Chennai Court December 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.
Sivamalai Goundan Vs. Ramaswami Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1935
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.573
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Coimbatore, dated November 1, 1933, affirming the decree of the principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore dated November 18, 1932, in O.S. No. 124 of 1931, a suit for declaration that the plaintiff has obtained a valid assignment of the rights of the 2nd defendant who was a chit-holder or subscriber in a chit of which the 1st defendant was the manager or stake-holder, and was thus entitled to all the rights and was subject to all the liabilities of the 2nd defendant. The assignor 2nd defendant did not contest the suit. The 1st defendant denied that he had given his consent to the transfer in favour of the plaintiff and contended that in the absence of such, consent the transfer was void under Rule 7 of the chit rules. This was the substantial defence in the suit though it was also alleged that the plaintiff had no cause of action. This allegation about the absence of the cause of action was not made the subje...
R. Muthuswamy Pillai Vs. S. Veeraswamy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.251; (1936)70MLJ433
Stodart, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant in a small cause suit and two claims were decreed against him and he now impugns the decree on the ground that for several reasons it is not according to law.2. The first ground is that the judgment is lacking in form. The judgment is as follows: - After describing the cause of action on both counts the learned District Munsif says:2. The defendant contends that the suit claim is not true.3. The points for consideration are:(1) Has the Court no jurisdiction?(2) Is the suit for share of profits of a successful finished horse race not maintainable?(3) Is the defendant not liable for astrologer's fees?(4) What relief?4. I find that the claim on each of the two heads is legally maintainable and true on the facts and should be allowed.3. It is contented that the learned District Munsif here has clubbed together all the points for determination and has made a statement merely to the effect that he finds all the issues in favour of the plaintiff ...
Bhavansi Rangappa and anr. Vs. Kamisetti Venkataswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.177; (1936)70MLJ537
Varadachariar, J.1. The main point for decision in this second Appeal is a question of limitation and that turns upon the true legal effect of certain transactions which took place between the parties and one Subramaniam on the 23rd and 24th March, 1926. The defendant had purchased some land from Subramaniam and owed him money in that connection. There was a suit O.S. No. 588 of 1924 arising out of that sale and it was compromised on 23rd March, 1926, by Ex. A. It is sufficient to say that under the compromise the defendant and another agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 850 to Subramaniam; but as they had no money to pay on that date and Subramaniam was not prepared to accept a promise from the defendant, it was arranged that on behalf of the defendant the present plaintiffs should execute a promissory note for Rs. 850 in favour of Subramaniam. A. promissory note was accordingly executed by the plaintiffs to Subramaniam on the 24th March, 1926. I am willing to accept in a general way the story...
M. Mon Singh Vs. Mothi Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad477; (1936)71MLJ790
1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge, Chingleput, granting Mothi Bai the respondent here a succession certificate entitling her to collect from the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company the sum of Rs. 3,038 being the provident fund amount standing to the credit of one Lakshmana Singh, a servant of the company who died in 1931. Mothi Bai is the widow and heir of one Bhavani Singh whom Lakshmana Singh nominated as the person to whom the amount standing to his credit should be paid in the event of his death while still in service. But Bhavani Singh died in 1921. The certificate has been granted to the respondent as his heir. The appellant, who is the heir of the deceased subscriber contended before the learned District Judge that the effect of nomination is merely to entitle the nominee if he is alive at the death of the subscriber to draw out the money. That contention is pressed on appeal. The order of the learned District Judge is 'Having regard t...
Namburi Suraparaju Vs. Nulu Venkatarathnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad347; (1936)70MLJ471
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant in this civil miscellaneous appeal, who also files a civil revision petition on the same grounds, brought a suit for money against the respondent. The suit underwent many adjournments, several of them being with a view to settlement and the others being at the request of the defendant through his pleader. On 18th January 1933 the plaintiff filed a petition praying that the suit be advanced and a decree recorded in terms of the compromise which was put before the Court supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff, which recites that the compromise was signed by himself and the defendant and embodied the terms of an agreement for settlement of the litigation. The pleader appearing for the defendant represented that he had no instructions regarding this compromise, and at his request the matter was adjourned to 2nd February to which date the suit also was posted. It is seen from the Subordinate Judge's judgment that the defendant is a resident of Amalapur whe...
(Bhavanasi) Rangappa and anr. Vs. (Kamisetti) Venkataswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad334
Varadachariar, J.1. The main point for decision in this second appeal is a question of limitation and that turns upon the true legal effect of certain transactions which took place between the parties and one Subramaniam on 23rd and 24th March 1926. The defendant had purchased some land from Subramaniam and owed him money in that connection. There was a suit, O.S. No. 588 of 1924,. arising out of that sale and it was compromised on 23rd March 1926 by Ex. A. It is sufficient to say that under the compromise the defendant and another agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 850 to Subramaniam; but as they had no money to pay on that date and Subramaniam was not prepared to accept a promise from the defendant, it was arranged that on behalf of the defendant the present plaintiffs should execute a promissory note for Rs. 850 in favour of Subramaniam. A promissory note was accordingly executed by the plaintiffs to Subramaniam on 24th March 1926. I am willing to accept in a general way the story of the de...
(Jalmana) Veeraraghavalu Naidu Vs. Suryanarayana Panda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad338
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit to recover a sum of money due on the footing of a mortgage dated 11th June 1921 executed by defendants 1 to 4 and the minor son of defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant 5 is a son of defendant 2 born subsequent to the execution of the suit mortgage. Defendant 6 is a divided cousin of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 7 to 13 are alienees of portions of the mortgaged property from defendant 6. The father of defendants 1 and 2, Raghunatha Panda, the father of defendant 6, Lavanya Panda, and another Chandrasekara Panda, were brothers and members of a family who became divided prior to the suit mortgage. So far as defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 are concerned, they admitted the execution of the suit mortgage. The contesting defendants were defendants 6 to 13. Their defence is that defendant 6's father purchased item 2 from P.W. 2 who himself purchased the property at a Court auction in 1914. In regard to items 1, 3 and 4 the defence is that in or ab...
Jalmana Veeraraghavalu Naidu Vs. Suriyanarayana Panda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.303
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit to recover a sum of money due on the footing of a mortgage dated June 11, 1921, executed by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and the minor sort of the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The 5th defendant is a son of the 2nd defendant born subsequent to the execution of the suit mortgage. The 6th defendant is a divided cousin of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 7 to 13 are alienees of portions of the mortgaged property from the 6th defendant. The father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Raghunada Panda, the father of the 6th defendant Lavanya Panda and another Chandrasekara Panda were brothers and members of a family who became divided prior to the suit mortgage. So far as defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are concerned, they admitted the execution of the suit mortgage. The contesting defendants were defendants Nos. 6 to 13. Their defence is that the 6th defendant's father purchased item No. 3 from P.W. No. 2 who himself purchased the property at a Court...
Gudimetla Ramireddi Vs. Gudimetla Satyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad636; 167Ind.Cas.356
Wadsworth, J.1. These matters arise out of a suit brought by the present appellant for a declaration of his title to a certain land and an injunction or in the alternative for possession. The plaintiff originally acquired an interest in the land by a purchase. The defendant disputed that title. There was some sort of a fight in the course of which the plaintiff is alleged to have caused grievous hurt to one of the defendants. A criminal prosecution of the plaintiff resulted and it is common ground that there was a compromise of the disputes between the parties in order to put an end to the criminal prosecution and as a result of that compromise the plaintiff executed a settlement deed conveying his rights in the property to the defendants. This was followed up by another dispute, the plaintiff alleging that the conveyance executed by him in the course of criminal proceeding's was invalid. It would appear that there was a danger of a fresh resort to violence and that. The Police interve...
P.V. Govindan Vs. Thavarayil Kinathi Narayanan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad417; (1936)70MLJ467
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit upon a promissory note dated 20th June 1925 executed by defendant 1 for himself and as agent of defendant 2 in favour of Ananthanarayana Brothers of Tellicherry. The plaintiffs case is that defendant 2 was a cart contractor of Messrs Aspinwall & Co., at Tellicherry, that in respect of dealings had by defendant 2 with the said company Messrs. Ananthanarayana Brothers & Co., stood surety for him, that the said Ananthanarayana Brothers was carried on by the plaintiff and his elder brother K. Ananthan, defendant 1 was the duly constituted agent of defendant 2 and defendant 1 on behalf of defendant 2 settled accounts with them, that a sum of Rs. 365 was found due and payable to Ananthanarayana Brothers and the suit promissory note was executed by defendant 1 in his own capacity and in the capacity of the agent on behalf of defendant 2, that the said Ananthanarayana Brothers ceased to exist, that the said note was assigned on 25th July 1925 exclusively ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »