Chennai Court August 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.
Nilamani Poricha Vs. Appanna Poricha and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad14; 160Ind.Cas.511; (1936)70MLJ262
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce the terms of an arrangement (Ex. B) entered into between the parties in 1898, in respect of a temple or mutt founded and endowed by one of their predecessors. Shortly before the date of this agreement, a suit had been filed by the present second defendant against the present first defendant impleading the present plaintiff as second defendant therein, to establish the joint right of that plaintiff with the first defendant to manage this institution. The learned District Judge who tried the suit (O.S. No. 34 of 1896) held against the joint right claimed by the plaintiff. It is unnecessary for us to canvass the grounds of this judgment because before the expiry of the time for perferring an appeal therefrom and, according to the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, in view of a contemplated appeal by the then plaintiff the parties on the advice of respectable friends settled the dispute in accordance with the terms embo...
Kadamberi Devaswom Uralan and anr. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad191
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit in ejectment. The plaintiff sued for possession of 51 items of land specified in the plaint schedule, on. the footing that till 1917 these lands had been in his possession directly or through, tenants and that in 1917 the Government took forcible possession thereof. Admittedly these lands have not been assessed to revenue, nor are they included in the pattah issued to the plaintiff. The evidence shows that over considerable-portions of the suit lands a kind of grass grows which is used by the members of the public for thatching houses. As regards some of the items in the plaint schedule, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the notice issued under Section 80 of the Code in respect of these items proceeded on a different ground of title from that now relied on. The objection to this finding of the learned Subordinate Judge has not been pressed before us. The ...
Karuppayya thevar Vs. Subbayya thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1935
Reported in: AIR1935Mad1047; 159Ind.Cas.158
ORDERStone, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a short point of law, viz., whether there is a sufficient signature within the meaning of the Limitation Act, Section 20, where A touches a pen and passes it to B and B writes : '22nd March 1930, Subbayya Thevar, paid Re. 1', subsequently adding his signature as scribe which is followed by the signature of the attestor. The Limitation Act requires that the endorsement shall either be in the hand-writing of the person to be made liable or shall be in a writing signed by the person making the payment. Under the General Clauses Act 'sign' includes making a mark, and this High Court has held that if to an endorsement of that kind the mark of the person to be made liable appears, such an endorsement would be a sufficient signature. In Rajani Mandal v. Digindra Mohan Biswas 1932 Cal. 440 Jack, J., seems to have gone further. There no mark and no writing in the handwriting of the person to be charged appeared, but the person to be charged t...
Kadamberi Devaswom Urlan and anr. Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1935
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.37
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit in ejectment. The plaintiff sued for possession of 51 items of land specified in the plaint schedule, on the footing that till 1917 these lands had been in his possession directly or through tenants and that in 1917 the Government took forcible possession thereof. Admittedly these lands have not been assessed to revenue, nor are they included in the pattah issued to the plaintiff. The evidence shows that over considerable portions of the suit lands a kind of grass grows which is used by the members of the public for thatching houses.2. As regards some of the items in the plaint schedule, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the notice issued under Section 80 of the Code in respect of these items proceeded on a different ground of title from that now relied on. The objection to this finding of the learned Subordinate Judge has not been pressed before us. The ...
The Deputy Commissioner of Police Vs. S. Vedantam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad132; 159Ind.Cas.634; (1935)69MLJ832
Cornish, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of a Full Bench of the Small Cause Court disallowing a claim based on the prerogative right of the Crown to be paid its debt in priority to other creditors. The Full Bench took the view that the debt in question was not a Crown debt. This decision is so fundamentally wrong that I think a revision petition is justified.2. The facts shortly stated are that the respondent had obtained a money decree on a debt, and in execution had attached and brought to sale a motor car belonging to his judgment-debtor. The decree was made on 9th September, 1931 and the attachment made absolute on that date. The motor-car was sold on 23rd November, 1931 for a sum of Rs. 53. On 4th December, 1931 the Crown, represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in charge of licenses, sent a written notice to the Court claiming Rs. 50 out of the money paid into Court and (which had not been paid out to the decree-holder) as arrears of tax due by the judgment-d...
Jagathambal Anni (Deceased) Represented by Nataraja Manicka Mudaliar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ441
Varadachariar, J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal is a point arising under Article 47 of the Limitation Act.2. The suit properties are said to have been endowed for the Ardhajama Kattalai of Sri Nageswaraswami Temple in Kumbakonam. Prior to 1918 one Periaswami Mudaliar seems I to have been enjoying these properties and performing the kattalai. It is in dispute between the parties whether the properties have been wholly dedicated to the trust or are only subject to a charge in favour of the trust. On Periaswami's insolvency, the Official Receiver sold these properties as Periaswami's properties subject to the rights of the kattalai and the first defendant purchased them in August, 1918, though the formal sale deed was executed by the Official Receiver only in August, 1920. For some years prior to 1918 the properties had been in the possession of a tenant. In 1919 Periaswami filed an application before the Divisional Magistrate, Kumbakonam, setting forth the trust ch...
Pillavil Illath Sankaran Nambi and ors. Vs. Pillavil Illath Nangeeli A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ592
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by plaintiffs claiming as the reversioners and heirs to the property of one Kesavan Nambi after the death of his widow, Kunjiri. The matter came up before the High Court in CM.A. No. 283 of 1926 and it was then decided that a clause in the will of Kesavan Nambi, whereby provision was made that on the death of Kunjiri her rights should go to certain persons now represented by the legal representatives of the first defendant, referred only to the contingency of Kunjiri dying before the testator and was not intended to affect the devolution of the property in case of Kunjiri's death after the death of the testator. Strengthened by this decision, the plaintiffs as the nearest reversioners and heirs of Kesavan Nambi and stridha-nam heirs of Kunjiri claim to succeed to the properties. After the decision of C.M.A. No. 283 the Court of first instance took up the suit and decided it adversely to the plaintiffs on the ground of estoppel, a...
Jagathambal Anni and ors. Vs. Periathambi Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad188
Varadachariar, J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal is a point arising under Article 47, Lim. Act. The suit properties are said to have been endowed for the Arthajama Kattalai of Sri Nageswaraswami temple in Kumbakonam. Prior to 1918 one Periaswami Mudaliar seems to have been enjoying these properties and performing the kattalai. It is in dispute between the parties whether the properties have been wholly dedicated to the trust or are only subject to a charge in favour of the trust. On Periaswami's insolvency, the Official Receiver sold these properties as Periaswami's properties subject to the rights of the kattalai and defendant 1 purchased them in August 1918, though the formal sale deed was executed by the Official Receiver only in August 1920. For some years prior to 1918 the properties had been in the possession of a tenant. In 1919 Periaswami filed an application before the Divisional Magistrate, Kumbakonam, setting forth the trust character of these propertie...
P.P.V.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Daivanai Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Mad275
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioner before me was adjudicated insolvent on the consolidated petitions of six creditors. The act of insolvency was a transfer of property effected by Ex. A in favour of four persons, creditors and relations, which transfer was alleged to be a fraudulent preference. The document, Ex. A, was described as a security bond. It recited the petitioner's inability to pay the amount due to them, and gave them landed property as security. In determining whether this was a fraudulent preference the lower Court took into consideration evidence of other transfers made by the petitioner in favour of other relations who were likewise creditors. It was contended that in so doing the lower Court misdirected itself. Ex. A is dated 20th October 1932. Six sale-deeds in favour of the petitioner's wife for an aggregate amount of Rs. 67,000 were proved to have been executed by him between 23rd May 1932 and 8th February 1933. Besides there was a conveyance to petitioner's daughter...
P.P.V.C.T. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Daivani Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1935
Reported in: 161Ind.Cas.348
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner before me was adjudicated insolvent on the consolidated petitions of six creditors. The act of insolvency was a transfer of property effected by Ex. A in favour of four persons creditors and relations which transfer was alleged to be a fraudulent preference. The document Ex. A was described as a Security Bond. It recited the petitioner's inability to pay the amount due to them, and gave them landed property as security.2. In determining whether this was a fraudulent preference the lower Court took into consideration evidence of other transfers made by the petitioner in favour of other relations who were likewise creditors. It was contended that in so doing the lower Court misdirected itself. Exhibit A is dated October 20, 1932. Six sale deeds in favour of the petitioner's wife for an aggregate amount of Rs. 67,000, were proved to have been executed by him between May 23, 1932, and February 8, 1933. Besides there was a conveyance to petitioner's daughter of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »