Chennai Court March 1935 Judgments
T.S. Yasobadra Nainar Vs. T.S. Samanthabadran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: 160Ind.Cas.602; (1936)70MLJ311
1. This is an appeal from the final decree in a partition suit passed by the learned District Judge of North Arcot. First defendant is the appellant. The appellant raises eight points. He has been throughout the brother in possession of the family estate. The plaintiff is his younger brother. [Their Lordships dealt with the several points and continued :]2. There is also a memorandum of cross-objections filed by the plaintiff and under that two points arise. It is said that the first defendant has collected outstandings, has thereby obtained sums of money and he should be made liable on equitable grounds for interest at equitable rates upon such sums as from the date of collection and two cases were relied upon. A.W. Inglis v. Sarju Prasad Misser I.L.R.(1923) 3 Pat. 311 Abdul J alii v. Mohammad Abdul Salam : AIR1932All505 and Yerukola v. Yerukola : (1922)42MLJ507 was sought to be distinguished. Had in fact interest been earned, no doubt the plaintiff would have been entitled to his hal...
Tag this Judgment!Somasundaram Chetti Vs. Nachal Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad707; 158Ind.Cas.573
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Bam-nad, dated 3rd April 1933, in appeal from the decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Devakottah, dated 12th September 1932 dismissing O.S. No. 155 of 1931, a suit by the plaintiff principal against her agent for accounts, on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The District Judge in appeal did not decide the question of limitation himself but remanded the suit for fresh disposal according to law, the only ground alleged for the remand being that the learned Subordinate Judge had erred in deciding the case as a question of law and should have taken evidence in the case. The sole ground for remand is based on a misapprehension, or rather, on two misapprehensions, namely, that the Subordinate Judge had decided the question as a question, of pure law Mid that he had not taken evidence in the case. As a matter of fact the Subordinate Judge's judgment clearly shows that he was perfectly aware of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Henry Merieu Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad907; 159Ind.Cas.244
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Madura, dated 19th July 1932, on an application by the Official Receiver of Madura. The application purported to be made under Sections 4, 5 and 51, Provincial Insolvency Act, and Sections 47 and 151, Civil P.C., and the principal prayer therein was that the respondent who is the decree-holder purchaser in execution of the decree obtained by him in O.S. No. 820 of 1923 on the file of the High Court should be directed to pay to the petitioner, that is, the Official Receiver, the sale amount of Rs. 20,520 with interest thereon from the date of sale, namely 14th July 1930.2. The respondent is a merchant residing in France and he purchased the property of the judgment-debtor after obtaining permission from the Court to bid and also to set-off the purchase price against the amount due to him under the decree. There can be no doubt that it was because he was given permission to set-off along with the permission to b...
Tag this Judgment!Muluktla Achuta Ramayya Garu Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad817; 158Ind.Cas.460
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of East Godaveri declaring void as against the Official Receiver a decree obtained by the appellant here, the 1st respondent in the lower Court, against the 2nd respondent in the lower Court, an insolvent. A petition to adjudicate the 2nd respondent in the lower Court and his son was presented on February 3, 1931. The 2nd respondent owed moneys on pro-notes to one Mulkutla Achutaramana, afterwards the 22nd creditor in the list of creditors filed by the insolvent and the appellants here. He threatened the 2nd respondent with a suit and the 2nd respondent executed an agreement in favour of the appellant here on March 19, 1930, undertaking not to alienate his immovable property till his debt was discharged and undertaking to execute a mortgage bond in his favour for the amount due whenever demanded by him. On the strength of this agreement the appellant filed a suit against the 2nd respondent on February 4, 1931...
Tag this Judgment!V. Venkateswara Aiyar Vs. Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar, Etc., Devasthan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.873; (1935)69MLJ206
Varadachariar, J.1. This Revision Petition arises out of a suit against the Madura Devastanam, for damages for wrongful dismissal. The plaintiff was employed under the Devastanam in various capacities between November 1926 and November 1928, till on 2nd November, 1928 he was dismissed from service by the Trustee of the Devastanam. The Devastanam pleaded that the dismissal was for just and proper cause. The lower Court has however not dealt with this question but held that even if the dismissal was improper, the plaintiff had no cause of action, because, in its view, he held office only at the pleasure of the Trustee and could therefore be dismissed without any notice, even apart from justifying cause for dismissal. Objection is taken in the Revision Petition to this view of the lower Court.2. The affairs of the Devastanam are managed under a scheme framed in O.S. No. 4 of 1922 (District Court, Madura). There is a trustee who acts under the control of a Committee. One of the clauses in ...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Bai Ammal Vs. Sri Tiruchitrambala Vinayakar of the Temple by Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ291
Cornish, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal arises is an idol represented by its manager or Kariasthar.2. The defendant, the widow of the late Zamindar of Melmandai, was sued as trustee of a fund established for meeting the expenses of a public worship and other duties, including repairs, connected with the temple in which the idol is installed.3. Admittedly this is a public charitable or religious trust. The short question is whether the suit is one to which Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, is applicable. The District Munsif held that it was and dismissed the suit as it had not been instituted with the sanction of the Advocate-General. The Subordinate Judge held otherwise, and restored the suit. The defendant has appealed from this decision.4. The plaint alleges that a fund called the Pillaiyarvari representing a tax on the villagers in the Zamin, has been collected by the Zamindars for the above-mentioned purposes of the temple, under an arrangement that the Zamin...
Tag this Judgment!S. Rajagopala Pillai Vs. K. Namasivayam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.273; (1935)69MLJ325
King, J.1. The question at issue in these connected appeals is whether the appellant who came into the occupation of a kudiyiruppu in October, 1929 can enforce against his landlord the right of purchase granted by Section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. That section runs as follows:In any suit for eviction relating wholly or in part to a kudiyiruppu, which has been in the continuous occupation of a tenant or the members of his family for ten years on the date of the institution of the said suit, such tenant shall be entitled to offer to purchase the rights in the kudiyiruppu, of the landlord who seeks to evict him, at the market price on the said date.2. Now the appellant has prima facie no rights under this section. His personal occupation at the time of the institution of the suit had lasted for just seven weeks, and his predecessor- in-title from whom he purchased his tenant's right was not a member of his family. But he contends that the kudiyiruppu has been in the continuous occupa...
Tag this Judgment!K.M. Mohambaram Vs. Ram Narayan Brahmin
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad850; 158Ind.Cas.535; (1935)69MLJ691
King, J.1. This appeal relates to rival claims by appellant (defendant No. 1) and respondent (plaintiff) to the ownership of a motor-bus. The undisputed facts are as follows:Appellant was the original owner of the bus and had in his possession the registration certificate, which is practically equivalent to a title-deed, and a 'G' permit by virtue of which he was empowered to ply the bus for hire. In may 1932, appellant arranged with one Arumuga Mudaliar that the latter should run the bus as his agent, and left with him a letter signed by himself (Appellant) and addressed to the District Magistrate, requesting that the 'G' permit be transferred to Arumuga Mudali. Arumuga Mudali proceeded to alter this letter, without the knowledge of the appellant into one addressed to the District Superintendent of Police and requesting the transfer to him of the registration certificate. The registration certificate was accordingly transferred, and in December, 1932 the respondent having, of course, ...
Tag this Judgment!Thambireddi Seshureddi and ors. Vs. Vangallu Mallareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad852; 158Ind.Cas.878
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Nellore dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The agreement to sell is contained in Ex. J, and its counterpart Ex. I. Before the agreement the plaintiff held an auction of his lands and it turned out that the defendant was the highest bidder he having agreed to purchase the plaintiff's lands of 3 acres 44 cents, at the rate of Rs. 1,900 per acre. The defendant having deposited Rs. 100 that day agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 6,436 within one month and obtained a sale-deed. According to the plaint though the plaintiff asked the defendant to complete the transaction, the defendant was putting off and ultimately issued a registered notice Ex. K dated 21st April 1929 through an advocate in which he suggested : (1) that the lands were under attachment at the instance of the plaintiff's creditors and (2) that as the plaintiff has minor sons and as the property in question forms...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Muhammad Hussian Ambalam Vs. Ramanatha Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1002
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 18th January 1932 returning the plaint in O.S. No. 59 of 1931 on his file for presentation to the proper Court. His view was that the suit was one which was within the jurisdiction of a District Munsif, and that the plaintiff had no right to value the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 9,803 which was the amount due under the mortgage regarding which the plaintiff sought a declaration in the suit. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal and the only point for determination is whether the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction by the plaintiff is not correct. The facts of the case which are necessary for an understanding of the question at issue are that, when the property which had been mortgaged to the plaintiff by the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 59 of 1928 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court of Madura was brought to sale by the decree-bol...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »