Chennai Court February 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.
(Namburi) Venkata Krishtnayya Vs. Karnedan Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad643
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 2 is the appellant. The suit instituted by the plaintiff was for the, recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in his favour. Defendant 2 contended that he executed the promissory note only as a surety to the knowledge of the plaintiff, that he was exonerated by the plaintiff from his liability, and that in any event by reason of the plaintiff's conduct he being a surety was deprived of the security against defendant 1 and was thereby discharged. We are not concerned in the second appeal with the plea of exoneration. On the remaining pleas the following issues were framed by the District Munsif.1 (a) Whether defendant 2 is entitled to plead that he is only a surety to the knowledge of plaintiff? (b) If he is a surety, was he deprived of the security against defendant 1 by reason of the plaintiff's conduct, and is he discharged thereby? (c) Was there a valid contract of sale of defendant l's properties to plaintiff as allege...
Namburi Venkata Kristnayya Vs. Karnedan Kothari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1935
Reported in: 156Ind.Cas.827
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. The suit instituted by the plaintiff was for the recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in his favour. The 2nd defendant contended that he executed the promissory note only as a surety to the knowledge of the plaintiff, that he was exhonerated by the plaintiff from his liability, and that in any event by reason of the plaintiff's conduct he being a surety was deprived of the security against the 1st defendant and was thereby discharged. We are not concerned in the Second Appeal with the plea of exhoneration. On the remaining pleas the following issues were framed by the District Munsif:(a) Whether the 2nd defendant is entitled to plead that he is only a surety to the knowledge of plaintiff?(b) If he is a surety was he deprived of the security against 1st defendant by reason of the plaintiffs conduct, and is he discharged thereby.(c) Was there a valid contract of sale of 1st defendant's pr...
T.R.B. Ranganatha Reddi Vs. Ramaswami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad839; 159Ind.Cas.1; (1935)69MLJ425
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question under reference arises out of a suit by a son to set aside various alienations by his father. One of the alienations sought to be set aside was effected on 12th August, 1902 and the other on 5th June, 1902. The Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff was born on 31st December, 1902 and was therefore a child en ventre sa mere at the time of the alienations. The suit was filed in forma pauperis on the day before the three years' period of limitation from the date of the plaintiff's attaining majority had expired. The question that arose in the lower Court and arises before us is whether Section 6 of the Limitation Act can be taken advantage of by the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit as barred by limitation relying on Muhammad Khan v. Ahmad Khan I.L.R.(1928) 10 Lah. 713. The learned Chief Justice of the Punjab High Court expressed the opinion that, if a person is not in existence, he cannot well be described as a ...
T.V. Duraiswami Pillai and anr. Vs. Venkatarama Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad572; 158Ind.Cas.508
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the izaradars of the suit village under a permanent lease from the zamindar of Kangundi : see; Ex. E. The defendants are raiyats in occupation of the lands. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for rent under Section 77(1) of Act 1 of 1908. ! The plaint contains no detailed statement of the claim of the plaintiffs, It simply asks for recovery of rent at a certain rate. The contention of the defendants is that the lands are held rent free. It would seem that the lands were originally granted to the father and uncle of defendants 1 and 2. It is not clear what the conditions of the grant were. The first Court held that * the claim of the plaintiff was barred by res judicata and dismissed the suit. Two appeals were filed against the first 'Court's decree viz., A.S. No. 199 and 211. A.S. 211 related to one item only. In A.S. No. 199 there were four items of land. The learned District Judge hold that the decision of...
Nidadavole Ramalingam Vs. Nidadavole Veerabhadrudu (Deceased)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ890
Varadachariar, J.1. This Second Appeal is by the Plaintiff who sued for possession of certain lands which are admittedly Village Service Inam (for Blackmith's service) in the Pittapur Estate. The plaintiff admits that neither he nor his father was the holder of the office or was doing the service and that the first defendant and after him defendants 2 and 3 are the holders of the office and have been discharging the duties; but, he claimed that his father and after his death himself have been in possession of those lands for a long time and that he has acquired a title thereto by adverse possession as against the office holders, though such possession might not affect the right of the Government to resume the lands.2. In view of the omission of the defendants in the written statement to deny the plaint allegations as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff's father came into possession of the suit lands, we may take it that as alleged in the plaint the plaintiff's father must ha...
Vedali Guruvabhotlu Vs. (Reddi) Jogayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad696; 158Ind.Cas.9
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decrees of the Courts below which dismissed his suit as barred, by Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C. This objection arises in consequence of what happened in O.S. No. 325 of 1917 on the file of the District Munsif of Yellamanchili. The present defendants were defendants 4 and 5 in that suit. That suit-had been instituted against two sets of defendants, in respect of two sets of properties, and an objection was accordingly raised that the suit was bad for multifarious ness. This objection was made the subject of issue 5 in that, case and when the case came on for trial what happened is thus recorded in para. 6 of the judgment in that suit (Ex. C):The defect is cured by the plaintiff's own admission that there is multifariousness inasmuch as he practically concedes that he cannot prove any collusion between the two sets of defendants. He has accordingly confined this suit to item 1 in which defendants 1 to 3 alone are interest...
Kuthiravattah Kottayil Chathanni Rayiran Vs. Thirunilai Gramom Kuppu P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad682; 158Ind.Cas.228
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who sued for possession and for recovery of arrears of rent for a period of more than 30 years. The Courts be low have dismissed the claim for possession and awarded a decree for rent only for a period of six years. Hence this appeal. The right to possession turns upon the effect of two documents Exs. A and I. The documents themselves bear no particular description as to the interests created by them. They are apparently mere memoranda though they have been registered. In dealing with some of the cases brought to my notice on behalf of the appellant, it is important to remember that where the document purports to be a 'kanom' there is prima facie the implication of a right of redemption and one would naturally insist upon strong indications in other portions of the documents to take away that right. In the present case Ex. 1 is no doubt referred to by the learned Subordinate Judge as a kanom document and is so printed in the paper ...
Patibandla Raghupathirayadu Vs. Garapati Pichayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad581; 158Ind.Cas.961; (1935)69MLJ77
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada ordering full satisfaction of a decree to be recorded. The decree-holder, the appellant here, raised the objection that the application under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code which was, dated 17th March, 1932 was barred by limitation.2. Shortly the facts of the case are as follows: A mortgage decree had been obtained against the respondents and on 15th April, 1931, an arrangement was come to between the decree-holder and the judgment-debtors that, if the decree-holder got the mortgage property in Court auction and if the sale was confirmed, the judgment-debtors within one month after the confirmation of sale would put the property in his possession without any obstruction from anyone after removing some sheds which had recently been put up temporarily on the property and it was agreed that the decree-holder should file a petition in Court for recording full satisfa...
The Municipal Council Through Its Chairman Vs. S. Thirumalai Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.977; (1935)69MLJ221
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In Section 98 of the District Municipalities Act (V of 1920) as it stood before the recent amendment, the expression 'let out for hire' was used. The question to be decided is whether the words were intended to include what is known as 'plying for hire'. The Madras Local Boards Act (XIV of 1920) is in pari materia with the Act in question and it is noticeable that the words ' ply for hire occur in Section 166 of that Act - which shows that the legislature was not obvious of the distinction between the two sets of words. Both the Acts were passed in the same year and it is further to be observed that when several sections of each of these two Acts were recently amended, both sets of words, namely, 'let out for hire' and 'ply for hire' were omitted and the legislature may be presumed to have intentionally omitted them. The expression 'ply for hire' is met with in English statute and has been much discussed in English cases and I find it difficult to hold that the l...
In Re: Katta Anniahgari Naranappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad544
Pandrang Row, J.1. In this Second Appeal the only point argued and that is the only point of law that arises in this Second Appeal, is, whether the suit is barred by limitation. The suit is one for recovery of the amount due on a mortgage deed, and prima facie as the deed was executed in 1926 and the suit was brought in 1931, it would not be barred under the ordinary rule of limitation relating to suits on mortgage deeds. It is however contended that the suit is barred because a previous claim petition made in respect of this very mortgage right by the plaintiff in certain execution proceedings was dismissed after it was withdrawn by the plaintiff himself, and that though this dismissal was the' result of the withdrawal of the petition, it must be deemed to be an order against the claimant, and therefore under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C., the dismissal was final unless set aside by a suit within one year from the date of the order of dismissal. The only question therefore for decisio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »