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.
The Rajah of Vizianagaram Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ873
M. Venkatasubba Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. By this petition the Rajah of Vizianagaram applies that the High Court may, in the exercise of its powers under the Letters Patent and such other powers it possesses, make an order restraining the Court of Wards from sending his minor children to Great Britain and if necessary, appointing some suitable person as their guardian. The circumstances in which this application came to be made, will appear from our preliminary order dated the 7th May, 1936, but for the sake of easy reference I shall briefly recapitulate them. Under Section 15 of the Court of Wards Act, the Local Government made a declaration that the petitioner was a disqualified proprietor and directed the Court of Wards to assume Superintendence both of his person and property. The Rajah immediately filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, impeaching the validity of the order made by the Government and praying for a declaration that it is ultra vires and...
Gopalakrishna Nayakar Vs. Madhavanayaki Ammal (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad227; (1937)1MLJ14
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner in this Revision Petition was defendant in a suit on a promissory note. The District Munsiff dismissed the suit. The plaintiff thereupon appealed to the District Court. The District Judge allowed the appeal and remanded the case for retrial on a particular issue. The petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the District Judge to entertain the appeal and consequently to make any order in it.2. It appears that the suit was instituted in the Court of the District Munsiff as a small cause suit and that the District Munsiff at the time had small cause jurisdiction up to the pecuniary value of the suit. But this District Munsiff was transferred to another Court, and his place was taken by a Munsiff who had not the requisite small Cause jurisdiction. To meet this emergency recourse was had to Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and the suit was re-numbered and registered as a regular suit. Before the suit came on for trial the first munsif return...
Sendattikalai Pandia Chinna Thambiar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Sangili V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ77
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 1914 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin (the petitioner in the lower Court) is the appellant. The appeal arises out of an application for passing a final decree in that suit. In O.S. No. 27 of 1914 the plaintiff as reversioner claimed for himself the Zamindari of Sivagiri on the death of the then Zamindar Ramalinga who died in the year 1914. The claim was made against the mother of the Zamindar who took possession of the Zamindari on his death. Along with this suit was tried another suit O.S. No. 48 of 1914, the plaintiff in which admitting the right of the Rani claimed that he was the next reversioner entitled to the Zamindari on her death. The Rani died on the 23rd November 1916, while the suits were in progress and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 48 of 1914 was then made the second defendant in O.S. No. 27 of 1914. The decrees passed in these two suits were appealed against, to the High Court and the judgments...
Kajuluri Viranna Alias Bulli Veeranna and ors. Vs. Tillapudi Venkayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad159; (1937)1MLJ37
ORDERK.S. Menon, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in S.S. No. 5 of 1934 on the file of the Deputy Collector of Cocanada and in the appeal therefrom, Summary Appeal No. 22 of 1935 on the file of the District Collector of East Godavari and to quash the decisions therein.2. The suit was to recover possession of the lands from defendants 7 to 18 on the ground that they were emoluments attached to the potter service in the village of Velangi and that the plaintiff was entitled to perform that service and has been performing it from 1932. Defendants 7 to 18 denied the truth of the genealogy set up in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff was not entitled either to perform the service or to the possession of the lands in question, and that they have been in possession for a long time. The trial Court found that the relationship set up by the plaintiff was true, that the suit was not barred by limitation or adverse possession, but ...
Rajaram Mudaliar Vs. Kothandapani Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad280; 173Ind.Cas.363
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Chingleput dated 21st December 1933 reversing on appeal the decree of the District Munsif of Poonamalle dated 7th October 1932 in O.S. No. 321 of 1930 and dismissing the suit. The suit was one based on the following allegations. The plaintiff became an orphan in her eighth year and was under the protection of her elder brother who died in 1924. Thereupon, her brother's widow was protecting her for some time and when she wanted to go to her parent's house she sold the house described in the plaint schedule to the plaintiff in September 1925, defendant 1 who is the sister's husband of the plaintiff being shown as her guardian in the deed. One of the provisions in the deed was that the plaintiff's deceased brother's debts were to be paid by the plaintiff and the remainder utilised for the purpose of the plaintiff, in particular to meet the expenses of her marriage. This took place when the plaintiff was about 15...
(Jaggupilla) Narayanamurti and anr. Vs. (Jaggupilla) Suryanarayana and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad122
Cornish, J.1. The appellants are defendants 4 and 8 in a partition suit brought by respondent 1. The plaintiff is the son of one Ramanna, who is the father of defendant 5 and the grand-father of defendants 2 and 3 who are the grandsons by a deceased son. Ramanna is the brother of one Sanyasi deceased, whose adopted son is one Gaddayya who was a natural born son of Ramanna. Defendant 4 is Gaddyya's son. Defendant 8 is Gaddayya's widow, Gaddayya having died in 1926 before suit. The plaint makes it perfectly clear that the right to partition claimed by the plaintiff was founded upon the position that the plaintiff and these defendants were members of a joint Hindu family. At the trial the principal issue was whether Ramanna and Sanyasi had become divided. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court have found that these two men became divided in 1912. The trial Court therefore holding that plaintiff and defendants were not members of a joint family dismissed the suit. It appears th...
Tummalapalli Veeramma and anr. Vs. Akkivarapu Veerappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad282
Pandrang Row, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the two plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the plaint properties with mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed to recover possession on the strength of the following allegations, viz., that the plaint properties fell to the share of their father during the partition which took place between him and his brother, the late Bapadu, father of defendants 1 and 2, that this partition took place a long time ago, that the plaint properties were being enjoyed by the plaintiffs' father exclusively and after his death by his widow, i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs, till her death in 1919, or thereabouts and that the defendant's father usurped possession of the lands and caused obstruction when the plaintiffs attempted to get back possession in 1920 or thereabouts. In other words the suit was clearly one for recovery of possession based on the plaintiffs' possession and their unlawful dispossession by the defendants. In s...
Tummalappali Veeramma and anr. Vs. Akkivarapu Vebrappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1936
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.333
Pandrang Row, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the two plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the plaint properties with mesne profits. The plaintiffs claimed to recover possession on the strength of the following allegations, viz., that the plaint properties fell to the share of their father during the partition which took place between him and his brother, the late Bapadu, father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, that this partition took place a long time ago, that the plaint properties were being enjoyed by the plaintiffs' father exclusively and after his death by his widow, i.e., the mother of the plaintiffs, till her death in 1919, or thereabouts and that the defendant's father usurped possession of the lands and caused obstruction when the plaintiffs attempted to get back possession in 1920 or thereabouts. In other words the suit was clearly one for recovery of possession based on the plaintiffs' possession and their unlawful dispossession by the defendants....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›