Chennai Court July 1935 Judgments
(Siddamsetti) Ramayya and anr. Vs. (Arera) Komarappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad421
Cornish, J.1. I think, that this petition fails. The respondent 1 was the purchaser at Court auction of a plot of land sold in execution of a decree held by the petitioners. The sale proclamation for which of course the decree-holders were mainly responsible, as regards the particulars, stated the extent of the land to be 1 acre and 25 cents. Whereas after the confirmation of the sale, the area was found to be only 78 cents. There is no suggestion that the decree-holders practised a deceit or fraud in so describing the area of the property. But it is certain, as found by the lower Court, that they were grossly negligent. The respondent 1 sued for damages and he has been awarded an amount proportionate to the deficit in the area of the property which passed at the sale. It has to be seen whether he has a remedy by suit. A number of cases have been cited to me to substantiate the petitioners' contention that respondent 1 has no remedy. It is quite certain that he has no remedy under Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Subbiah Mudaliar Vs. Gopala Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad808
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who sued to recover possession of certain properties as a reversioner to the estate of one Velu Mudaliar alias Doraisami Mudaliar who is said to have died in 1875, leaving a widow Sivagami Anni who died in 1918, Issues were raised in the case in respect of (1) the relationship of the plaintiff to Velu Mudaliar, (2) the title of Velu Mudaliar to the suit properties, and (3) the validity of alienations by Sivagami under which the defendants claim. On points 2 and 3 the learned Subordinate Judge recorded findings substantially against the defendants. But on point 1 he recorded a finding against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit. We have heard arguments from the learned Counsel for the appellant only on the question of relationship, and in the view that we take on that matter it is unnecessary to deal with the other questions.2. The relationship alleged by the plaintiff is set out in the pedigree reproduced at p. 17 of t...
Tag this Judgment!U. Rama Rao Vs. Honnamma Shedthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad469
ORDERCornish, J.1. It is necessary to give a short summary of the facts to a proper understanding of the case. Certain land which may conveniently be called the suit land, was conveyed by one Kaveri Shedthi to one Chandayya on mulgeni lease. This was in 1897. Two years later certain members of Kaveri's family executed what purported to he a sale deed of property including the suit land to one Sidhu and his wife. Later Sidhu's wife sold the muli or landlord's interest in the suit land to Chandayya. A suit O.S. No. 275 of 1899 was then filed by Kaveri's heirs alleging that the sale to Sidhu was in reality a mortgage by conditional sale. They succeeded after the matter had gone on appeal in getting a decree for redemption. Chandayya was not made a party to the suit. Incidentally I may observe that the respondent's learned advocate sought to argue that notwithstanding that Chandayya was not a party to that suit the defendants would be bound by it. But the point is not raised in the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Nettalia Sequeria Vs. Chovvakaran Orkatteri Abdul Khader (Minor) and 2 ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1048; (1935)69MLJ675
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry in connection with an application made by a tenant who was a defendant in an ejectment suit. The application was made under Section 22 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, and the case raises a point of some importance with reference to the construction of certain provisions of that Act. The first plaintiff is the ultimate landlord or jenmi. Also he is the Karnavan of a tarwad and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are his sister's children. In 1928 the first plaintiff granted to his sister (the mother of the plaintiffs 2 to 4) what is described in the plaint as a 'melcharth' but the document itself has not been marked as an exhibit in the case. In 1930 the four plaintiffs (the sister having died in the meanwhile) filed a suit in ejectment against the present appellant who was in possession from the Jenmi as a kuzhikanomdar. We are not now concerned with the merits of the ejectment suit but on...
Tag this Judgment!Ramathari Patro, Minor by Guardian Srimathi Patrani Vs. Govinda Rona
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1935
Reported in: (1935)69MLJ487
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of some importance. In a money suit instituted on behalf of a minor plaintiff by his mother as next friend, an arrest before judgment was obtained on allegations which have been subsequently found by the Court not to have been justified. The defendant accordingly applied for an award of damages under Section 95(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, and the lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 30 and directed it to be recovered from the family property of the minor.2. In revision, Mr. Jagannadha Doss contends that taking the arrest to be improper, it was a tortious act of the next friend and the Court ought not to have awarded damages against the minor's estate in respect of such tortious act. The objection is plausible and I am sorry to be obliged to decide it without the help of an argument on behalf of the respondent, as the respondent is ex parte.3. I have however come to the conclusion that the view taken by the Court below is ...
Tag this Judgment!P.T. Krishnaswami Aiyangar Vs. Jonnagadla Gouriamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad256; 163Ind.Cas.195
Ramesam, Offg. C.J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of my Lord the Chief Justice sitting on the Original Side in C.S. No. 483 of 1930. The facts out of which the suit arose are these: The plaintiff is the junior widow and the executrix of the estate of J. Rangiah Chetty who died on or about 21st June 1921, leaving a will under which he appointed the plaintiff as executrix. One C. Venkatasubbiah Chetty of Madras executed a promissory note dated 2nd June 1919 for Rs. 12,000 with interest at 9 per cent. in favour of the said Rangiah Chetty. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the said Venkatasubbiah Chetty deposited by way of equitable mortgage with the said Rangiah Chetty title-deeds relating to his immoveable properties and premises situated in Madras. Under a compromise decree in C.S. No. 38 of 1923 on the file of the High Court the right to the said promissory note and security represents the legacy due to the minor plaintiff in that suit; and it is vested in the plaintiff and ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramahari Patro Vs. Govinda Rona
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad886; 158Ind.Cas.831
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of some importance. In a money suit instituted on behalf of a minor plaintiff by his mother as next friend, an arrest before judgment was obtained on allegations which have been subsequently found by the Court not to have been justified. The defendant accordingly applied for an award of damages under Section 95(a) of the Civil Procedure Code and the lower Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 30 and directed it to be recovered from the family property of the minor.2. In revision, Mr. Jagannadha Das contends that taking the arrest to be improper, it was a tortious act of (he next friend and the Court ought not to have awarded damages against the minor's estate in respect of such tortious act. The objection is plausible and I am sorry to be obliged to decide it without the help of an argument on behalf of the respondent, as the respondent is ex parte.3. I have, however, come to the conclusion that the view taken by the Court below is ...
Tag this Judgment!Konchadu Dalayya Vs. Malla Sundara Narayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad91; (1935)69MLJ908
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application under Sections 63 and 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 12 of 1930 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ganjam. Pending O.S. No. 12 of 1930, the plaintiff had obtained an attachment before judgment of certain properties of the defendant. The decree was passed on the 23rd March, 1931 and on the 3rd July, 1931, he filed an application for execution as well as E.P. No. 52 of 1931 out of which the present Civil Revision Petition arises. In the execution application he asked for sale of the properties already attached before judgment. The last column in that execution application refers to the attachment before judgment but we must take it that though the column refers to a schedule attached to the petition, the schedule was not in fact put into Court along with the execution petition.2. In E.P. No. 52 of 1931, however, the decree-holder stated that the properties thus at...
Tag this Judgment!(Vadlamannati) Venkatakrishnayya and ors. Vs. (Vadlamannati) Venkatana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad733
Ramesam, J.1. The above three appeals are appeals from the decrees of the Subordinate Court of Narasapur in two original suits. Appeals Nos. 372 of 1926 and 36 of 1927 are cross-appeals from the decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1922. Appeal No. 105 of 1927 is an appeal from the decree in O.S. No. 27 of 1922. O.S. No. 7 of 1922 was itself originally instituted in the Subordinate Court of Ellore where it was O.S. No. 96 of 1919, but it was transferred to the Subordinate Court of Narasapur where it was re-numbered as No. 7 of 1922. The other suit was originally filed before the District Munsif of Bandar where it was O.S. No. 397 of 1919. It was then transferred to the Subordinate Court of Ellore where it was numbered as 95 of 1921 so that it may be tried along with the other connected suit and it was then transferred to the Subordinate Court of Narasapur where it was numbered as 27 of 1922. It will now be convenient to take the first of the suits (O.S. No. 7 of 1922) and the two appeals from the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›