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.
i.M. Ratna Mudaliar and anr. Vs. Krishna Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad353; 171Ind.Cas.760
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 1st defendant, the mother of Shanmuga, in favour of the 2nd 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 1st defendant. The decision of this question turns upon the following facts.2. Shanmuga, the last male owner, was the son of 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 Muthan 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 and Palani...
Filix Joseph Sarprasadam and ors. Vs. P. Rm. Sp. Subramania Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad484; (1937)1MLJ447
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note. The promissory note was executed by the fourth and fifth defendants, the fourth defendant being the mother of defendants 1 to 3 and the fifth defendant their grandmother. The body of the note also mentions defendants 1, 2 and 3, who were all minors at the time, as parties to the note and the fourth defendant signed it on her own behalf and on behalf of the three minors. I may add that the fourth defendant had been appointed executrix of her mother-in-law's will whereby the mother-in-law had bequeathed substantial properties to her grandchildren the present 1 to 3 defendants. Ex. A accordingly recites that the fourth defendant joined in the note in the capacity of 'guardian and mother of and executrix for Nos. 1 to 3'. The purpose of the loan is stated to be 'to meet the Court expenses of getting the probate through Court of the will in favour of the said minors and to meet the expenses of the family'.2. T...
C. Sendilvelu Mudaliar Vs. A. Venkatasubbu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad327; 173Ind.Cas.381; (1937)2MLJ477
Varadachariar, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal chariar, J. arises was instituted by the plaintiff, who was then one of the trustees of Sri Kapaleesvvarar temple, Mylapore, asking for an injunction restraining the first defendant from claiming joint possession and custody of the temple jewels, gold and silver articles and other movables of the temple along with the trustees and from demanding delivery of the keys of the temple safes. The temple is admittedly one falling under Section 3 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (XX of 1863), which still remains in force so far as the City of Madras is concerned. The first defendant holds what is known as the office of Overseer in the said temple, having been appointed thereto by the Madras Hindu Devasthanam Committee in 1931.2. The documentary evidence shows that from time to time there have been difference between the trustees and the overseer as to the relative scope of their functions. Though the plaint does not in terms ref...
Her Highness Princess Sreemathi Shree Radha Bai Maharanee Sahiba (Died ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad694
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal is against an order of the learned District Judge of Chingleput, declining to grant restitution to the appellant confirming the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Chingleput. The main facts are not in dispute. On 10th July 1928, house and ground No. 69, Subramania Koil Street, Alandur, the property of the appellant, was sold in Court auction and purchased by respondent 3 in this appeal. The appellant judgment-debtor made an application to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C. The ground he alleged was that on 4th July 1928, on his application the Court passed an order giving him leave to raise money by private alienation of the property and granted two weeks time for the said purpose, but in the meanwhile sold the property on 10th July 1928. The mistake occurred thus: The sale was originally fixed to 4th July 1928; on that date when the judgment-debtor applied for time, the learned Subordinate Judge who was dealing with that a...
Dhoolipala Venkateswarulu Vs. the District Election Officer,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ157
Mockett, J.1. The facts in this case are not relevant to the point which we have to decide. The following only is relevant. The Election Officer of Kistna passed an order to which one Mr. Rama Yogi took objection. Mr. Rama Yogi filed an appeal in Form VI in accordance with Rule 12 of the rules for the preparation of Electoral Rolls. That rule says:Any person feeling aggrieved by any order passed under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 11 by the Ejection Officer may prefer an appeal against such order to the election authority or to such person or persons as he may empower for hearing and disposing of such appeals.2. The rule then goes on to prescribe that the appeal shall be in Form VI and shall be addressed to the appellate authority through an Election Officer and presented to the latter within five days of the passing of the order appealed against. Under Sub-rule (2) the Election Officer shall forward every such appeal to the appellate authority together with a statement of the material facts of...
Viyathan Mahadevi styled Kozhikote Kishakke Kovilagath Valia Thamburat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad427; (1937)1MLJ324
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff who is a jenmi is entitled to recover the value of certain trees cut by the defendant-tenant. The claim is made by virtue of a clause in the kychit Ex. A. The clause runs thus:If I cut trees such as veeti teak, jack, etc., from the parambas without obtaining the written consent of the kovilagam, I shall be answerable for the costs of such trees and shall surrender the properties irrespective of the 12 years' term if the kovilagam demands it.2. The main defence is that the said clause is penal and unenforceable. It was found by the District Munsif that the kovilagam of the plaintiff was not in possession of the land demised for over 100 years and the trees which are cut were aged between 10 and 20 years. He further found that the trees were of spontaneous growth grown after the demise to the defendant, that they were tended and reared by the defendant and that they really constituted improvements within ...
The Secretary to the Board of Revenue (Seperate Revenue) Vs. Madura Mi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ108
Varadachariar, J.1. The question arising for decision in this reference relates to the stamp duty payable on a certain form filed with the Registrar under Section 104 of the Indian Companies Act.2. By an agreement between the Madura Mills, Limited, Madura, and Harveys, Limited, Tuticorin, it was agreed that 20,000 fully paid-up shares in the Madura Mills should be allotted to the Harveys in consideration of an allotment by the latter to the former of 1,000 fully paid-up shares of Harveys as well as of an agreement to do ginning for the Madura company at a specified rate for a period of ten years. It is stated that the original arrangement was only oral, but its substance has been embodied in resolutipns recorded in the books of both the companies. Under Section 104 of the Indian Companies Act it is required that where a contract relating to the issue of shares fully paid up otherwise than in cash has not been reduced to writing, the company shall, within one month after the allotment, ...
N.A.S.T. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Venkatasubba Naik
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad367; (1937)1MLJ262
King, J.1. The question raised in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit promissory note was executed on the 12th June, 1923. There was an acknowledgment on the 22nd June, 1923 and a second acknowledgment on the 27th June, 1926. On that date the Court in which the suit should have been filed was closed. It was closed on the 22nd June and re-opened on the 28th June, 1926. The suit was filed on the 6th August, 1929. Both the Courts below have held that the suit was barred by limitation.2. The argument in appeal is that Section 19 which is the section of the Limitation Act which has to be applied in this case, deals with the period prescribed by the Act as a whole for the filing of a suit and that when the Act as a whole is read, that period will be seen to expire not on the 22nd June, 1926, but only on the 28th June, 1926, when the Court re-opened and therefore three years can be calculated afresh from the 28th June, 1926. In other words, to put the argument very succinctly, i...
Pavani Subbamma (Deceased) Pavani Gurumurthy L.R. of 1st Appellant (De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ268
Varadachariar, J.1. This case raises questions of some difficulty, but, having given the matter my best consideration, I have come to the conclusion, though not without hesitation, that there is no sufficient reason for my interfering with the concurrent decisions of the Courts below.2. The suit property formed part of the estate of one Venkatramanayya who died in 1904, leaving a will-Ex. A. At his death he left surviving his widow Savitramma and two grandchildren, namely, a daughter's son (the second defendant) and a son's daughter (the plaintiff). The will accordingly provided that the widow should enjoy the properties and after her lifetime they would be taken in the ratio of 3 to 5 by the son's daughter and the daughter's son respectively. The present suit was instituted by the son's daughter for recovery of possession of her share in one item of property forming part of Venkatramanayya's estate which had been sold by Savitramma to the first defendant in 1917.3. The plaintiff's hus...
Pallipurayil Asan Kutti Vs. Mukkolakkal Koyyaman Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad342; (1937)1MLJ658
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application made to set aside a sale of immovable property under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code. The sale was held on the 29th November, 1932. The property belonged to the first defendant who made no application to set aside the sale. It was purchased by the assignee decree-holder. The third defendant in the suit who is a mortgagee put in an application I.A. No. 616of 1932 on the 16th December, 1932, praying that a challan may be issued depositing in the Taluk treasury the amount mentioned in the said application.... In the application the purpose for which the challan was applied, the amount of the decree poundage-fee, the percentage of purchase money required for setting aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 89, the name of the purchaser and the fact of sale are all mentioned. The challan was accordingly issued, money was deposited and a receipt obtained from the treasury. The said receipt was filed in Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »