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.
Thangatur Ramayya Vs. Katta Venkattannagari Sreenivasayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad634
Pandrang Row, J.1. This second appeal is from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ananfcapur dated 15th March 1929 in appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Penukonda dated 25th January 1928 in a suit for establishing the plaintiff's right to attach certain properties in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1051 of 1926, on the ground that the sale of those properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2 are void as being intended to defraud creditors. The suit was resisted on several grounds but the decision of both the Courts below was based entirely on the preliminary ground that the main question raised in the suit, namely whether the sales in favour of defendants 1 and 2 were intended to defraud creditors was res judicata by reason of the order dismissing I.P. No. 3 of 1925 in which the plaintiff was the petitioner and defendants 1 and 2 were respondents 4 and 5. In that petition the petitioner, the plaintiff in the present suit, sought to adjudicate defendants 3 to 5 in th...
Kalahasthi Munusamiah and anr. Vs. Umaderjah Raje Damara Kumara Venkat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad554
ORDERCurgenven, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a Small Cause suit filed by the Rajah of Kalahasthi to recover a sum of Rs. 263-11-0 said to be due as jodi or meras from the agraharamdars of Parlapalle Agraharam for faslis 1336 to 1338. There have been several previous suits to recover the same dues for earlier faslis, of which O.S. No. 393 of 1905 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Tirupati ended in a second appeal reported as Rajah of Kalahasthi v. Kamakshamma 1916 Mad. 1035. The learned District Munsif has decreed the claim subject to a certain deduction as set off, and this petition has been presented by two of the agraharamdars. The main contention raised is that the suit was of a kind excepted from the cognizance of a Small Cause Court as falling within Article 13 Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The article exceptsa suit to enforce payment of the allowance or fees respectively called milikana and hakk, or of cesses or other dues when the ...
G. Ramachandran Chettiar Vs. V. Verivada Chettiar (Dead) Verivada Chet ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1935
Reported in: (1935)68MLJ628
1. It is contended that no appeal will lie as the order passed is to require a receiver to pay a sum of money into Court and must therefore fall under Order 40, Rule 3 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. The application was filed under Order 21, Rule 11(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order, it is true, treats the respondent to it, in his capacity as receiver, but it directs him to deposit in Court a sum part of which was probably collected by hirri before the date of his appointment as such, that is, collected as fourth defendant in the suit and owner of the equity of redemption of the property. The substance and effect of this order is to direct a party to make a payment, and it is an order in execution. The Court in fact has also directed the payment of the costs of execution. We think that this part of the order, at least, is appealable under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On the merits, the Court had no power to order the receiver, as such...
G. Ramachandram Chettiar Vs. V. Verivada Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad464; 156Ind.Cas.886
1. It is contended that no appeal will lie as the order passed is to require a Receiver to pay a sum of money into Court and must therefore fall under Order XL, Rule 3(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was filed under Order XXI, Rule 11(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order, it is true, treats the respondent to it in his capacity as Receiver, but it directs him to deposit in Court a sum, part of which was probably collected by him before the date of his appointment as such, that is collected as 4th defendant in the suit and owner of the equity of redemption of the property. The substance and effect of this order is to direct a party to make a payment, and it is an order in execution. The Court in fact has also directed the payment of the costs of execution. We think that this part of the order, at least, is appealable under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On the merits, the Court had no power to order the Receiver, as such, to accoun...
Tenkasi Sulaiman Rowther and ors. Vs. Dawood Khan Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad754
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The main point argued in this case relates to the question of limitation. The plaintiff claimed title; to the property alleging that it was being held by the defendants as his tenants. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and also the tenancy alleged by him and they set up a title in themselves and also said that the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation and adverse possession. Both the lower' Courts found that the title of the plaintiff was established, that the specific tenancy alleged was not proved, and that the defendants did not succeed in proving adverse possession. They came to the conclusion that the defendants were, in possession of the property permissively and so gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The conclusion of the appellate Court on this point may be thus stated in its own words. After dealing with the question of limitation and adverse possession the learned Judge observes:It is for the tenants to show that they have-been enjo...
V. Appa Rao Vs. Sreeramreddi Sanyasayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad583; 157Ind.Cas.988; (1935)69MLJ25
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. These three appeals can be disposed of together since the points for consideration are common to them all. The three suits under appeal, namely, O.S. Nos. 32, 33 and 34 of 1928 were suits to declare the plaintiffs' right to and recover possession of the plaint-scheduled lands and arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. The learned Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam dealt with these three suits in one common order directing the return of the plaints for presentation to the proper Court, namely, the Revenue Court. He found that the lands in question were ryoti lands and that, therefore, the suits did not lie in the civil courts.2. The plaintiffs' case was that the lands in question were 'private lands' within the meaning of Section 3(10) of the Madras Estates Land Act which defines 'private land' as follows:Private land means the domain or homefarm land of a landholder by whatever designation known such as kambattam, khas, sir or pannai.3. Section 185 l...
Puthipadath alias Vedakke Vs. Moothirangot alias Parattipalli Menakkal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ75
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The present suit was brought upon a mortgage and a decree was passed against the first defendant described as the Karnavastri and also against her daughter the second defendant. These two persons, it is alleged, are the only members of the tarwad. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application made after the decree on behalf of the second defendant. It is said that, at the time of the passing of the decree and long previous to it, she was a lunatic and that the decree as against her should therefore be disregarded; on this ground the lower Court was requested to revive the suit and proceed with it after appointing a suitable guardian for her.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has misunderstood the nature of the application. The Court that passed the decree happened also to be the Court that was executing it. The learned Judge thought that the application was made to the executing Court, whereas in truth it was made to the Court that passed the decree. The...
Periyakkal Vs. the Agent, South Indian Railway Co., Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad721; 159Ind.Cas.873; (1935)69MLJ93
Curgenven, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the widow of one Nanjappa Goundan against an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation disallowing her claim to compensation against the South Indian Railway Co., in respect of the death of her husband.2. Nanjappa Goundan was a cooly, working under a contractor, employed by the Railway Co., in the construction of a bridge on the Nilgiri Railway, For the purposes of this work, a trolly was loaded with stores and was in the charge of an employee of the South Indian Railway Co., named Venkatarama Aiyar. The evidence of this man shows that at the place of loading three coolies got on to the trolly as well as himself. This, he says, was one in excess of the permitted number; nevertheless, when the trolly had proceeded a certain distance, another man got on, making four coolies as well as the driver. What then happend has not been clearly elucidated, but the driver was unable to apply the brake, perhaps because it got jammed by the stone...
Nookala Peda Satyam and anr., Minor by Guardian Venkamma and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad435; 157Ind.Cas.1060; (1935)68MLJ693
King, J.1. O.S. No. 63 of 1930 on the file of the Sub-Judge of Ellore was a suit upon a mortgage. The mortgagors were defendants 1 to 5 of whom defendants 2 to 5 are brothers, and defendant 1 their mother. Two other defendants were impleaded, defendants 6 and 7 the minor sons of defendant 2, and their mother was proposed as their guardian. Of these defendants, defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement but did not further contest the plaintiff's claim; defendants 4 and 5 and the mother of defendants 6 and 7 remained ex parte. A decree was accordingly passed against all the defendants and in due course two applications were filed under Order 9, Rule 13 to set this decree aside. One was filed by defendant 4 and the other by defendants 6 and 7, appearing this time by their maternal grandmother. Both applications were heard together by the learned Sub-Judge and dismissed, and against this order of dismissal the two appeals now under consideration have been filed.2. Of these two appeals C....
Bandi Papanna Vs. Yenuga Narasa Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad646; (1935)68MLJ699
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Bellary. The appellant applied under Section 41 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for discharge. The learned District Judge in his order sets out certain facts with regard to the appellant's conduct, before his insolvency and expresses his opinion that the appellant is a most dishonest person. His opinion is found on the report made by the Official Receiver. He then refuses the discharge and annuls the adjudication. All the facts set out in the learned District Judge's order relating to the conduct of the appellant may be perfectly true but what has been overlooked by the learned' District Judge is that on an application under Section 41 of the Act the Court can do one of the three things vis., grant or refuse an absolute order of discharge;or suspend the operation of the order for a specified time; or grant an order of discharge subject to any conditions with respect to any earning...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »