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.
(Paparaju) Veeraghavayya Vs. Atluri Venkata Lakshmayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad468
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal (A.A.A.O. No. 196 of 1931) is preferred against an order in execution and, on a preliminary objection that no appeal lay, the suit being one of a small cause nature, it was conceded for the appellant that the filing of this appeal was an error and that it should have been filed as a civil revision petition, the question raised being one of jurisdiction. I. have therefore treated the case as a civil revision petition and gone into the legal question raised. The facts are that there was a compromise of an execution proceeding and it is alleged that the compromise entailed lump sum payment in cash and the execution of a promissory note by a third party. The appellant contended that though he gave a receipt as if he had received the full amount under the decree, actually the portion represented by the promissory note was not received and the promissory note was not executed. The appellant therefore filed a memorandum in Court certifying satisfaction only to the ...
Verudhunagar Municipality Vs. Thiruvadamaruthur Ekanatha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad498
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 13th July 1931 allowing the appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Sattur dated 29th January 1929 made in O.S. No. 472 of 1926, a suit by a former shroff in the Municipal office at Virudhanagar to recover a certain sum of money due to him by the Municipal Council. The amount sought to be recovered was Rs. 1,070 odd. The trial Court gave the plaintiff a decree for only Rs. 436 odd and disallowed the rest of the claim. As regards this amount there is no controversy in the present second appeal. The plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Judge in respect of the balance which was disallowed by the trial Court and the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeal with costs. The present second appeal is by the Municipal Council and the amount to which the appeal relates is Rs. 499 with interest thereon. This sum of Rs. 499 was the sum found missing from the safe which was in ch...
Kongot Puthen Veetlil Ammu Vs. Kongot Puthen Veetlil Nagappan Nair Kar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad653; 165Ind.Cas.764
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of order in execution of a decree passed for eviction of a tenant in possession in Malabar, entitled to compensation for improvements under Madras Act I of 1900. The main question in the appeal is one of revaluation with reference to Clause 3, Section 6 of that Act. The suit was apparently pending for a number of years and the decree, which was passed in 1929 in fixing the amount of compensation due to the tenant accepted a valuation made by a Commissioner in 1926. The tenant was evicted almost immediately after the decree so that there is no question of any accretion in value between the date of the decree and the date of the eviction.2. The argument for the appellant is that because Section 6(3) of the Act refers to the date up to which compensation for improvements has been adjudged in the decree, when no such date is given in the decree, the executing Court is at liberty to go behind the decree and ascertain from the evidence the date on which...
Korrapati Sreeramulu Vs. Nadella Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad500; (1936)70MLJ532
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for contribution. The late father of the fourth defendant Krishtayya and one Mandava Lakshmayya were undivided brothers and members of a joint family. On the 1st August 1910 they mortgaged two items of their joint family property being items 6 and 1 of the plaint A schedule and items 1 and 2 of the plaint B schedule for Rs. 600 to one Akkayya, the father of defendants 1 and 5. On 3rd June 1913 they again mortgaged the said two items and other six items in all eight items of the A Schedule properties for Rs. 1,000 to one Kotayya. On certain promissory note debts due by the said Krishtayya and Lakshmayya, Akkayya filed O.S. No. 292 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Avanigadda against the fourth defendant who was a minor and his uncle Lakshmayya and obtained a decree against them. In execution of the said decree Lakshmayya's half share in the A schedule property was brought to sale on the 7th April 1919 subject to the mortgages b...
C. Athimoola Mudaliar Vs. Fathimathul Kubra Begam Saheba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ493
Wadsworth, J.1. The question for determination in this petition is the proper Court-fee payable on a suit brought by an unsuccessful applicant to the Collector for registration as a landholder under Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act. In the lower Court it was contended that the suit was one to set aside a summary Order of a Revenue Court and was taxable under Article 17(1), Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. That view was rejected by the lower Court and it is not contended before me that it is tenable, for the decision in the case of Vannisami Thevar v. Chellasami Thevar (1920) 13 L.W. 104 upon which the petitioner relies for the main argument put forward, negatives the contention that the Order of a Revenue Divisional Officer in such a case is an Order of a Revenue Court which it is necessary for the party adversely affected to set aside.2. It is established that in deciding questions of Court-fee the Court must have regard to the substance and not the form of the relief pra...
G. Athimoola Mudaliar Vs. Fathimathul Kubra Begum Saheba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad383
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The question for determination in this petition is the proper Court-fee payable on a suit brought by an unsuccessful applicant to the Collector for registration as a land-holder under Section 3(5) Madras Estates Land Act. In the lower 'Court it was contended that the suit was one to set aside a summary order of a revenue Court and was taxable under Article 17(i), Schedule 2, Court-fees Act. That view was rejected by the lower Court and it is not contended before me that it is tenable, for the decision in the case of Vanniswami Thevar v. Chellaswami Thevar 1921 MWN 193, upon which the petitioner relies for the main argument put forward, negatives the contention that the order of a revenue divisional officer in such a case is an order of a revenue Court which it is necessary for the party adversely affected to set aside. It is established that in deciding the questions of Court-fee the Court must have regard to the substance and not the form of the relief prayed for....
C. Athimolla Mudaliar Vs. Fathimathul Kubra Begum Saheba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-05-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.879
Wadsworth, J.1. The question for determination in this petition is the proper court-fee payable on a suit brought by an unsuccessful applicant to tie Collector for registration as a landholder under Section 3(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act. In the lower Court it was contended that the suit was one to set aside a summary order of a Revenue Court and Was taxable under Article 17(i), Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. That view was rejected by the lower Court and it is not contended before me that it is tenable, for the decision in the case of Vaniswami Thevar v. Chellaswami Thevar 13 L W 104 : 62 Ind. Cas. 276 : 29 M L T 145 : (1921) M W N 193 upon which the petitioner relies for the main argument put forward, negatives the contention that the order of a Revenue Divisional Officer in such a case is an order of a Revenue Court which it is necessary for the party adversely affected to set aside.2. It is established that in deciding the questions of court-fee the Court must have regard t...
Sharof Ali Abdul Ali Shet Vs. Safiaboo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: 163Ind.Cas.626; (1936)71MLJ247
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, dated 15th September, 1930, dismissing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Mangalore dated 23rd January, 1929, in O.S. No. 549 of 1927 which was a suit for partition by one of the heirs of the Late Abdul Ali Rajah Ali Shet who died on 30th January 1924. It was recited in the plaint there was a gift-deed executed by the deceased Rajah AH on 11th January, 1924 by which he purported to give all his properties to defendants 1 and 3 that is to say, two of his heirs, and it was alleged in the plaint that this deed was void being a gift made during deathbed illness. The first defendant sided with the plaintiff and in fact he was the only witness on the side of the plaintiff and his case was that the deed was not valid for the reason given in the plaint. The suit was resisted only by third defendant so far as the validity of the deed was concerned and it was found by both t...
(Packiri) Muhammad Rowther Vs. Swaminatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad464
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of West Tanjore dated 7th August 1930 allowing the appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Tanjore dated 17th November 1928. The appeal was presented on 9th January 1931. A preliminary objection is raised to the competency of this appeal in view of the fact that before the appeal was filed the appellant himself had applied to the District Judge of West Tanjore to review the judgment and decree from which the present appeal is preferred, and on that review application the judgment and the decree had been varied in some respects. There can be no doubt that there was such an application for review under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil P.C., by the appellant before the appeal was presented to this Court and that on that application for review the Court passed orders allowing it in part, that is to say toy amending its judgment, adding the words 'as regards the appellant's share of the property' in para. 5.2. This w...
Rangaswami Pillai (Dead) and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Naicken (Dead) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad557; (1936)70MLJ691
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts. Both the lower Courts have decreed the suit. There are three points raised by Mr. Krishnaswami Ayyangar before me : (i) the partnership is illegal as it is in contravention of the Abkari Act and the rules framed under it, (ii) the lower Courts were wrong in directing the taking of accounts of the partnership for the year 1922-23, (iii) that in giving direction for the taking of accounts the lower Courts have directed that certain amounts and expenses incurred by the plaintiff for the conduct of suits relating to partnership debts should be debited to the partnership. In regard to the first point as to the illegality of the partnership there are the following findings of both the lower Courts : (i) the partnership was formed at any rate a month prior to the actual grant of license for the sale of toddy, (ii) that seven persons agreed to run the toddy shops contributing capital therefor and financing the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »