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.
Alluri Bapanna Vs. Inuganti Vengayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad511; (1937)1MLJ296
Horwill, J.1. On 26th June, 1923, Yellappu Bapanna obtained part satisfaction of her decree to the extent of Rs. 2,500 and in December of the same year she obtained another sum of Rs. 1,000. Both these amounts were certified. On 3rd August, 1924, Rs. 2,520 were paid to her but the payment was not certified. On 10th January, 1929, the decree was transferred to the present appellant by Ex. I. That document recites that two sums of Rs. 2,500 and 2,520 respectively had been collected towards the decree amount, that the decree holder is entitled to execute for the balance, and that she transferred her right to execute to the appellant. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court held that on a construction of Ex. I the right transferred to the appellant was to execute for such sum as was due after making the deductions mentioned in the deed. In second appeal Wadsworth, J., was of the same opinion and referred to the possibility that the document of transfer and the filing of E.P. No....
T.S. Ramasawamy Ayyangar Vs. the Sivakasi Municipality
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad291; 167Ind.Cas.854
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case arises out of a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Ramnad in regard to a prosecution for non-payment of profession tax under the District Municipalities Act V of 1920. One Mr. T.S Ramasawmy Ayyangar was prosecuted as the property guard and manager of the Estate of a lunatic Thenammal for non payment of an alleged profession tax under Section 30, Clause 2, Schedule IV of the District Municipalities Act.2. The case for the prosecution is that the said lunatic Thenammal' was residing within the limits of the Sivakasi Municipality, that profession tax was payable in respect of the income alleged to have been received by her and Section Ramasawmy Ayyangar who is representing her state ought to pay the said tax. Under Section 19 he was asked to submit a return showing the income. He submitted a return stating that he was not liable to pay the profession tax on the ground that he was not residing within the local limits of the Municipal...
Meenakshi Ammal and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Josier and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad640; (1937)1MLJ28
Varadachariar, J.1. The parties are governed by the ordinary Hindu Law and not by any rule of custom as in the case of dancing girls. The general principle of the Hindu Law is undoubtedly to limit heirship to legitimate issue but in the case of illegitimate sons amongst Sudras a special exception has been made by the texts. One should ordinarily have thought (on the analogy of the principle ex pressio unius) that this itself is a clear indication against recognising similar exceptions by way of analogy. The decision in Subramania Aiyar v. Rathnavelu Chetty : (1917)33MLJ224 proceeds on the footing that as the special text relating to the illegitimate son must proceed on the footing of a recognition of sapindaship between the illegitimate son and his putative father, the latter may well be held to be a sapinda of the illegitimate son and as such entitled to inherit his property. There is no scope for the extension of this reasoning by analogy. Similarly the recognition of a right of inhe...
Methar Rowther Vs. Sahu Moideen Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad366; (1937)1MLJ122
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit instituted for partition and recovery of possession of a half share of the suit properties on the ground that the plaintiff had purchased in Court auction, the right, title and interest of the defendant's brother, who according to the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in those properties. The Court auction was held in execution of a decree obtained on a promissory note said to have been executed by the first defendant's brother, the deceased Pakkiri Mohideen Rowther and his wife. When the plaintiff attempted to take possession as execution purchaser, the defendant resisted delivery alleging that he had obtained a sale of his brother's half share from his widow. On that obstruction, the plaintiff filed E.A. No. 367 of 1932 and it is alleged in paragraph 5 of the plaint that that petition was heard and an order was passed thereon by the Court on 13th October, 1932, to the effect that the sale obtained by the defendant ...
S. Thirumalamuthu Adaviar Vs. Minor Subramania Adaviar by Court Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad458; (1937)1MLJ243
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by two minors for a declaration that the properties which according to them fell to their shares at the partition evidenced by Ex. A are not liable to be seized in execution of the decree obtained against their father in S.C.S. No. 831 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tinnevelly. The lower appellate court granted the declaration; hence this appeal by the decree-holder. The partition under Ex. A was effected soon after the passing of the decree in the small cause suit and in such suspicious circumstances that both the lower courts have taken the view that it must have been brought about for the very purpose of preventing the decree-holder in the small cause suit from executing his decree against the properties that might be allotted to the shares of the minor sons. In that sense, the partition may be said to be fraudulent or mala fide, and I see no reason to differ from that conclusion, though I must point out th...
Sandanam Pillai Vs. Somasundaram Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad436; (1937)1MLJ364
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage executed by defendants 1 and 2 in plaintiff's favour. The only question for determination in the second appeal is whether the first defendant was entitled to a share in four out of the mortgage items, namely, items 3 and 4 of Karur village and items 1 and 3 of Balambapuram village.2. It has been found that the four items in question were acquired by the seventh defendant, the father of the mortgagors, in the years 1897, 1900, 1906 and 1908 in his own name, at a time when defendants 1 and 2 were minors. The seventh defendant contended that they were his self-acquired property and that the first defendant had no share therein which would pass under the mortgage. The first Court held that the first defendant had no interest in these items and passed a mortgage decree against the first defendant's share in the other items comprised in the mortgage; but on appeal the learned District Judge held that these item...
A.M. Kuppuswami Mudaliar Vs. W. Ranganatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad835
Beasley, C.J.1. On 6th July 1911 one W. Parthasarathi Mudaliar made a will (Ex. A) and died a few days afterwards. He left two sons named Jayaram and Ramachandra. Jayaram died on 21st April 1923 leaving a son, the plaintiff in this suit, and Ramachandra died on 31st August 1923 without issue and on 14th September 1923 his widow adopted defendant 2. Clause 32 of the will according to the Court translation reads as follows:Should the executors think that my sons have received education, etc., are of good behaviour and have good association, and would safeguard my properties without making any wasteful expenditure, and they hand over to them all the properties remaining after paying my debts and meeting the aforesaid expenses, the whole of my estate shall be handed over after Jayaram Mudaliar, of my sons, attains the age of 35 and Ramachandra Mudaliar the age of 30. Even if so handed over, both my sons may only enjoy but shall not have the power to mortgage or sell. Only the issue of my t...
S. Tirumalamuthu Adaviar Vs. Subramania Adaviar, Minor by Court Guardi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.914
Varadachariar, J.1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit brought by two minors for a declaration that the properties which according to them fell to their shares at the partition evidenced by Ex. A are not liable to be seized in execution of the decree obtained against their father in S.C.S. No. 831 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court of Tinnevelly. The lower Appellate Court, granted the declaration; hence this appeal by the decree-holder. The partition under Ex. A was effected soon after the passing of the decree in the Small Cause suit and it is in such suspicious circumstances that both the lower Courts have taken the view that it must have been brought about for the very purpose of preventing the decree-bolder in Small Cause suit from executing his decree against the properties that might be allotted to the shares of the minor sons. In that sense, the partition may be said to be fraudulent or mala fide, and I see no reason to differ from that conclusion, though I must point out...
Appaji Chetti Vs. Govindasami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad760
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The decree was passed on 28th July 1928. An execution petition was filed on 24th July 1931, which was not presented either by the party or by a vakil duly authorized on his behalf. A notice went on the petition and the judgment-debtor pleaded a payment of Rs. 50. Thereupon three months' time was granted and the petition struck off. On 22nd January 1932 another E.P. was filed in which the judgment-debtor, without notice, was arrested. He paid Rs. 25, part satisfaction was recorded and he was released. When the present E.P. was filed on 25th November 1933, the Court discovered that the gentleman who had been conducting the two prior execution petitions was not in possession of a vakalat and it therefore held that the two former petitions were not in accordance with law and. that as the present execution petition was filed more than three years after the decree, it was out of time. It was accordingly dismissed. In revision it is argued (1) that all these three petitions...
Khaji Dodda Khaji Saib and ors. Vs. Chigamalla Nanjappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ197
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought on behalf of the Hindu residents of a village in Bellary District for an injunction restraining the defendants from constructing a Jumma Masjid which they proposed to erect on a plot shown in the plan attached to the plaint and also for a declaration of the rights of the Hindus to carry certain processions, etc., along the routes indicated in the plan. When the matter was pending before the Court of first instance, the District Munsiff refused to grant a temporary injunction restraining the completion of the building and when the matter came on for final disposal before him, he limited the injunction to one restraining the defendants from declaring that building to be a mosque. He also granted a declaration in respect of the plaintiff's rights as regards processions, etc. The learned District Judge has confirmed the decree of the District Munsiff. Hence this appeal by the defendants.2. The second appeal has been presse...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›