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.
Thoppai M. Muthiah Bhagavathar and ors. Vs. T.V. Venkatarama Ayyar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad106; 163Ind.Cas.977; (1935)69MLJ303
Ramesam, J.1. This Second Appeal originally came on before our brother Jackson, J. After hearing the appeal, he called for a finding. After the finding was returned, he directed the case to be posted before a Bench. Accordingly it comes before us for disposal.2. The main facts are not now in dispute. On the 27th January, 1910 the suit properties of which items 1 to 3 belonged to defendants 1 to 5 and item 4 belonged to one Sundararaja Bhagavathar were mortgaged for Rs. 2,500. Of this sum, Sundararaja took Rs. 816-7-0 and the defendants drew the rest, viz., Rs, 1,683-9-0. On the 19th May, 1910 the defendants and Sundararaja each paid Rs. 500 towards the mortgage. On the 7th August, 1910 there was another mortgage of the same properties by the same mortgagors in favour of the same mortgagee for Rs. 600. This amount was taken by the mortgagors in equal halves. The first defendant paid Rs. 588 on the 14th September, 1912 and Rs. 100 on the 21st September, 1912 towards the mortgages. The mo...
Gangarapu Chinna Sambayya Vs. Polepalli Rudrappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad568; 158Ind.Cas.99; (1935)68MLJ662
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. There is no appearance here for the respondents. In our view, the learned Subordinate Judge has not dealt with this case in a satisfactory manner. He has found himself bound by the observations in Atchayya v. Kosaraju Narahari : AIR1929Mad81 . It is quite true that he was bound of course to follow that decision. However, as has been stated in more recent cases, each application must be governed by the facts and circumstances of that particular case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in such cases. The allegations made by the appellant, the 1st respondent in the lower Court and the maternal grand-father of the minor, were that the petition was not bona fide, that the first respondent here and the petitioner in the lower Court had ill-treated his wife during her life time and indeed a very serious allegation is made that he poisoned her and the poisoning caused her death and that he was not the right and proper person to be given the custody ...
(Veda) Krishnaswami Mudaliar Vs. (Veda) Malai Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad649
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to recover the amount which,, according to him, though the defendant shad agreed to pay at a partition between him and the defendant, the plaintiff had ultimately to pay. The defendant denied the partition alleged by the plaintiff and contended that the claim was barrod by res judicata by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 325 of 1926. Both the lower Courts accepted the contention of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In this second appeal the question for consideration is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 825 of 1926. To appreciate the arguments it is necessary to state the facts relating to O.S. No. 325 of 1926. Both the decision thereon. The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. The plaintiff was defendant 1, and the defendant was defendant 2 in that suit. There the mortgagee sought to recover th...
Veda Krishnaswami Mudaliar Vs. Veda Malai Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1935
Reported in: 157Ind.Cas.1047
Madhavan Nair, J.1. Plaintiff is the appellant. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff to recover the amount which according to him, though the defendant had agreed to pay at a partition between him and the defendant, the plaintiff had ultimately to pay. The defendant denied the partition alleged by the plaintiff and contended that the claim was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 325 of 1926. Both the lower Courts accepted the contention of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. In this second appeal the question for consideration is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 325 of 1926.3. To appreciate the arguments it is necessary to state the facts relating to O.S. No. 325 of 1926 and the decision thereon. The plaintiff and tin defendant are brothers. The plaintiff was the 1st defendant and the defendant was the 2nd defendant in that suit. There the mortgagee sought to recover...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›