Chennai Court November 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.
Krishnan Nair Vs. Kambi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad544
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit in ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was instituted originally by one Achutha Nair as manager of his tarwad. The subject matter of the suit related to four Items of property. It was alleged that items 1 to 3 were leased to the defendant's father in Chingom (1908-1909) 1084 with a munpattom of Rs. 40 under a lease deed executed by him in favour of Kunji Amma, the then senior female member of the tarwad on behalf of the tarwad, as the senior male member Govinda Menon was then employed elsewhere. Item 4 was alleged to have been leased orally in 1086 also to the defendant's father by one Gopalan Nair who was then managing the tarwad on behalf of the said Govinda Menon. Kunji Amma died before suit. As the defendant who is in possession of the property after the death of his father refused to surrender possession or pay rent from 1104 to the plaintiff, this suit was instituted. The said Achuthan Nair died pending suit and the next senior...
Etasseri Munootta Mangalath Illath Kesavan Nambudri and anr. Vs. Puthu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Mad41
Burn, J.1. The only point that has been pressed before me in this appeal is the question of limitation. The plaintiffs filed this suit on 7th August 1928 to set aside an order passed upon their claim petition on 10th November 1923. Under Rule 63 of Order 21, Civil P.C., the suit must be filed with, in one year from the date of the order and prima facie the suit is long out of time. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to exclude from the period of one year all the time which was taken by them in preferring appeals (A.S. No. 174 of 1925 on the file of the sub-Court and A.S. No. 28 of 1924 on the file of the District Court) from the order of the executing Court dated 10th November 1923. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the executing Court by his decree dated 17th July 1925. A second appeal was preferred to the High Court, which was disposed of by the High Court on 11th November 1927. The High Court held that the claim was one preferred Under Rule 58, Order...
In Re: Muthusamy Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.729
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. The petitioners who are twenty in number and four others were convicted of affray by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cheyyar and fined Rs. 10 each.2. The principal objections taken to the convictions are: (1) that the occurrence was not in a public place, and (2) that there was no breach of the public peuce. The second point does not seem to have been raised in the Court below, in any case, there is no reference to it in the judgment of the Magistrate.3. With regard to the first point, the Magistrate expressed himself as follows:The scene of offence is an open field with no compound walls, It is a place where the public go no matter whether they have a right to go or not.4. I think this is a correct and sufficient decision on the point raised. Whether a place is public or not does not necessarily depend on the right of the public as suel to go to the place, though of course a place to which the public can go as of right must be a public place. The place where t...
Veeranna Goundan (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Kittaya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1936
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.715
Varadachariar, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a claim by the plaintiff that he is entitled to some 55 cents of land out of what was purchased by the 1st defendant in a rent sale held by the zamindar on the footing that these lands also formed part of the pattah lands of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff's main contention was that the lands really belonged to and had all along been in the, possession of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 from whom ha obtained them on transfer, but by some mistake of the zamin authorities the survey numbers relating to the holdings of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the one hand and defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on the other have been inserted by mistake in their respective pattahs.2. There is no scope for the application here of the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Estates Land Act because it is not sought to bind the plaintiff by the result of proceedings taken against defendants Nos. 4 and 5. The trial Court found that the plaintiff's suggestion that t...
Sri Vuppalapati Suryanarayaneswara Jogi Jagannadharaju and anr. Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad310; (1937)1MLJ216
Burn, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff, the Rajah of Vizianagaram, filed two suits O.S. No. 284 of 1927 and O.S. No. 505 of 1927, the subject of which was the supply of water to a tank called Vooracheruvu in the village of Kottavalasa in the Vizianagaram zamindari. The facts have been fully stated by the learned District Munsiff and by the learned District Judge. The two suits were tried together by consent of both parties. The zamindar's complaint was that the defendants had interfered with the supply of water to Vooracheruvu which it received through a, stream called Pedda Gedda. This stream takes its rise; in a; jeroyat,i, village of the zamin and passes through the defendants mukhasa, village. During its passage through the defendants' village it was receiving tributary supplies from four streams which take their rise entirely within the defendants' village. In or about 1924 the, defendants intercepted the courses of three of these streams and put up a long bun...
Venkataramana and ors. Vs. Narayana Vaijappa Bhandary and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad556; 171Ind.Cas.608
King, J.1. The appellants in this case are the three sons of defendant 2. They, their father and their grandfather, defendant 1, formed an undivided joint Hindu, family. Defendant 2 entered into a partnership with others in business and he and his partners were adjudicated insolvents. The insolvency was terminated by the acceptance by the Court of a scheme of arrangement and the insolvent's property was vested in a liquidator, who proceeded to sell to defendant 3 one-half share in the family property, that is to say, the shares of defendant 2 and of his sons. This is a suit by the plaintiff's against defendant 3 in which they claim that defendant 3 has acquired title not to one half-share of the family property but only to one-eighth, that is the share of defendant 2 exclusively. This contention was upheld by the Court of first instance but has been set aside by the District Judge of South Kanara.2. The first argument in this second appeal is that there is some distinction between the ...
M. Ratna Mudaliar (Deceased) and Four ors. Vs. Krishna Mudaliar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ390
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal raises an important question of Hindu Law. The plaintiff, claiming to be the reversioner to the estate of one Shanmuga, filed a suit for a declaration that an alienation made by the first defendant, the mother of Shanmuga, in favour of the second defendant was not binding on the reversion. The first issue in the case raises the question whether the plaintiff is the nearest reversioner entitled to succeed after the death of the first defendant. The decision of this question turns upon the following facts.2. Shanmuga, the last male owner, was the son of one Palaniyandi, whose father Kunjan was in turn the son of another Palaniyandi who may be referred to as Palaniyandi the senior. Palaniyandi the senior had a brother Muthu who was the plaintiff's father. The case has proceeded on the footing that the plaintiff is a legitimate son of Muthu and that the descendants of Palaniyandi the senior were also his legitimate descendants. But, as between Muthu a...
The Firm of Ayili Mallappa Sanna Jembappa by Partner Bharmappa Vs. Par ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad501; (1937)1MLJ469
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an action instituted against a principal debtor and his surety. The debt was due by the first defendant under a mortgage bond executed by him; and the second defendant had made himself liable for the sum as surety under Ex. K. The defences raised in the case were over-ruled by the first Court which gave a decree to the plaintiff against both the defendants. The second defendant appealed to the lower Court on the ground that he should be held to have been exonerated from all liability by reason of the plaintiff having given up his rights under the mortgage bond executed by the first defendant. The lower appellate Court accepted this contention and dismissed the suit. The decree of the lower appellate Court is very loosely worded and even suggests that it might be construed as a total dismissal of the suit. But it is obvious that the District Judge could not have meant to dismiss the suit even as against the first defendant; if necessa...
Venkatachariar Vs. South Indian Bank and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad651; (1937)1MLJ575
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question in this second appeal is whether the lower Court ought to have raised an issue whether the defendant is precluded from impeaching the title of the plaintiff to the suit property by reason of the decision in O.S. No. 24 of 1921 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tinneveily. The facts necessary for its disposal may be shortly stated. The plaintiff is the father and the second defendant is his son. The first defendant is a creditor of the second defendant. In execution of a decree obtained against the latter in O.S. No. 640 of 1920 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tenkasi he attached the suit property on 12th April, 1922. The plaintiff filed the present suit, O.S. No. 12 of 1923 for a declaration that the suit property is his self-acquired property, that the second defendant has no right therein, that the first defendant is not entitled to attach the same as the property of the second defendant and for an injunction restraining him from...
Madura Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. N.M.S. Krishna Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad405
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioner in this Revision Petition is the Madura Mills Co., Ltd. It presented a petition in the District Court of Madura Under Section 5, Arbitration Act, for leave to revoke a submission to arbitration. The main grounds of this petition were firstly, that the arbitration proceedings had been unduly delayed, and secondly, that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to entertain the submission to arbitration. The learned District Judge has considered the second of these grounds, but he left it undecided. He did however find that there had been inordinate delay. Undoubtedly there had been, seeing that the arbitration began in 1932 and no award had been reached by 1936. But he thought that after so much labour it would be better to give an extension of time for the making of the award. I think that this was a matter entirely within the discretion of the learned Judge. Section 12, Arbitration Act, enables the Court to enlarge the time for making an award, whether the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »