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.
Tirumala Narayanaswami Vs. Adabala Narayanaswami (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad615; 158Ind.Cas.84; (1935)69MLJ139
Varadachariar, J.1. The only point for consideration in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. That objection arises with reference to the fact that the plaintiff obtained a decree for partition and possession in O.S. No. 24 of 1919 on the file of the Additional District Munsif's Court, Rajahmundry, and that when he went to take possession of his share in execution thereof he was obstructed by the present contesting defendants. When he filed an application in the execution department to remove the obstruction, he was referred to a regular suit. The plaintiff appealed against that order and after an elaborate discussion of the question the learned Subordinate Judge who heard that appeal was of opinion that the case did not fall under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and held that the plaintiff's remedy was by a regular suit and not by way of appeal. The plaintiff has accordingly brought the present suit.2. A number of issues wer...
Ramanathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. A.M.R. Muthayyan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad849; 159Ind.Cas.835; (1935)69MLJ215
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Subordinate Judge of Salem, holding that the Execution Petition presented by the appellants here was barred by limitation having been presented more than 12 years after the passing of the decree. The short facts of the case are that a decree was passed in 1919 by the Temporary Sub-Court, Salem. That Court was established in 1919 for a period of one year by a notification published in the Fort Saint George Gazette, dated 29th January, 1919. At the end of that period there was another notification sanctioning the same Sub-Court but no period of life of that Court was specified in it. It would appear that from 1919 onwards until 1929 this temporary Court was, by notification in various years, continued. The decree-holder having obtained the decree in the Temporary Sub-Court in 1919 subsequently applied for the transfer of the decree to the Mayavaram Sub-Court. The decree was accordingly transferred and some am...
Rao Bahadur Patri Venkata Srinivasa Rao Official Receiver Vs. the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.1007; (1935)69MLJ856
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a point which appears to be entirely free from authority. The appeal is by the Official Receiver of Guntur and the respondent is the Secretary of State for India in Council. One K. Thomasu Reddy was adjudged an insolvent in 1924. Subsequently his adjudication was annulled because he failed to apply for his discharge within the time specified by the Court. Upon the annulment of the adjudication under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act the property of the debtor was by order vested in the Official Receiver who sold some of the properties of the insolvent and is in possession of the sale proceeds and other properties of the debtor. Subsequent to the date of the annulment of the adjudication, the debtor preferred four appeals in the District Court, Guntur, in forma pauperis. These appeals were dismissed and the court-fee payable on the respective appeals was ordered to be paid to Government. Government then put in an appl...
Patri Venkata Srinivasa Rao Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad931
Beasley, C.J.1. This appeal raises a point which appears to be entirely free from authority. The appeal is by the Official Receiver of Guntur and the respondent is the Secretary of State. One K. Thomasu Reddy was adjudged an insolvent in 1924. Subsequently his adjudication was annulled because he failed to apply for his discharge within the time specified by the Court. Upon the annulment of the adjudication under Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act, the property of the debtor was by order vested in the Official Receiver who sold some of the properties of the insolvent and is in possession of the sale proceeds and other properties of the debtor. Subsequent to the date of the annulment of the adjudication, the debtor preferred four appeals in the District Court, Guntur, in forma pauperis. These appeals were dismissed and the court-fee payable on the respective appeals was ordered to be paid to Government. Government then put in an application to the Official Receiver for payment of the...
Andhra Rice Mill and ors. Vs. Mothay Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad982; 158Ind.Cas.406
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question in this case is whether the suit dealings are mutual, open and current. The accounts handed to me show that there were sales of oil by the plaintiff, creating obligations on the defendants' part. Payments were made from time to time by the defendants in discharge of the amounts due by them : in, some cases empty barrels were returned. So far, there is nothing to suggest that the dealings were mutual; but Mr. Ramanarsu, the plaintiff's counsel, points to two items and the defendants admit that they represent sales made by them to the plaintiff. The question then is, from these items can an inference be drawn that there was a regular course of reciprocal dealings? I am afraid not. The dealings extended over several years and there was not a single item of sale by the defendants till after the accounts were practically closed; it is again significant that after the two items in question, there was not a single debit entry made against the defendant...
Rangammal Vs. Varadappa Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad670; (1935)69MLJ120
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Insolvency Court was moved to annul a sale made by the insolvent in his wife's favour. No Official Receiver having been appointed, the application was made by a creditor and the question is, whether he was competent to make it. Before the insolvency petition was filed, this particular creditor had filed' a suit against the insolvent and attached the property in question. The judgment debtor's wife intervened with a claim, which under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code was allowed. The contention now put forward on her behalf is, that the order made on the claim petition having become conclusive under Order 21, Rule 63 as between her and the creditor, he is precluded from reagitating the same matter in insolvency. This contention is clearly untenable. Under Article 11 of the Limitation Act the suit prescribed by Rule 63 should be brought within one year from the date of the summary order. The argument is, that such a suit not having been brought, the orde...
Mandapaka Sudarsana Rao Vs. Varada Kameswara Rao Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad795; 159Ind.Cas.661; (1935)69MLJ177
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The question arising in this appeal is whether, when a person has been validly appointed guardian-ad-litem of a minor defendant and subsequent to the date of the appointment of that person as guardian-ad-litem the natural guardian is appointed by another court in other proceedings as guardian of the person and property of the minor and the guardian-ad-litem is removed, ipso facto the two latter orders the guardian-ad-litem's appointment ceases to have any legality and thereafter he is disentitled to continue the proceedings in the suit as the guardian-ad-litem of the minor. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appointment of the guardian-ad-litem was not ipso facto the subsequent appointment terminated and that consequently the minor was properly represented in the suit. Upon this question there is no direct authority except a decision of the Calcutta High Court namely, Samarendranath Mitra v. Pyareecharan Laha I.L.R. (1934) Cal. 1023. Th...
Rengammal Vs. Varadappa Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.175
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The Insolvency Court was moved to annul a sale made by the insolvent in his wife's favour. No Official Receiver having been appointed, the application was made by a creditor and the question is, whether he was competent to make it. Before the insolvency petition was filed, this particular creditor had filed a suit against the insolvent and attached the property in question. The judgment-debtor's wife intervened with a claim, which under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, was allowed. The contention now put forward on her behalf is, that the order made on the claim petition having become conclusive under Order XXI, Rule 63, as between her and the creditor, ha is precluded from re-agitating the same matter in insolvency. This contention is clearly untenable. Under Article 11 of the Limitation Act, the suit prescribed by Rule 63, should be brought Within one year from the date of the summary order. The argument is, that such a suit not having been brought, th...
Rukmani Ammal and ors. Vs. T.R.S. Chari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad616; 157Ind.Cas.968; (1935)69MLJ210
Pandrang Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the City Civil Judge, Madras, dated the 8th February, 1932, in O.S. No. 192 of 1931, a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and for other reliefs by a Hindu husband against his wife. The plaintiff is an Aiyangar Brahmin and the defendant belongs to the same community. It would appear that in 1929 when the plaintiff was about 37 years old, he advertised in a newspaper for a bride which led to negotiations with the defendant's grandfather, the third defendant, and these culminated in a marriage between the plaintiff and the first defendant, who was then a girl of about 16 years, in July, 1929. The marriage was consummated at once, and after a few days' delay, the husband and wife lived together for about three months. It would appear that the wife was not quite happy in her husband's home, apparently owing to the presence of the husband's niece, one Janaki, in the house. Thereupon for some time, the wife lived with her own people...
Nandi Reddi Rama Govinda Reddi Vs. Karrepu Lakshmi Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad973; 158Ind.Cas.851; (1935)69MLJ461
Varadachariar, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) had taken from a widow a document which is described as a Munigutta on 9th June, 1922, for a term of 15 years for a stated consideration of Rs. 1,500. Munigutta is described in Mr. Brown's Telugu Dictionary as ' forestalled rent' or 'usufruct of land in satisfaction of debt.' The learned Subordinate Judge has proceeded on the footing that the sum of Rs. 1,500 was given not as a loan but only as a premium for the lease. The document related to properties which the grantor had inherited from her son. She died in August, 1923, and shortly thereafter the reversioners dispossessed the plaintiff, contending that the transaction was not binding upon the reversion. Hence the suit by the plaintiff claiming that either the reversioners should pay up the unsatisfied portion of the Rs. 1,500 with interest thereon by way of damages, or that the like compensation should be paid to him out of the private estate of the grantor. Both the Courts have found t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »