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.
Subramania Pillai Vs. S.V. Bairavaperumal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.713
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 1st defendant therein. In the course of the suit both Sivasankaran 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 Order 8. No. 439 of 1922 asking for relief with regard to certain other properties. Both these suits were offered to the arbitration of three men. The arbitrators did not have to take evid...
Swaminatha Pillai Vs. S.L. Lakshmana Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad748; 157Ind.Cas.979
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 3,862-3-2 being the balance due on a promissory note for Rs. 3,000 executed by the 3rd defendant, mother and guardian of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and by one Ayyaru Pillai. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded on the ground that the promissory note was executed by the 3rd defendant as their guardian for purposes binding on their estate. 4th defendant was impleaded as he had given two letters of guarantee dated September 25, 1922, and September 23, 1925, guaranteeing the payment of the amount to the plaintiff. Since Ayyaru Pillai died after the execution of the promissory note he could not be made a party to the suit and his heirs also have not been impleaded. As regards the consideration for the promissory note, it is admitted that it was executed for Rs. 1,000 paid in cash, and Rs. l,700 due to the plaintiff on prior dealings carried on by the father of defendants Nos. 1 an...
Yeruva Chinnapa Reddi Vs. Rai Bahadur P.V. Srinivasa Rao Garu, Officia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad835; 157Ind.Cas.917
1. One Kolakula Themmareddi 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 parties fo...
Ulagalam Perumal Sethurayar Avergal and ors. Vs. Rani Subbalakshmi Nac ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad721; 168Ind.Cas.753
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 movables mentioned in Schedule I with mesne profits (schedule D) to be ascertained. Schedule A above mentioned consists of the impartible zamindari of Urkad One Section Kottilinga Sethurayar was the zamindar of Urkad on June 2, 1902, when the first impartible Estates Act was passed. On May 29, 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. Kottilinga Sethurayar by his deceased first wife, and had married a second wife who was enciente. 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 borne by his second wife Thanga Pandichi provided the child is born alive and a male, with a...
A. Batchayi Rowther Vs. P.A. Ramaswami Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad8; 160Ind.Cas.428
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant sued to restrain the respondents from passing off or attempting to pass off defendants' goods as the goods of the plaintiff's manufacture, by use of packages of similar design, mark, figure, get up and name as those used by the plaintiff for his goods. The mark used by the plaintiff consists of a figure of Sri Krishna in a crawling posture. Below it are the words 'Krishnan mark cheroot Subedar' and next below 'Vyarandha Dhantham patti churuttu' and lastly the plaintiff's name and address. The defendant's mark consists of the mark of Sri Krishna slightly bigger and in a slightly different posture, but substantially a crawling posture. Below it we get the words 'Balakrishnan mark cheroots 25' and underneath we have the defendant's name and address. It would appear that for some years between 1915 and 1924, the plaintiff's brother, one Abdul Ganni Rowther, was carrying on business in cheroots and he used on his goods a. mark very similar to the ...
Modono Mahono Deo Vs. Kunja Behari Ananga Bhima Deo and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad786; 158Ind.Cas.891
King, J.1. These are appeals which arise from proceedings in execution of three connected appellate decrees passed in 1917 and are concerned with the fifth attempt at execution. The decrees were obtained by the proprietor of the Chinna Kimedi Estate against one Sri Kundana Devi Patto Mahadevi. The following is a brief history of the execution proceedings.(i) The first applications were made in April 1919. While they were pending the judgment-debtor died. The present appellant, claiming to be the executor under her will, applied to be brought on record as her legal representative. The decree-holder who had already impleaded the judgment-debtor's daughter as her legal representative opposed this application and it was dismissed in September 1919. The properties attached were brought to sale, but there were no bidders and the execution applications were dismissed; (ii) and (iii) two more abortive applications were filed in 1920 against the daughter as legal representative; (iv) the next a...
Karuppatti Alias Thayammal Vs. Singaravelu Pillai (Deceased) and Manik ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ317
King, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a widow's right to live in two rooms in the family house can be made the subject of attachment and sale in execution of a decree against her. The decision reported in Salakshi v. Lakshmayee : (1908)18MLJ571 was relied upon in the courts below in favour of the proposition that no such attachment and sale could be made. This contention was upheld by the District Munsif but has been rejected by the learned District Judge on the grounds that the facts here were quite different from the facts dealt with in Salakshi v. Lakshmayee : (1908)18MLJ571 .2. There is no doubt a considerable distinction which can be drawn between the facts here and the facts in Salakshi v. Lakshmayee : (1908)18MLJ571 . In Salakshi v. Lakshmayee : (1908)18MLJ571 the family were still living in the family house and part of the argument of the decision was that if the attachment and sale of the widow's right of residence were permitted, the result would be to introduce a...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. the Trichinopoly Co-operative Credit Bank Ltd. Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad867; (1935)69MLJ447
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question we have to decide is, whether the suit mortgage is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. In 1912 a suit for maintenance was instituted against the first defendant by a widow of his family. In 1914 a decree was passed in that suit; in 1921 the suit mortgage was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff; in pursuance of an execution petition filed by the widow on the 28th August, 1925, the property in question was brought to sale and on the 9th December, it was purchased in Court auction by the fourth defendant, to whom in due course a sale certificate was issued in February, 1926. The present suit to enforce the mortgage was filed on the 22nd December, 1925.2. The lower Courts have repelled the charges of fraud and collusion both in regard to the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and the sale to the fourth defendant in the Court-auction. The first question that then arises is, was there in the suit, within the meaning of Section ...
Sankaranaraina Vazhunnavar Vs. Payatakan Valia Veettil Kunhi Raman Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad794; 158Ind.Cas.607
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover rent in respect of certain lands for the Malayalam year 1100 and 1101, claiming that he had become entitled to the amount as assignee of the same from the landlord. Five defendants were impleaded as parties to the suit but we are at present concerned only with the liability of defendant 1 who is the appellant here. The trial Court dismissed the suit as against him but the lower appellate Court has given a decree against him. Hence this appeal. I see no reason to differ from the conclusion of the lower appellate Court as to the liability of defendant 1 for rent in respect of the two years in question or even as to the rate of rent. Mr. Govinda Menon made some point with reference to the observation in para. 18 of the lower appellate Court's judgment that la pothipads of land are in the possession of defendant 5. But the records show that the claim for rent now made does not include these 11/2 pothipads because, as the learned Judge himse...
B.R. Nagendra Iyer and ors. Vs. R.V. Subburamachari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1055
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The point of law raised here is that the plaintiff's suit against defendant 1 was not barred by limitation. Defendant 1 was one of two joint and several promisors under a bond. The other promisor became insolvent and in the insolvency the plaintiffs put in a claim before the Official Receiver for the amount due on the bond. Two points appear to have been raised in the lower Court : (1) that the plaintiffs actually made a demand for the amount due under the bond, which was a chit instalment bond, upon both the joint promisors; and (2) that time commenced to run from the date of that demand. The former is a question of fact which the learned trial Judge did not go into because he was of the opinion that yin law the effect of what the plaintiffs had done in proving in the insolvency against the estate of the other joint promisor in itself amounts to a demand upon defendant 1 and that time began to run from that date and the suit was barred by limitation. The question ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »