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.
S.A. Subramania Ayyar and ors. Vs. M. Natesa Sastrigal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad113; 160Ind.Cas.686
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for contribution. Six items of property belonging to the family of defendants 1 and 2 had been hypothecated by them to one Valambal to secure a debt of Rs. 1500 in 1912. (See Ex. A). In 1913, on one and the same date, namely, 4th June 1913, the mortgagors sold items 1, 2 and 4, and other properties not comprised in the mortgage of 1912 to the plaintiff (See Ex. B), and item 6 and other properties not included in the mortgage to Valambal, to the defendant 3 (See Ex. C). These sale deeds were executed to pay off the debt due to Valambal. In Ex. B the plaintiff was directed to pay the hypothecatee Rs. 625. In Ex. C defendant 3 was directed to pay her a sum of Rs. 1000. Defendants 4 to 7 are alienees from the defendant 3. Item 3 of the suit properties was claimed by-defendant 9. Item 5 had been mortgaged by defendants 1 and 2 to the father of defendants 10 and 11. There wa...
S.T.M. Bashiam Naidu Vs. Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad625; 158Ind.Cas.407
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated 19th December 1932, in O.S No. 776 of 1931, a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the defendant, the Corporation of Madras, has no right to increase the ground rent in respect of the plaint property and for refund of the excess amount of ground rent levied from him by the defendant. The ground rent payable in respect of the plaint property from the beginning of the tenancy was only Rs. 12 a ground. In 1931 the rent was raised by the Standing Committee of the Corporation by 12 1/2 per cent. The plaintiff objected to this enhancement of ground rent, which he thought at the time was a tax, and intimated to the Commissioner of the Corporation through his lawyer that he intended to prefer an appeal to the Court of Small Causes against the decision of the Standing Committee, but at the same time sent the money demanded under protest. The suit was actually filed as threatened in the Court of S...
Muthukaruppa Pillai Alias Muthukaruppa Maniam (Deceased), Rajagopal Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad785; 157Ind.Cas.896; (1935)69MLJ297
Varadachariar, J.1. The only question argued in this Second Appeal arises under Section 125 of the Estates Land Act. The suit property which is situate in the Kannivadi estate was jointly owned by two brothers Krishnasami Reddi and Ramasami Reddi. They seem to have become divided sometime before 1893 and 1900 and in that partition the suit property is found to have fallen to the share of Ramasami Reddi; but as far as the estate was concerned, pattahs continued to be issued to and received by Krishnasami Reddi as before. In 1901 Ramasami Reddi mortgaged the suit property to the plaintiff's husband. A suit was brought on the mortgage in July 1915 and ultimately the plaintiff's husband became the court auction-purchaser. In August 1915, the suit property was brought to sale by the Kannivadi estate for arrears of rent and brought in by the estate itself and later on it was conveyed to the first defendant in this suit in 1917. When the plaintiff's husband attempted to take possession of the...
Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ497
ORDER1. These are petitions by some of the respondents in A.S. No. 418 of 1932 for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the order therein and for issue of a certificate that the case is a fit one for such appeal.2. A.S. No. 418 of 1932 was an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta dated 7th November, 1932, dismissing O.S. No. 109 of 1930 on his file on the preliminary ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action. In appeal this Court held that there was no such misjoinder and remanded the suit to the original Court for disposal on the merits. It is this order which is sought to be taken in appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is clear that this order is not a 'decree or final order'. The Advocate-General who appeared for the petitioners intimated that he did not propose to argue that the order was a 'decree or final order', though he desired it to be noted that he did not abandon the point or make any concession regardin...
Annamalai Chettiar Vs. S. Rm. Ar. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad311
ORDER1. These are petitions by some of the respondents in reported in 1934 Mad 367 for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the order therein and for issue of a certificate that the case is a fit one for such appeal. A.S. No. 418 of 1932 was an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta dated 7th November 1932 dismissing O.S. No. 109 of 1930 on his file on the preliminary ground of 'multifariousness' or misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action. In appeal this Court held that there was no such misjoinder and remanded the suit to the original Court for disposal on the merits. It is this order which is sought to be taken in appeal to His Majesty in Council. It is clear that this order is not a 'decree or final order.' The Advocate-General who appeared for the petitioners intimated that he did not propose to argue that the order was a 'decree or final order,' though he desired it to be noted that he did not abandon the point or make any concession regard...
Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Ratna Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad589
ORDERCornish, J.1. I think this revision petition must be allowed. The promissory not in question was executed by the mother and guardian on behalf of herself and her minor sons defendants 2 to 4. The note says so. The money was borrowed for the purpose of paying Government dues in respect of the license to carry on a toddy shop. This particular business had been carried on by the minor's father as licensee up to the time of his death. But when he died the license was obtained in the name of one Appadurai, a relation of the minors, but in reality for the benefit of the minors. It has been argued that this is a case of a guardian carrying on a family business for the benefit of the minors after the death of the head of the family. I do not think it was 8 family business. It was a business which was personal to the licensee and the right to carry it on had to be renewed each year and certainly expired when the licensee died. The question then is, had the mother and guardian of the minors...
(Parepalli) Venkata Krishnayya Vs. (Chakka) Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad947
Varadachariar, J.1. I cannot agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that issue 1 ought not to have been raised and does not call for decision. The written statement is no doubt not very clear, but when it is remembered that K. Bapayya was defendant 1 s nephew and para. 3 of the written statement refers to the indebtedness of the defendants', family as having necessitated the first benami transfer, and to the plaintiff being defendant 1's brother-in-law, there can be no doubt that the plea intended to be raised was that these were nominal transfers for the benefit of the defendants. The later allegations in the written statement as to possession having continued with the defendants are directed to the same end. That neither party was under any misapprehension as to the effect or meaning of the allegations in the written statement is shown by the fact that issue 1 is clear enough. We may well presume that the issue was framed in the manner contemplated by law, after the Court has ascer...
Vangipuram Venkatacharyulu Vs. Sri Rajah Vasireddi Harihara Prasad Bah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad964; 158Ind.Cas.883
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant 1. The plaintiff is the trustee of a temple and as such trustee he brought the suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1 on 21st July 1924 is not valid and that defendant 1 has no right to enjoy the alienated land. There can be no doubt that the land in question was granted to defendant 2's ancestor for the performance of Adhyapakam service in the suit temple. It is unnecessary for my present purpose to decide whether it is in the strict sense a service grant or a grant burdened with the performance of the service and what degree of alienable interest the inamdar has in the land; it was certainly not the personal or absolute property of the inamdar. Under the terms of the grant and the provisions in the Inam Register there can be no doubt that in the event of non-performance of service, the inam can be resumed. Some time after defendant 2 became a major, the zamindar issued a notice to h...
Lakhmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Ratna Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.1029
Cornish, J.1. I think this Civil Revision Petition must be allowed. 'The promissory note in question was executed by the mother and guardian on behalf of herself and her minor sons defendants Nos. 2 to 4, The note says so. The money was borrowed for the purpose of paying Government dues in respect of the license to carry on a toddy shop. This particular business had been carried on by the minor's father as licensee up to the time of his death. But when he died the license was obtained in the name of one Appadurai, a relation of the minors, but in reality for the benefit of the minors. It has been argued that this is a case of a guardian carrying on a family business for the benefit of the minors after the death of the head of the family. I do not think it was a family business. It was a business which was personal to the licensee and the right to carry it on had to be renewed each year and certainly expired when the licensee died. The question then is, had the mother and guardian of th...
Parepalli Venkata Krishnayya Vs. Chakka Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.854
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the second defendant, the first defendant (his father) having died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court. The plaintiff claimed the suit house and site as a pur-(Sic) 8, 1920, from one Ramanayya. The plaint alleged that the plaintiffs tenants were won over by the defendants and the cause of action was stated to have arisen on March 15, 1924, when the defendants unjustly entered upon the suit property and denied the plaintiffs right thereto. It ought to be mentioned that the plaintiff was the brother of the first defendant's wife who died some months after the date of Ex. A. A plaintiff could not produce the original of the sale-deed in his favour or of the sale-deed in favour of his vendor, who in turn had a sale-deed from the defendants (vide Ex. IV) dated May 12, 1908). Both the original documents have been produced by the defendant.2. The first issue in the case raised the question whether the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »