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.
Ramasawmi Pillai Vs. the Trichinopoly Co-operative Credit Bank, Ltd. a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.778
1. The question we have to decide if, whether the suit mortgage is affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. In 1912 a suit for maintenance was instituted against the 1st defendant by a widow of his family. In 1914 a decree was passed in the suit; in 1921 the suit mortgage was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff; in pursuance of an execution petition filed by the widow on August 28, 1925, the property in question was brought to sale and on December 9, it was purchased in Court auction by the 4th defendant, to whom in due course a sale certificate was issued in February 1926. The present suit to enforce the mortgage was filed on December 22, 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 4th defendant in the Court auction. The first question that then arises is, was there in the suit, within the meaning of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, a right to imm...
Karuppatti Vs. Singaravelu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad848; 157Ind.Cas.853
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. Lakshmayi 31 M 500, 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 ground that the facts here were quite different from the facts dealt with in Salakshi v, Lakshmayi 31 M 500..2. There is no doubt a considerable distinction which can be drawn between the facts here and the facts in Salakshi v. Lakshmayi 31 M 500.. In Salakshi v. Lukshmayi 31 M 500, 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 stranger into the house, a conting...
P.M.V.P. Pappu Reddiar Vs. S.A. Pichu Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad961; 161Ind.Cas.963
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for damages has been dismissed by the Courts below. The claim for damages was made against several sets of defendants under the following circumstances: The plaintiff became the mortgagee of certain properties in February 1927 under a document Ex. B executed by defendant No. 2 in his favour. That mortgage compromised properties which belonged to defendants Nos. 7 and 8 and had been sold by them to defendant No. 2 on December 17, 1924, under Ex. A. At the time of this sale, these properties were under attachment in O.S. No. 62 of 1923 brought by defendant No. 1 against defendants Nos. 7 and 8. The sale deed Ex. A accordingly makes a specific reference to this pending attachment and contains a covenant that if the vendors do not make satisfactory arrangement for the payment of the decree and the raising of the attachment, they will be liable for any loss caused thereby. With a view to pay off this decree amount the vendors...
Sundara Ayyar and ors. Vs. Morari Varada Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad855; 158Ind.Cas.369; (1935)69MLJ300
Varadachariar, J.1. The only point for decision in this case is whether the suit as framed is maintainable, without compliance with the provisions of S.92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge has held that the suit is one of the class contemplated by Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, and as its provisions have not been complied with, he has dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal by the plaintiffs.2. It is not necessary to refer to the authorities at any length. Assuming for the present that Section 92 has no application to suits whose object is the assertion or vindication of personal or individual rights, of persons claiming to be trustees, the mere fact that the plaintiffs may in a sense be trustees will not necessarily preclude the application of Section 92, if the reliefs in the suit relate not to the vindication of their personal rights but to the advancement of the interests of the institution itself by securing more efficient management. It must be remembered th...
Keesari Santamma Vs. Kanumathareddi Venkatramireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad909; (1935)69MLJ401
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. She is the daughter of one Rami Reddi, a divided brother of defendants 1 and 2 and another Seethareddi deceased. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by her for partition and recovery of possession of half a share of various items of properties. In this second appeal we are concerned only with her right to certain portions of items 1 and 2.2. The plaintiff's case is that her father and his brothers became separated about thirty years ago, that the properties of her father and Seethareddi were kept joint and that she is now entitled to get half a share in the suit properties. It is not necessary for the purpose of this second appeal to state anything about the merits of the plaintiff's case or of the case of the defendant: for, the case of the plaintiff has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the suit is not maintainable except in so far as her claim was admitted by the defendant.3. ...
Venkatanarayana Ayyar Vs. Ramchandra Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad610; 158Ind.Cas.624
ORDERStone, J.1. Two revision petitions and one civil miscellaneous petition are before me. As to C.R.P. 1531, which is. a petition asking for a revision of the order made by the Collector in this matter, it is not pressed. C.R.P. No. 1515 of 1932 is a petition asking for a revision of the order passed by the Board of Revenue No. 5602 of 15th October 1931 which is in the following terms:The Board sees no reason to interfere on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is dismissed.2. That appeal was taken before the Board of Revenue from the decision of the Collector passed on 7th June 1931 which order was in turn passed on appeal against the decision of the Revenue; Divisional Officer dated 5th January 1931. The C.M.P. 5311 is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue for the purpose of bringing up-the order passed in appeal as above stated and for the said order to be quashed. The respondent raises a preliminary objection founded upon a decision of a Bench of this High ...
Thammana Veerayya Vs. Katiga Bibi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad684
King, J.1. The appellant here had dealings with one Subdarali Beg from the year 1892 and in 1918 brought a suit against Beg's legal representatives which was duly decreed against the assets of Beg in their hands by a decree dated January 1919. Several years before this, that is in June 1914, Subdarali Beg had transferred to his wife by Ex. A the whole of his immovable property subject to a mortgage of 1909. The recited consideration for this transfer was a mahur debt of Rs. 405 due to the wife. There was no provision made in the document for dealing with the debt which was then admittedly due by Subdarali Beg to the present appellant. In 1926 the present appellant filed an execution application for the attachment of certain property which was covered by Ex. A. This was not the whole of the property sold to the wife in 1914 as some portion of it had already been conveyed by her in 1920 in discharge of the mortgage which has already been referred to. That portion of the property was in i...
Tammana Veerayya Vs. Katiga Bibi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.497
King, J.1. The appellant here had dealings with one Subdarali Beg from the year 1892 and in 1918 brought a suit against Beg's legal representatives which was duly decreed against the assets of Beg in their hands by a decree dated January 1919. Several years before this, that is in June 1914 Subdarali Beg had transferred to his wife by Ex. A the whole of his immovable property subject to a mortgage of 1909. The recited consideration for this transfer was a mahur debt of Rs. 405 due to the wife. There was no provision made in the document for dealing with the debt which was then admittedly due by Subdarali Beg to the present appellant. In 1920 the present appellant filed an execution application for the attachment of certain property which was covered by Ex. A. This was not the whole of the property sold to the wife in 1914 as some portion of it had already been conveyed by her in 1920 in discharge of the mortgage which has already been referred to. That portion of the property was in it...
Vijiathammal Vs. M. Kadir Sultan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad599; (1935)69MLJ179
Varadachariar, J.1. This is undoubtedly a hard case but I regret I am unable to see my way to help the plaintiff. She seems to have left the matter of the investment wholly in the hands of P.W. 4 who says that he acted on the advice of P.Ws. 1, 2, and 6.2. The short question in the appeal is whether defendants 1 and 2, the principals are bound to repay a sum of Rs. 1,000 received as deposit by their agent, the third defendant from the plaintiff. Both the courts find that money was not in fact carried into the account of the firm. There is therefore no question of the defendants retaining any money of the plaintiffs in their hands or paying back any advantage received by them. The point is simply whether the third defendant acted within the limits of his authority so as to bind his principals by the transaction independently of whether he brought the money into the principals' account or not.3. Ex. I is the power of attorney defining the authority of the third defendant. One argument be...
Thukru Bai Vs. Attavar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad653; 158Ind.Cas.77; (1935)69MLJ81
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Appeal arises out of an application under Section 372 of the Indian succession Act, XXXIX of 1925, made by the widow of one Venkappa for the grant of a succession certificate to enable her to collect the amount of two deposits as regards which her husband died intestate.2. The widow is the appellant. She and her husband are members of the Billava community in South Kanara which follows the Aliyasanthanalaw of inheritance according to which a widow has no right to the property of her deceased husband. They were originally married in 1890 according to the rules of their community and had children, respondents 1 to 7. Later on, Venkappa and his family became Brahmos. On 19th June, 1903, a marriage under the Special Marriage Act III of 1872 was solemnised between the appellant and her deceased husband in the presence of the Registrar. Act III of 1872 was amended by Act XXX of 1923 and Sections 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 were newly added to the Act. Section 24 says that:...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »