Chennai Court April 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.L. Lakshmana Aiyar Vs. T.S.P.L.P. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad927; 158Ind.Cas.588; (1935)69MLJ479
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The plaintiff attacks the order of the lower Court directing him to pay in respect of his plaint a court-fee of Rs. 2,220, in addition to what has been already paid by him, namely, Rs. 712-7-0. It is unnecessary to consider whether the learned District Judge's view as regards the amount payable is correct, as in my opinion the question of court-fee, so far as the lower Court is concerned, was concluded by certain previous orders which, whether right or wrong, the learned Judge was not competent to revise. The plaint was filed with a court-fee of Rs. 712-7-0 and the officer entrusted with the duty of checking the stamp, raised the objection that in a creditor's suit for administration (that was the nature of the action) the court-fee was payable on the amount due to the plaintiff. But the latter contended that his suit was essentially one for accounts and that his own valuation determined the court-fee. The case was then pending in the sub-Court and on the matter ...
Maniyam Siddama Naicken Vs. Nanjappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad821; 158Ind.Cas.448; (1935)69MLJ527
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 1,933-8-0 for balance of principal and interest alleged to be due on a mortgage, dated 12th October, 1914, executed by the first defendant in favour of one Subba Naicken deceased, for Rs. 1,500, repayable in one year with interest at 15 per cent, per annum and in default with interest at 18 per cent, per annum. Subba Naicken and the second defendant were brothers. The two brothers became divided and each of them was allotted a moiety of the mortgage amount then due. On the death of Subba Naicken in 1922 there was a partition between his two sons, Ramaswami and Govindaswami, at which Subba Naicken's share of the mortgage debt was allotted to Govindaswami.2. On the 21st March, 1926 Govindaswami assigned his rights to the plaintiff who instituted the present suit for the recovery of the amount claimed in the plaint. The second defendant, the...
Navaneethakrishna Marudappa thevar Vs. the Collector and Agent to the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1017; 160Ind.Cas.647; (1935)69MLJ632
ORDER96. The Court of Wards have now sent their reply confirming the will. The plaintiff in (O.S. No. 2 of 1922) will therefore have a decree for all the savings of the estate in the hands of the Court of Wards that is whatever form they might be existing and the jewels, silver vessels, furniture and other moveables including cash in the hands of the Rani at the time of her death, with further interest on the savings including the cash with the Rani from the date of the death of the Rani after deducting the funeral expenses which it is agreed, amount to Rs. 3,000. This will not include the funds of the Devasthanams.97. The District Court may determine the actual figure to which the plaintiff is entitled, in execution.98. As to the interest, the actual interest earned by the Court of Wards and afterwards during the time the bonds and money were lying in deposit under the direction of the District Court will be allowed. Some amount is drawn by the respondent and on that amount, if it cam...
Uppalapati Suryanarayaneswara Jogi Jagannadharaju Garu and anr. Vs. Ta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad810; 157Ind.Cas.913
1. The plaintiff in this suit was a zamindar who owned the villages of Bellampudi and Pedapudi in the East Godaveri District. In those villages are certain 'puntas' or village tracts, and in 1923, the Taluk Board of Rajahmundry sold certain trees growing on those puntas and sold the usufruct of certain other trees so growing for a sum of Rs. 146-14-0. In 1926 the zamindar, claiming title in the trees in himself, brought this suit to recover that sum from the Taluk Board, and for a declaration and perpetual injunction. Both the Courts below have dismissed his suit. Though this was contested originally by the zamindar it in common ground in this appeal that the 'puntas' in question are 'public roads' within the meaning of Section 60, Local Boards Act, and that they therefore vested in the Taluk Board under the provisions of that section. But the trees growing upon a public road are nowhere specifically vested, in the Board, arid what we have to decide is whether the effect of the vesting...
Darbha Venkata Somayajulu Vs. Potula Sathiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad875; 159Ind.Cas.93
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Cocanada dated 29th November 1930 appointing a Receiver for harvesting and selling certain crop existing on the lands which were sold in execution of a mortgage-decree. The application was made by the decree-holder purchaser and it was opposed only by defendant 21 who claimed to be in possession of the properties under a lease granted to him by the mortgagors. The lease had been granted some time after the suit was filed but before the decree had been passed in the suit, and there was a previous application by the plaintiff mortgagee for the appointment of a Receiver. On that application the order passed by the Court was that defendant 21 should deposit into Court as annual rent Rs. 800 every year in respect of the lands in his possession, and the rent for the year 1929 was actually deposited into Court. The sale was held some time in October 1930 and the execution petition was adjourned to 18th N...
Satyala Sanyasi Vs. Bhogavalli Sanyasi Alias Bullodu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad895; (1935)69MLJ490
1. The lower Court has now submitted its findings. I may mention that I formulated three questions provisionally but the case depends on the answer to the third alone. As regards that question, the facts as found may be thus stated. The suit promissory note was executed on 27th August, 1930 and on the same date the plaintiff, the defendant and three others entered into a partnership. It was then agreed that the plaintiff on behalf of the partnership was to bid for the right to sell toddy and obtain a license in his name. At the auction held a month thereafter, he became the successful bidder. The license has since been produced and bears the date 23rd September, 1930. On these facts the lower Court has held that no transfer is involved in the transaction and that the suit promissory note is therefore enforceable.2. The question really to be decided is, whether the partnership formed in the circumstances mentioned above is illegal or not. That again depends upon whether any part of Rule...
Arapath Kallingal Mannadiar Krishna Moothan's son Achuta Moothan Vs. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad874
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat dated, 13th December 1933 in O.S. No. 50 of 1933 returning a plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff sued his father aged 86 years and his younger brother for a declaration that a certain will executed by the father in respect of the plaint mentioned properties was not valid and that the properties in question form the common property of the family set apart as burial place and matam. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100 by the plaintiff. On objection being made by the defendants the preliminary issue was tried, namely whether the suit was overvalued for purposes of jurisdiction, and the learned Subordinate Judge found after considering the report of the Commissioner and the evidence on the point, that there had been over-valuation and that the market value of the properties would be only about Rs. 2,785. The Commissioner's valuation of the properties was ...
Manicka Mudali Vs. V. Abdul Karim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1015; 158Ind.Cas.863
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to set aside the order on a claim petition. The plaintiff is the decree-holder in a money suit (O.S. No. 356 of 1919) against one Murugappa Mudali. Murugappa sold the property sought to be attached to the present defendant by Ex. B dated 31st May 1926. Both the Courts have concurrently found that this was a bona fide transfer for valuable consideration and was not a nominal transaction nor one intended to defeat the creditors of the judgment-debtor. The plaintiff attempted to bring this property to sale in execution of his money decree in 1927 and this defendant then filed C.M.P. No. 190 of 1927 on 4th March 1927, just a few days before the date fixed for sale. On 7th March 1927 the executing Court passed the following order:The petition is filed late. Claim will be notified. Subject to that the petition is recorded.2. It is much to be regretted that notwithstanding frequent expressions of disapproval by the High Court of this...
Achuta Moothan Vs. Krishna Moothan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1935
Reported in: 158Ind.Cas.1023
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat, dated December 13, 1933, in O.S. No. 50 of 1933 returning a plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff sued his father aged 86 years and his younger brother for a declaration that a certain will executed by the father in respect of the plaint-mentioned properties was not valid and that the properties in question form the common property of the family set apart as burial place and matam. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 5,100, by the plaintiff. On objection being made by the defendants the preliminary issue was tried namely, whether the suit was over-valued for purposes of jurisdiction, and the learned Subordinate Judge found, after considering the report of the Commissioner and the evidence on the point, that there had been over-valuation and that the market value of the properties would be only about Rs. 2,785. The Commissioner's valuation of the properties w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›