Chennai Court March 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.
V.S. Muhammad HussaIn Ambalam Vs. Ramanatha Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.1015
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura, dated January 18, 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 purpose 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 decree-holder t...
Jankibai Ammal Vs. Sri Thiruchitrambala Vinayakar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.63
Cornish, J.1. the plaintiff in the suit from which this appeal arises is an idol represented by its manager or kariyusthar.2. The defendant, the widow of the late zemindar of Melmandai, was sued as trustee of a fund established for meeting the expenses of 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 Pillayarvari, 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...
Rajammal Vs. S.N. Thyagaraja Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad655; (1935)69MLJ202
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit has been brought to get the rate of maintenance awarded under a decree, reduced on the ground that circumstances have since changed. The questions raised in the Civil Revision Petition pertain to court-fee and jurisdiction. While Section 7(ii) of the Court-Fees Act refers to suits for maintenance, there is no provision in the Act dealing with suits for enhancement or reduction of maintenance. It has been argued that even such suits should be regarded as 'suits for maintenance' within the meaning of the Act. The soundness of this argument in regard to suits for enhancement of maintenance need not now be examined; but the difference is fundamental between a suit for maintenance and a suit for a. reduction thereof; in one case it is the person that is entitled to the allowance that brings it; in the other, the person liable to pay it. To describe therefore a suit such as this as a 'suit for maintenance', would be to pervert and misapply the words of the st...
Kaliyathan Krishnan Vs. Akkanisseri Manikkoth Kollarath Gopalakurup an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad813; (1935)69MLJ331
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The facts are stated in the lower Courts' judgment and need not be restated.2. O.S. No. 249 of 1928 was instituted by the plaintiff who was the assignee of a mortgage for recovery of possession of the property from the second defendant. The first defendant is the jenmi of the property. The second defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he has obtained a lease from the jenmi subsequent to the mortgage. O.S. No. 528 of 1928 was instituted by the second defendant in O.S. No. 249 of 1928, as the Plaintiff to redeem the property on the ground that as a lessee from the mortgagor he is entitled to redeem it. The question is whether he has got the right to redeem and can that right be set up in defence to the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property.3. Mr. Govinda Menon on behalf of the appellant second Defendant in O.S. No. 249 and Plaintiff in O.S. No. 528 of 1928 relied on the decision in Paya Matathil Appu v. Kovamel Amina : (1895)5MLJ279 ...
Chinnammal Achi Vs. Chena Muna Saithakkathi Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad882
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Defendant 5 is the appellant. In this case the question for decision is as to who has bettor title to an undivided one-fifth share in the Ottakovil village, the suit property, whether the plaintiff or the appellant. According to the finding of the lower Courts this one-fifth share belonged to Arunachalam Chettiar. This finding has to be accepted in second appeal, Arunachalam Chetfciar became an insolvent on 9th September 1925. As the result of his insolvency the property became vested in the Official Receiver. It was sold by him on 17th January 1927 and was purchased by the plaintiff. In 1924, that is, before the insolvency the entire village of which the suit property formed a share had been attached in execution of a decree. After attachment the property was sold under Ex. 4 on 27th May 1927 and purchased by defendant 5. The sale certificate, Ex. 5, is dated 9th November 1928. This attachment and sale was in connexion with proceedings taken under the Income tax Ac...
Chinnammal Achi Vs. Chena Muna Saithkkathi Rowther and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.776; [1935]3ITR364(Mad)
:- The 5th defendant is the applicant. In this case the question for decision is as to who has better title on an undivided one-fifth share in the Ottakovil village, the suit property - whether the plaintiff or the appellant. According to the finding of the lower Courts this one-fifth share belonged to Arunachalam Chettiar. This finding has to be accepted in second appeal. Arunachalam Chettiar became an insolvent on September 9, 1925. As the result of this insolvency the property became vested in the Official Receiver. It was sold by him on January 17, 1927, and was purchased by the plaintiff. In 1924, that is, before the insolvency the entire village of which the suit property formed a share had been attached in execution of a decree. After attachment the property was sold under Ex. IV on May 27, 1927, and purchased by the 5th defendant. The sale certificate Ex. V, is dated November 9, 1928. This attachment and sale was in connection with proceeding then under the Income Tax Act. For...
Rajammal Vs. S.N. Thyagaraja Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-22-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.1033
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This suit has been brought to get the rate of maintenance awarded under a decree, reduced on the ground that circumstances have since changed. The questions raised in the revision petition pertain to court-fee and jurisdiction. While Section 7 (ii), Court Fees Act, refers to suits for maintenance, there is no provision in the Act dealing with suits fur enhancement or reduction of maintenance. It has been argued that even such suits should be regarded as 'suits for maintenance' within the meaning of the Act. The soundness of this argument in regard to suits for enhancement of maintenance need not now be examined; but the difference is fundamental between a suit for maintenance and a suit for a reduction thereof; in one case it is the person that is entitled to the allowance that brings it in the other, the person liable to pay it. To describe, therefore, a suit such as this as a 'suit for maintenance,' would be to pervert and misapply the words of the Statute, and...
Yeruva Chinnapareddi Vs. Rai Bahadur P.V. Srinivasa Rao Garu, Official ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ196
King, J.1. One Kolakula Thomasreddi was adjudicated an insolvent in 1924. In November, 1927 his adjudication was annulled, and a few days later his property was vested in the Official Receiver under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The Appellant here, who was one of the Insolvent's creditors, then filed a suit against him (O.S. No. 19 of 1928) impleading also the Official Receiver and obtained a decree for Rs. 11,466 with interest and costs. In E.P. No. 25 of 1928 Appellant applied in execution for certain moneys of the insolvent in the hands of the Official Receiver making both the insolvent and the Official Receiver parties to his application. The Official Receiver resisted the application on the ground that he held the money for the benefit of all the insolvent's creditors. His objection was overruled and the application allowed in August, 1928. In August, 1929 the Appellant filed another application (E.P. No. 42 of 1929) in execution of the same decree against the same ...
Subramania Pillai Alias Pillaimuthu Pillai Vs. S.V. Biravaperumal Pill ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1068; (1935)69MLJ523
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted for a declaration that the decrees in O.S. Nos. 48 and 349 of 1922 are not binding upon him and to have them avoided.2. O.S. No. 48 of 1922 was filed by one Sivasankaram Pillai and his wife (the alleged adoptive father and mother of the plaintiff herein) against his brother's son Piraviperumal Pillai and another for a declaration that certain properties were their own, even though the patta was allowed to stand in the name of the first defendant therein. In the course of the suit both Sivasankaram Pillai and his wife died and the present plaintiff who claimed to be the adopted son came on record represented by his natural father as his next friend. In the same capacity as a minor he filed O.S. No. 439 of 1922 asking for relief with regard to certain other properties. Both these suits were referred to the arbitration of three men. The arbitrators did not have to take eviden...
Ulagalum Perumal Sethurayar and ors. Vs. Rani Subbalakshmi Nachiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1935
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ1
Ramesam, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly granting the plaintiff possession of the properties mentioned in the plaint Schedules A to C and E and the moveables mentioned in Schedule 1 with mesne profits (Schedule D) to be ascertained. Schedule A abovementioned consists of the impartible Zamindari of Urkad. One Section Kotilingam Sethurayar was the Zamindar of Urkad on 2nd June, 1902, when the first Impartible Estates Act was passed. On the 29th May, 1902, i.e., four days before the coming into force of the Impartible Estates Act of 1902, he executed a deed of settlement (Ex. D). At that time he had one son K. Kotilinga Sethurayar by his deceased first wife, and had married a second wife who was enceinte. Under the deed of settlement (1) he reserved for himself the estate for life in the Zamindari (2) he settled the Zamindari absolutely on the child to be born by his second wife Thanga Pandichi provided the child is born alive and a male wi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »