Chennai Court January 1936 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.
Oomer Hajee Ayoob Sait Vs. Thirunavukkarasu Pandaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad552; (1936)71MLJ93
ORDER1. We remand this case for a finding on the genuineness of the letter dated 11th May, 1928. Evidence explanatory of the document may be taken if necessary. The finding mustbe submitted in one month from date of the receipt of this order by the lower Court. Time for filing objections will be ten days thereafter.2. In pursuance of the above order the District Judge of Tinnevelly submitted the following3. Finding. - The High Court has remanded this execution petition for a finding as to the genuineness of a letter, Ex. H, dated 11th May, 1928, with permission to take evidence explanatory of the document if necessary.4. Some facts are necessary to appreciate the evidence adduced. The plaintiff (decree-holder), one Oomer Hajee Ayoob Sait, is a wealthy Gujarati merchant doing business in Cdchin. He obtained a decree in Cochin Court against the two minor sons of one Sundaralingam Pandaram, a wealthy merchant who died on 31st January, 1923. Under a will and codicil, Balasubramania Pandara...
Venguri Veeraraghava Rao Vs. Sri Mirja Nallaparaju Venkatanarasimha Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ355
Mockett, J.1. This is a Civil Revision Petition against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore rejecting the petition of the sixth defendant praying that the plaintiff may be dispaupered. Order 33, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, gives a discretion to the Court to dispauper a plaintiff, (a) if he is guilty of vexatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit, (b) if it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as a pauper or (c) if he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject matter of the suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject matter. It was argued in the lower Court that as the plaintiff had admittedly, after he was given leave to sue in forma paupers executed a mortgage over the properties affected by the suit, the Court should dispauper him under Order 33, Rule 9(c). Civil Procedure Code. Two points of view have been argued before me. Mr. Lakshmanna has argued that any agreement af...
Venkatarama Ayyar Vs. Ramaswami Ayyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad524; 163Ind.Cas.732
ORDERStodart, J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a Small Cause suit and obtained an ex parte decree. The judgment-debtor applied to have the decree set aside on the ground that he was prevented from appearing in Court on the hearing date by a mistake as to the proper date of hearing. Section 17, Provincial Small Cause-Courts Act, requires him to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Court along with his application to set aside the decree. Security was eventually furnished and the decree was set aside and the plaintiff has, as I have said, presented this petition to revise the Court's order.2. Two grounds are alleged. One is that' the Court did not record findings on the merits of the respondent's case. This is perfectly true, and while it is most desirable in my opinion that the Court should state why it thinks the ex parte decree should be set aside, Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. does not make it obligatory for the Court to state its reasons.3. The second ground on which t...
Muhammad HussaIn Vs. Shaik Muhammad Malumiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad525; 163Ind.Cas.822
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the decision of the District Munsif of Negapatam on certain preliminary issues in O.S. No. 232 of 1933. It is rather unfortunate that Issues 3 and 15 were dealt with together. Issue 3 related to the question of the maintainability of the suit as framed. Issue 15 raised the question whether the suit was properly valued and whether proper court-fees were paid. The District Munsif states his conclusion as follows towards the end of para. 4 of his order:Plaintifi is bound to frame his suit as one for the recovery of a specific sum of money and pay ad valorem court-fees thereon. He is informed that he could not value his suit at Rs. 400 under Section 7, Clause (iv) (f) but should value it at Rs. 1,873-12-6 under Section (7) Clause (1), Court-fees Act.2. The basis for the above direction, so far as I am able to gather, is that in para. 3 of the plaint there is a reference to an account sent by the defendant to the plaintiff in Apr...
Vanguri Veeraraghava Rao Vs. Sri Mirja Nallaparaju Venkatanarasimha Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.831
Mockett, J.1. This is a civil revision petition against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore rejecting the petition of the 6th defendant praying that the plaintiff may be dispaupered. Order XXXIII, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, gives a discretion to the Court to dispauper a plaintiff, (a) if he is guilty of vexatious or improper conduct in the course of the suit, (b) if it appears that his means are such that he ought not to continue to sue as a pauper or (c) if he has entered into any agreement with reference to the subject-matter of the suit under which any other person has obtained an interest in such subject-matter. It was argued in lower Court that as the plaintiff had admittedly, after he was given leave to sue in forma pauperis executed a mortgage over the properties affected by the suit, the court should dispauper him under Order XXXIII, Rule 9, (c), Civil Procedure Code. Two points of view have been argued before me. Mr. Lakshmana has argued that any agreemen...
Soosai Odayar Vs. R. Swaminatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad522; 165Ind.Cas.5; (1936)71MLJ227
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by Section 189 of the Estates Land Act. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he is the owner of both warams in items 1 and 2 of the immoveable properties mentioned in the plaint, that notice of attachment caused to be issued by the defendant of the said property under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act is illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining him from selling the said property. It was also alleged in the plaint that the defendant before instituting the proceedings under the Act had parted with his interest in the land and any proceeding thereafter by him was incompetent. The defence is that the only remedy of the plaintiff was by a suit under Section 112 of the Act, that he did institute such a suit being L.A. 499 of 1927 on the file of the Deputy Collector Pattukottai that it was dismissed as time-barred and that the present suit is barred by Section 189 of the Act and that the ...
Sethurama Aiyar Vs. Ramachandra Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad528
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. Defendant is the appellant in this second appeal. He purchase a house from two persons Vedathamman and Chinnaswami Iyer by a sale-deed, Ex. A, dated 29th January 1924. They said property was obtained by Vedathammal by inheritance and her father Chinnaswami Iyer was the next reversioner. On the date of sale one Varadaraja Iyer had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 38 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Valangiman against Vedathammal wherein attachment before judgment of the said property was pending. There was another decree obtained by one Swaminathaier against both Vedathammal and her father Chinnaswami Iyer in S.C.S. No. 1740 of 1928 of the Kumbakonam Small Cause Court and there was also an attachment in the said suit of the said house. Vedathammal and Chinnaswami Iyer filed O.S. No. 83 of 1923 in the District Munsif's Court of Valangiman against the said Swaminatha Iyer for a declaration that the said attachment and sale of the said house were f...
Avichi Chettiar Vs. Valliappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad490; 163Ind.Cas.855
Pandrang Row, J.1. In this appeal which arises out of a suit for a declaration of the plaintiffs' title to a certain oorani or tank the trial Court found that though the plaintiffs had not proved their ownership or title, nevertheless they had established a prescriptive title to the same by reason of their exclusive enjoyment from at least 1875 onwards. On appeal by defendants 1 to 3 the learned Subordinate Judge went further than the trial Court and found that the plaintiffs had established their title as owners of the oorani with the result that the appeal was dismissed. In this second appeal by defendant 1 it is contended that both the Courts below went wrong in not taking into account what the appellant's advocate claims to be a legal presumption in favour of the appellant, namely that everything situated in a village or a zamindari must be presumed to belong to the inamdar to whom the village was granted or to the zamindar to whom the zamindari was granted. No doubt, if at the tim...
Rex Vs. John Mciver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: (1936)70MLJ635
Cronish, J.1. Two points of law arising in the trial of John McIver for criminal breach of trust at the last Criminal Sessions have been reserved to us for decision under Clause 25 of the Letters Patent by the learned Chief Justice. They are (1) whether the plea of autrefois acquit was good in law, and (2) whether there could be a legal entrustment of the property having regard to the case put forward by the Crown. By ' case put forward by the Crown ', the learned Chief Justice has stated that he means the case alleged in the complaint.2. The learned Crown Prosecutor has taken an objection to our jurisdiction to entertain the reference. His objection proceeds as follows: - The High Court derives its jurisdiction to decide the question of law referred from the order of reference; the referring Judge is only competent to refer questions which he can decide; and the Judge is only competent to decide such questions as are available for his decision. Applying these propositions to the point...
Emperor Vs. John Mciver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad353
Cornish, J.1. Two points of law arising in the trial of John McIver for criminal breach of trust at the last criminal Sessions have been reserved to us for decision under Clause 25 of the Letters Patent by the learned Chief Justice. They are (1) whether the plea of autrefois acquit was good in law, and (2) whether there could be a legal entrustment of the property having regard to the case put forward by the Crown. By 'case put forward by the Crown,' the learned Chief Justice has stated that he means the case alleged in the complaint. The learned Crown Prosecutor has taken an objection to our jurisdiction to entertain the reference. His objection proceeds as follows: The High Court derives its jurisdiction to decide the question of law referred from the order of reference; the referring Judge is only competent to refer questions which he can decide; and the Judge is only competent to decide such questions as are available for his decision. Applying these propositions to the points rese...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »