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.
N. Subramania Ayyar Vs. V.S.R.S. Ramasubba Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: 159Ind.Cas.127
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 Ayyar, in respect of the subscriptions paid by the latter towards a chit fund.2. Chellam Ayyar 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 defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and the grandfather of the fourth defendant were partners. As Chellam Ayyar was indebted to the plaintiff, he executed the hypothecation bond Ex. B, in favour of the plaintiff on August 15, 1919, in respect of the subscriptions he had paid for five instalments in the chit fund. On October 5, 1921, Chellam Ayyar, and his brother, Krishna Ayyar, 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. ha...
Ramaswami Pillai Vs. Murugiah Padayachi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad179; 161Ind.Cas.273
Beasley, C.J.1. The plaintiff in the suit, who is the petitioner here, on January 3, 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:January 3, 1929. The hand letter executed in favour of Ramaswami Pillai... by Murugayya Padayachi and Kailya Padayachi... We have taken, from you on credit this day 10 kalams of kuruvai paddy at Rs. 3 a kalam for Rs. 30 and we have executed this hand letter promising to pay the sum of Rupess thirty with interest thereon at three 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 un stamped, The District Munsif having rejected the promissory note as evidence declined to give a decree to the petitioner on the original debt holding that the hand letter was ...
A.K. Oosman Vs. Gurtajee Coovarjee and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad903; 158Ind.Cas.827; (1935)69MLJ536
1. The question to be decided in this second appeal is as follows : Can a plaintiff who has repudiated a contract for sale of land without justifiable reason sue to recover the purchase money from the defendant (vendor) who objects to the repudiation and is willing to perform the contract? The question sufficiently states the facts. In the plaint the plaintiff claimed the recovery of money which he had paid as an advance of the purchase money for the purchase of certain property and alleged that he rightly repudiated the contract and hence was entitled to recover the money. The written statement of the second defendant, who is the only defendant who matters in this case, states that the contract has been broken by the plaintiff and that he (the second defendant) has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He says that the suit is not maintainable against him and that the plaintiff has no cause of action against him. The defence, therefore, is a defence which ...
Vayi Ramakrishna Chettiar Represented by Agent Subramania Aiyar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad40; 159Ind.Cas.501; (1935)69MLJ711
Pandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners in these petitions obtained decrees against two sons of the deceased Periaswami Goundan in respect of debts contracted by him. The respondent had obtained a decree against Periaswami Goundan himself in O.S. No. 514 of 1930 and after his death the same two sons of his were brought on record as his legal representatives and the family properties were sold in execution, and the sale proceeds were in the custody of the executing Court. The respondent had also obtained three other decrees against the same two sons in respect of debts contracted by their father. All the decrees, i.e., those obtained by the petitioners and those obtained by the respondent, were executable against the family properties of the deceased and his sons. The respondent applied for rateable distribution in respect of three decrees obtained by him against the sons, and his applications were allowed by the Court; but when the petitioners applied for rateable distribution in respect of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›