaint and also to value the suit in accordance with the proviso to Section 7, Clause (4) (c), Court-fees Act. A preliminary objection is raised that the petition is incompetent under Section 115, Civil P.C. But as a question of jurisdiction also will be involved in the plaintiff amending the plaint and valuing it according to the proviso to Section 7, Court-fees Act, I do not think that the preliminary objection can be upheld.2. The suit was for a permanent injunction to restrain the villagers of Thevaram and Meenakshipuram from quarrying or removing stones, etc., without paying the necessary fees to the plaintiff and obtaining a license. But this is only an allegation relating to the cause of action, namely, that the plaintiff has a right...
Chunduri Panakala Rao Vs. Atmuri Venkata Sarvesam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad342
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this second appeal may be briefly stated. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and were members of an undivided Hindu family till January 1926. In or about 1913 it appears that some paddy trade was being carried on by defendant 2 in partnership with D. W. 3. At that time defendants 1 and 2 with a view to get loans from the Imperial Bank of India for the trade entered into an agreement with the bank, Ex. A, dated 18th January 1913, in and by which they intimated to the bank that they were trading for their joint family benefit and interest and that they will hold themselves jointly and severally liable in respect of moneys advanced to any of them. Ex. A runs as follows:We, the undersigned : (1) Atmoori Venkatasarvesam, A.L.N. (2) Atmoori Lakshmi Nara-simham, do hereby request you to take notice that we are trading for our joint family benefit and interest, and we further request you to note that all transactions entered into by ...
Hari Ramayya and anr. Vs. Bhagavatulu Venkatachelapati and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad460
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by a reversioner, who sued to recover possession of the estate of one Ananthayya. The last male owner died in 1886, leaving a widow and a daughter. The widow died in October 1925 and as the daughter and a son born to the daughter had predeceased the widow, the plaintiff filed this suit in January 1927, claiming to recover possession of the properties alleged to belong to the estate. Several sets of defendants were impleaded in the suit and various questions were raised by the different sets of defendants. For the purpose of this appeal, it is sufficient to deal with the one question raised by defendant 47, who claims to have been adopted to Ananayya by his widow on 10th June 1925. There is scarcely any dispute before us either as to the truth of the relationship alleged by the plaintiff or as to the factum of the adoption of defendant 47. The only question argued before us is as to the validity of the adoption.2. The adopted son relies upon the con...
The Pappanaickenpalayampudur Rama Vilas Nidhi, Ltd., by Its Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad161; (1936)70MLJ90
Burn, J.1. The facts of this case are very simple. I take the following statement of them from the order of Varadachariar, J., who referred this matter for disposal by a Bench:This Second Appeal arises out of a suit brought by a creditor of the third defendant to have it declared that a decree for partition which defendants 1 and 2 obtained in O.S. No. 1466 of 1926 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court of Coimbatore against the fourth defendant, the Official Receiver of Coimbatore, is not binding upon the creditors. The plaintiff has been permitted to file the suit on behalf of all the creditors of the insolvent. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of the third defendant admittedly born after the property had vested in the Official Receiver by reason of the third defendant's insolvency. They nevertheless filed O.S. No. 1466 claiming partition of the family property and the Official Receiver who was impleaded as a defendant in that suit did not appear at the hearing, with th...
Jagadisan Pillai Vs. Narayanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad284; (1936)71MLJ180
Burn, J.1. These appeals raise a question of limitation. The appellant in C. M. A. No. 463 of 1933 is the holder by assignment of the decree in O.S. No. 13 of 1923 on the file of the Sub-Court of Trichinopoly. That suit was filed by the Imperial Bank of India against two defendants Narayanan Chettiar and Vadivelam Pillai. A decree was passed in favour of the Bank by which the plaintiff was to proceed in the first instance against defendant 1 and then against both the defendants if necessary. The Imperial Bank of India as the decree-holder filed Execution Petition No. 126 of 1933: praying for the arrest of defendant 1. In a later Execution Petition No. 157 of 1923 filed on 13th August 1923, the Bank applied for attachment of the moveables of defendant 2 and an order for attachment was made but this petition was not pressed.2. The present appellant is the sister's son of defendant 2 and he filed Execution Petition No. 201 of 1923 for recognition of the assignment to him of the decree and...
Swami Kone Vs. Sankaravadia and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad804
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of O.S. No. 102 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Madura. The plaintiff (appellant) filed that suit claiming certain rights as the grandson of one Swami Kone, who died in May 1906. Swami Kone had a younger brother San-karalinga Kone, and a son Sundararaja Kone, who was the father of the plaintiff. Sundararaja died in December 1906. The suit property seems to have been purchased in 1891 in Swami Kone's name under Ex. E. For some years prior to 1908 the property seems to have been in the possession of the defendants or their predecessors-in-title. Towards the end of 1907 Sankaralinga, acting for himself and on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's deceased younger brother, sent a notice to the persons then in possession purporting to terminate their tenancy and asking for surrender of the property. As they did not give up possession, he filed O.S. No. 576 of 1908 on 16th October 1908. As the questions for decision in ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›