Chennai Court May 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.
P.M.R.M.M. Sivasami Nadar and ors. Vs. Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1056; 159Ind.Cas.929
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. These Civil Revision Petitions are against the decrees of the District Munsif of Madura in two small cause suits covered by a common judgment. The petitioners here are the owners of certain motor buses and the suits, the subject of this petition, were tiled against the Madura Municipality and the toll-gate contractors for refund of sums alleged to have been illegally collected by them in respect of the buses owned by petitioners. The petitioners obtained license from the Madura Municipality for the second half year commencing from 30th September 1930 in respect of two motor buses, M.D. No. 539 and M.D. No. 761, owned by them. That license entitled the vehicles to enter the Municipal limits without the payment of any toll fee. On 16th October 1930 the Chairman of the Municipality, it is alleged, illegally cancelled the license in consequence of which the petitioners had to pay toll-gate fee for the remaining period of that half year in respect of the two buses in qu...
Minor Palani Velu and anr. Vs. Somasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ466
K.S. Menon, J.1. The decree sought to be executed is one passed by the District Munsif's Court, Negapatam. There was subsequently some alteration in the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, by which the mortgaged property came to be within the jurisdiction of Nannilam District Munsif's Court between 3rd January, 1923 and 1st October, 1929. The decree holder presented successive applications to the Nannilam Court, for execution of the decree in 1924, again on 14th September, 1926, 5th August, 1929 and 23rd February, 1931. The present application was filed on 5th August, 1931 in Negapatam Court. The question is whether the applications of 1924, 1926, 1929 and 1931 were to the proper Court. In spite of the fact that it was Nannilam Court which had territorial jurisdiction over the mortgaged property, the Court which passed the decree, namely the Negapatam Court, was the Court to which application for execution should have been presented Vide Subramanya Aiyar v. Swaminatha Chettiar (192...
N. Subramania Aiyar Vs. V.S.R.S. Ramasubba Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1003; (1935)69MLJ803
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Butler, J., dismissing the suit brought by the appellant on the basis of a hypothecation bond executed to him by one Chellam Aiyar in respect of the subscriptions paid by the latter towards a chit fund.2. Chellam Aiyar had taken a ticket in a chit fund, which was being managed by a firm known as S.K.S.N., of which the first defendant, the father of the defendants 2 and 3 and the grand-father of the fourth defendant were partners. As Chellam Aiyar was indebted to the plaintiff, he executed the hypothecation bond, Ex. B, in favour of the plaintiff on 15th August, 1919 in respect of the subscriptions he had paid for five instalments in the chit fund. On 5th October, 1921, Chellam Aiyar and his brother, Krishna Aiyar, executed another hypothecation bond Ex. II, in favour of the fifth defendant in respect of the amounts paid by them for six instalments in the chit fund, (including the amount paid for five instalments for which Ex. B...
The Official Receiver Vs. Krishna Pillai, Minor by Guardian A.P. Nella ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1058; 159Ind.Cas.88; (1935)69MLJ818
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The matter which arises in this Civil Revision Petition is not an easy one by reason of the fact that there are no cases upon this point which is quite a novel one so far as I am able to see; and giving the very best consideration I can in the absence of any argument on behalf of the respondents who are not represented here, I have come to the conclusion that the petition must succeed. Putting the position as shortly as possible, it is as follows: The first respondent was a creditor of one Krishna Pillai who was a co-parcener in the same degree as all the other respondents who are insolvents. He died sometime in 1925 and after his death there was a family arrangement which is set out in a settlement deed Ex. A and a Bank share of Krishna Pillai was allotted to Defendants 4 to 7. The learned District Munsif says:There can be no doubt therefore that the share which is now attached belonged to the estate of the deceased Krishna Pillai. By no stretc...
Ramasami Pillai Vs. Murugiah Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ267
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in the suit who is the petitioner here on the 3rd January, 1929 sold 10 kalams of paddy at Rs. 3 a kalam making a total of Rs. 30 to the defendants, the respondents here, and on the same date took from the latter a hand letter which reads as follows:3rd January 1929. The hand letter executed in favour of Ramaswami Pillai * * * by Murugayya Padayachi and Kalia Padayachi * * * We have taken from you on credit this day 10 kalams of Kuruvai paddy at Rs. 3a kalam for Rs. 30 and we have executed this handletter promising to pay the sum of Rs. Thirty with interest thereon at 3 pies per rupee per mensem to you or to your order.2. This document was unstamped; and being clearly a promissory note - and this is not contested by the petitioner - it was not admissible in evidence because it was unstamped. The District Munsif having rejected the promissory note as evidence declined to give a decree to the petitioner on the original debt holding t...
K.S. Venkatarama Iyer and ors. Vs. Ponnuswami Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad918; 163Ind.Cas.36
Curgenven, J.1. (His Lordship remanded the appeal twice for findings on the question of title to the property and on Issues 4, 4-a and 5 and on receipt of findings from the lower appellate Court delivered the following judgment on the question of limitation). I have now to dispose of the case as it relates to Item 1. The finding is that the plaintiff has title to this item and that the defendants are his purakkudi tenants. This relationship is not disputed before me. The question of limitation is however raised. In the trial Court the suit was found to be in time on the ground that time began to run from the date of the plaintiff's notice (Ex. J-1). It is argued before me that there is evidence to show that the defendants ceased to render service some years before that notice was issued, plaintiff 1 himself having given evidence that they stopped doing service four or five years previously, which would take us back to about the year 1907. If the starting point for limitation was the ce...
Palani Velu and anr. Vs. Somasundaram Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad935; 158Ind.Cas.811
Menon, J.1. The decree sought to be executed is one passed by the District Munsif's Court, Negapatam. There was subsequently some alteration in the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, by which the mortgaged property came to be within the jurisdiction of the Nannilam District Munsif's Court between 3rd January 1923 and 1st October 1929. The decree-holder presented successive applications to the Nannilam Court, for execution of the decree in 1924, again on 14th September 1926, 5th August 1929 and 23rd February 1931. The present application was filed on 5th August 1931 in the Negapatam Court. The question is whether the applications of 1924, 1926, 1929 and 1931 were to the proper Court. In spite of the fact that it was the Nannilam Court which had territorial jurisdiction over the mortgaged property, the Court which passed the decree, namely the Negapatam Court, was the Court to which application for execution should have been presented : vide Subramanya Iyer v. Swaminatha Chetty 1928...
V. Raman Nayar Vs. Parameswaran Nambudri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad975; 158Ind.Cas.8
Curgenven, J.1. The question raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the appellant (defendant 1) is liable to pay a rate water for taking water from an artificial streamor channel which runs through his land. This channel is part of an irrigation system constructed by one Pichu Aiyar at his own cost a good many years ago; and whatever rights Pichu Aiyar enjoyed have passed to the plaintiff. In order to discover what those rights were, it is necessary to ascertain what the original arrangement was, between Pichu Aiyar and the occupants of the lands through which the channel passes, as to the terms upon which they could take water from it. The conclusion reached by the first appellate Court upon this point, and accepted by 'Varadachariar, J., in second appeal, is that the occupants of the lands must have agreed to pay something in return for the privilege of taking the water, and this conclusion has not been, and we think, cannot be disputed before us. We also accepted the findin...
Chenganakattil Moideen and ors. Vs. Pottengal Kunhalikutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1059; 159Ind.Cas.1021
Pandrang Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of South Malabar dated 22nd December 1932 in appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Tirur dated 29bh September 1931, remanding the suit for fresh disposal according to few. The suit was one brought for partition and separate possession of 15 out of 16 shares in the plaint properties with arrears of mesne profits, etc. The properties belonged originally in Jenm to one Kunhayathru, the father of defendants 1 to 3, and the husband of defendant 4. After the death of this man, and when defendants 1 to 3 were minors, the properties were sold by defendant 4 in her own capacity and as guardian of defendants 1 to 3. This assignment by her took place in 1911 when the eldest of defendants 1 to 3 was only 6 years old. In March 1929 the plaintiff got an assignment (Ex. A) from defendants 1 and 2 of the rights of defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the plaint properties and it is on this assignment the suit is based, the...
Kesanupalli Venkatarayudu Vs. Ayina Khasim Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1041
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The question here is whether the suit by a plaintiff on a promissory note executed by the mother as guardian of a Mahomedan minor in renewal of previous promissory notes executed by the minor's father in renewal of earlier promissory notes must fail in view of the fact that the minor's mother has no authority to renew a promissory note on behalf of the minor and the minor is therefore not bound under such promissory note. The District Munsif has dismissed the suit. I may observe that the promissory note sued upon is one in renewal of a series of promissory notes renewed at intervals of three years from the original promissory note which is dated 1908. Taking the history of this promissory note debt, it is clear that in order, to prevent the debt from being barred, at the end of each period of limitation or just before it expired, a renewal of the promissory note was taken with the object solely of keeping the debt alive. From 1908 therefore the original debt eviden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »