Chennai Court October 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.
Ganesam Pattabhirama Reddy and ors. Vs. Bathena Subbarami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad675; 173Ind.Cas.33
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These four connected second appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the plaintiff for an account of the management of his properties by the family of defendants 1 and 2 as guardian of his property. Section A. Nos. 1750 of 1931 and 13 of 1932 arise out of O.S. No. 80 of 1927 on the file of the Sub. Court, Nellore, and S.A. Nos. 1751 of 1931 and 12 of 1932 arise out of O.S. No. 61 of 1927 also on the file of the Sub-Court, Nellore. The case for the plaintiff is that his parents died when he was very young and defendant 1 and his undivided brother, late Narayana Reddy, who were very closely related to him, took possession of his property and were in management of the same. On 9th February 1914 Narayana Reddi, defendant 1's brother, was appointed guardian of the property of the plaintiff. He died in August 1917 and defendant 1 was appointed guardian on 5th February 1919, and he managed the property till he was discharged by an order of Court on 28th August 1924...
G.A.S. Shanmuga Nadar Vs. P.S.P. Kandaswami Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad91; (1936)71MLJ842
Cornish, J.1. The question raised in this Revision Petition is whether the suit is a suit by a landlord against a tenant to recover possession within Section 7, Clause (xi)(cc)of the Court-Fees Act. If it is, the Munsif has jurisdiction to try the suit. But if it is suit governed by Section 7, Clause (v), the suit is beyond the Munsiff's jurisdiction. The plaintiff from Marakaiyar under a registered sale deed; that the defendant's tenancy had been terminated by Marakaiyar; and that defendant was holding over in spite of that termination of his tenancy and of the plaintiff's notice to him to quit possession; and the plaintiff prayed that possession of the land be given to him. On the face of the plaint the plaintiff was claiming to be the assignee of the reversion from the defendant's lessor, Marakaiyar. If the assignment is valid it follows that the plaintiff is invested with all the rights of his assignor in respect of the tenancy; Section 109, Transfer of Property Act. The relief for...
Ramankulangare Illath Narayan Nambi and ors. Vs. Pilavil Illath Sankar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad158
Varadachariar, J1. This is an appeal against a judgment of Wadsworth, J; allowing a second appeal. Some of the points raised in the case were decided in the judgment of this Court in C.M.A. No. 283 of 1926. When the case went back to the first Court after that judgment, those Courts did not deal with the whole case but only with issues 4 and 5, a plea of res judicata and a plea of estoppel respectively.2. The plea of res judicata has been found even by the lower Courts against the defendants. It was however represented before us by Mr. Kuttikrishna Menon on behalf of the appellants, that when this litigation was pending in appeal before the lower appellate Court, one of his clients had obtained a decree against plaintiff 2 in ejectment in respect of item 2. No. petition has been filed before us to admit in evidence the papers relating to that litigation. We are not therefore in a position to express any opinion as to whether anything that happened in that litigation will or will hot ad...
Chinnasami Chetty and ors. Vs. Manickammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad265
Varadachariar, J.1. This Letters Patent appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff claims the suit property as one of the items which he purchased in execution of a decree passed on a mortgage given by one Dharma Goundan in the year 1913. Defendant 1 is a widow of the mortgagor's brother. She claims that three years before the mortgage, the suit property had been sold to her husband by Dharma Goundan. The only question for our decision is whether by this sale which is said to have taken place in 1910, defendant 1's husband became in law the owner of the property. The document produced in evidence of the sale is admittedly unregistered, but as the sale was only for Rs. 75, the non-registration of the document is not fatal to the validity of the transfer if defendant 1 is able to establish a prior oral sale and delivery of possession in pursuance thereof, i.e., an oral sale sufficiently dissociated from the unregistered sale deed, that the one can be regarded as independent ...
Chinnasawmi Chetty and ors. Vs. Manickammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.681
Varadachariar, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises of a suit in ejectment. The plaintiff claims the suit property as one of the items which he purchased in execution of a decree passed on a mortgage given by one Dharma-Goundan in the year 1913. The 1st defendant is a widow of the mortgagor's brother. She claims that three years before the mortgage, the suit property had been sold to her husband by Dharma Goundan.2. The only question for our decision is whether by this sale which is said to have taken place in 19.0 the 1st defendant's husband became in law the owner of the property. The document produced in evidence of the sale is admittedly unregistered, but as the sale was only for Rs. 75, the non-registration of the document is not fatal to the validity of the transfer, if the 1st defendant is able to establish a prior oral sale and delivery of possession in pursuance thereof, i.e., an oral sale sufficiently dissociated from the unregistered sale-deed that the one can be regarded ...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. Syed Kasim and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.665; (1936)71MLJ863
K.S. Menon, J.1. These are appeals by the Crown Prosecutor against the orders of the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, acquitting the accused of offences punishable under Sections 45 and 46 of the Madras City Police Act (III of 1888).2. On information laid before him that a common gaming house was being kept on the premises No. 40, Cemetery Road, Royapuram, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is a Justice of the Peace for the town of Madras, issued a warrant (Ex. A) on 24th October, 1935, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Royapuram H-2 Station, authorising him to enter the said premises and to take into custody persons found therein and to seize all instruments of gaming, etc. P.W. 1 the Sub-Inspector of Royapuram Police Station referred to in Ex. A accordingly went to the house in question and seized several articles. The accused and others who were found there were arrested and charges under Sections 45 and 46 of the Madras City Police Act were laid against them. The tenant o...
Hiralal Jindani Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad191; 166Ind.Cas.344; (1937)1MLJ130
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order made by Wadsworth, J., on an application presented by the appellant in the insolvency of one Abbeyamul Sowcar, asking for a declaration that the sum of Rs. 1,000 which had been paid by the insolvent as fine when he was convicted in C.C. No. 939 of 1933 on the file of the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Madras, is money belonging to the applicant and that he is entitled to a refund of the same.2. For reasons which we need not state in detail, the application underwent a number of adjournment and when it came on for hearing on 24th February, 1936, the applicant was not able to be present to give evidence. The record however shows that as part of the evidence which he proposed to adduce, a pass book of the applicant relating to his account with the Indore Bank had been produced in terms of a consent order passed by Mockett, J., to show that at or about the relevant time the applicant withdrew the sum of Rs. 1,000 from his own acc...
P.S. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. K.P. Sarvothama Rao, Official Liquidator of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ219
Varadachariar, J.1. In the course of the winding up of the South Indian Film Corporation, Limited, the Official Liquidator took out an application under Section 185 of the Indian Companies Act, for a direction to the managing agent Mr. P.S. Venkatarama Aiyar that he should pay up immediately a sum of Rs. 5,400 odd representing the amount overdrawn by him from the company while he was in charge as managing agent. The managing agent by his counter-affidavit claimed (1) that he was entitled to retain a sum of Rs. 2,800 towards arrears of salary due to himself; (2) that he was also entitled to two sums of Rs. 976-0-9 and Rs. 1,083 which were according to him improperly debited against him on the 15th November, 1935; and (3) that he was entitled to retain moneys which might be required to enable him to meet the expenses of certain suits filed against him as managing agent. The learned Judge has disallowed these claims and given a direction for payment as asked for by the liquidator. Hence t...
Emperor Vs. Syed Kasim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad179
Menon, J1. These are appeals by the Crown prosecutor against the order of the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, acquitting the accused of offences punishable Under Sections 45 and 46, Madras City Police Act (3 of 1888). On information laid before him that a common gaming-house was being kept on the premises No. 40, Cemetery Road, Royapuram, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is a Justice of Peace, for the town of Madras issued a warrant, Ex. A, on 24th October 1935 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Royapuram H-2 Station, authorising him to enter the said premises and to take into custody persons found therein and to seize all instruments of gaming etc., P.W. 1, the Sub-Inspector of Royapuram, Police Station, referred to in Ex. A accordingly went to the house in question and seized several articles. The accused and others who were found there were arrested and charges Under Sections 45 and 46, Madras City Police Act were laid against them. The tenant of the house was charged Un...
Majeti Kasi Viswesra Rao Vs. Pulletikurti Varahanarasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad631
Pandrang Row, J.1. These appeals are from the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Ellore, dated 4th March 1935, reversing on appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Tanuku dated 16th February 1933 in Order S. No. 601 of 1931, a suit in forma pauperis for recovery of certain immoveable properties together with mesne profits by the plaintiffs who were three in number. The plaintiffs are brothers, being the sons of one Suryam who according to them was the adopted son of one Buchayya. The plaint properties were admittedly the self-acquisitions of this Buchayya, and the plaintiffs' case was that their father Suryam took these properties as joint family properties and enjoyed them as such, though there was a will in respect of these properties by Buchayya in favour of Suryam. Suryam sold some of the properties under Ex. 2 in 1919 to defendant 1 and some other properties under Ex. 8 in 1924 to defendant 2. The suit is in effect to recover possession of these properties avoiding the alienatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »