Chennai Court February 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.
Veluthandi Beerankutty Vs. Ameth Mammu (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ256
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Mr. O.T.G. Nambiar contends that the appeal to the District Court was incompetent and that its judgment should therefore be treated as nullity and be vacated.2. The facts that give raise to the present Civil Revision Petition may be shortly stated. The plaintiff (the petitioner before me) obtained a decree against the respondent on the 1st November, 1920. After various infructuous attempts made to execute the decree, he finally filed the execution petition in question on the 31t October, 1932. In that petition he asked for the arrest of the judgment-debtor (the respondent) and the attachment of his moveable properties. On the 15th December, 1932, that is after the expiry of the twelve year period prescribed by Section 48 Civil Procedure Code, he applied for leave to amend his petition by including a fresh prayer for the attachment of the defendant's immoveable properties also. The application was resisted on the ground that the amendment sought for, if allowed, w...
Veluthandi Beerankutty Vs. Ameth Mamu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.217
1. Mr. O.T.G. Nambiar contends that the appeal to the District Court was incompetent and that its judgment should, therefore, be treated as nullity and be vacated.2. The facts that give rise to the present civil revision petition may be shortly stated. The plaintiff (the petitioner before me) obtained a decree against the respondent on November 1, 1920. After various infructuous attempts made to execute the decree) he finally filed the execution petition in question on October 31, 1932. In that petition he asked for the arrest of the judgment-debtor (the respondent) and the attachment of his movable properties. On December 15, 1932, i. e., after the expiry of the twelve year period prescribed by Section 48, Civil Procedure Code, he applied for leave to amend his petition by including a fresh prayer for the attachment of the defendant's immovable properties also. The application was resisted on the ground that the amendment sought for, if allowed, would be tantamount to allowing the pla...
Chellam Sakka Raja Vs. Muthusami Moopar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad632; 165Ind.Cas.503; (1936)71MLJ166
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question to be decided is, whether the learned Judge in permitting the amendment has infringed any principle of law or of procedure governing the point.2. The facts may be briefly stated. The suit was filed on a promissory note dated 29th June, 1931. In the list of documents filed with the plaint seven previous promissory notes were mentioned. The dates and the amounts for which the notes were executed were set forth and the documents themselves were filed with the plaint.3. The defendant in his written statement, while admitting the genuineness of the previous notes, denied that he executed the suit promissory note. He further pleaded that the note on which the suit was based, being one payable to the plaintiff or bearer on demand, contravened the provisions of the Indian Paper Currency Act, 1923 and was therefore unenforceable. There was a further defence raised which related to*the plaintiff's right to sue, but for the purpose of my judgment that plea is ...
Saripella Lakshmi Narasamma Vs. Saripella Ammanna Siddhanti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad26; (1936)71MLJ845
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an unfortunate case but we see no way of upholding the principal contentions of the appellant before us. She sued for possession of her husbands properties on the footing that her husband had died intestate. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff's husband had executed a will Ex. II on 27th August, 1910, whereby the properties referred to in the will had been given to one Subadramma the then living wife of the deceased for her lifetime and after her death to the contesting defendants.2. The plaintiff questioned the genuineness of the will but the lower Court has rightly held that the evidence in its favour is such as to place its genuineness beyond doubt. This finding has not been seriously attacked before us.3. It was next suggested that as the testator lived for nearly 20 years after the date of Ex. II, lost his first wife in the meanwhile, married another wife, viz., the plaintiff and acquired properties subsequent to the date of the will, the Court mu...
T.S. Venkatarama Iyer and ors. Vs. Balayya Yesuthasan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad595; 165Ind.Cas.478
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by a mortgagee against so much of the lower Court's decree as dismissed the suit against defendants 4 and 5. The mortgage bond sued on was executed by defendant 3 who was the mother of defendants 4 and 5 as their guardian. It is admitted that the property mortgaged belonged to the father of defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 and that the parties are governed by the Indian Succession Act. It is also admitted that defendant 5 was a minor at the time of the suit mortgage, and as regards defendant 4 the lower Court has found that she had in fact attained majority on the date of the suit mortgage though the mortgage purports to be executed on her behalf by her mother as her guardian. The amount was borrowed mainly for the purpose of a trade in timber, leather etc., which defendants 1 and 2, the sons, were carrying on. There is some evidence to show that the deceased father was undoubtedly carrying on business in timber, but there is some conflict in the evidence ...
Kollivenkataratnam Vs. the Collector of Kistna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad560; 163Ind.Cas.480; (1936)70MLJ717
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The lower Court's order is clearly wrong and must be set aside. Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes two modes of recovering a fine imposed upon an offender. We are now concerned with the second method the one referred to in Clause (b) of that section. The Court imposing the fine may under that clause issue a warrant to the Collector of the District authorising him to realise the amount by execution either against the moveable or immoveable property or both of the defaulter. The section goes on to say -that such warrant shall be deemed to be a decree, the Collector to be the decree-holder and the nearest Civil Court the Court which passed the decree. Finally, the section enacts that all the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as to execution of decrees shall apply to the proceeding.2. The offender in this case is a member of a Hindu coparcenary of which the petitioner, his father is the manager. The attachment was of the standing crops and it ...
M.K. Subbarayalu Naidu Vs. Arunachala Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad465; (1936)70MLJ576
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit out of which this Second Appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs for setting aside a Revenue sale in execution of a rent decree obtained by the first defendant against one Subbarayulu Naidu a registered pattadar. The main facts are not in dispute. The said Subbarayulu Naidu mortgaged the suit properties he was holding under the first defendant to one Doraiswami Konar on 2nd October 1908 and the latter obtained a decree in O.S. No. 43 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tinnevelly and brought the properties to sale. The first plaintiff purchased the properties on 9th November, 1918 took delivery of possession of the same through Court on the 19th June 1919 and sold a portion of the property to the second plaintiff on the 8th January 1926. Ever since the date of the purchase the first plaintiff has been paying rent to the land-holder, the first defendant, and receipts were given by him for payment of the said rent. It appears that for arrears of ...
Kancherla Krishnamurthy Being Minor by His Mother and Guardian Lakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ39
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The person whose life was insured was Satyanarayana and the suit has been filed against his son on his death. The question to be decided is, whether the policy amount is liable to be attached for the debt of the father.2. The defendant contends that under Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act a trust arose in his favour in respect of the sum and that it is therefore not available to his father's creditors. Section o of the Act, on which reliance is placed, runs thus:A policy of insurance effected by any married man on his own life, and expressed on the face of it to be for the benefit of his wife, or his wife and children, or any of them, shall enure and be deemed to be a trust for the benefit of his wife, or of his wife and children, or any of them, according to the interests so expressed, and shall not, so long as any object of the trust remains, be subject to the control of the husband, or to his creditors or form part of his estate.3. In the policy ag...
A.S. Seetharama Aiyar and ors. Vs. South Indian Railway Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad491; 163Ind.Cas.840
Cornish, J.1. The appellant consigned a parcel of laced cloths to the respondent Railway Company for despatch by train from Nagore to Madura. From the evidence it would seem that the parcel was stolen from the railway van at Trichinopoly station while that van was in a siding. The lower Court has found that there is no positive evidence that the loss was occasioned by the misconduct of any of the company's servants. So that no question of liability of the company for any act of misfeasance arises. I mention this because Mr. Sitarama Rao has argued that Section 75, Railways Act, will not protect the company where the loss has been occasioned by, the misfeasance or misconduct of the Railway Company's servants. The question therefore resolves itself to this : these being goods which were admittedly included in Schedule 2 to the Act, and were over Rs. 100 in value, could the consignor mate the company liable for their loss, he not having made the declaration of their value as required by S...
T.E. Narayana Tirumampu and anr. Vs. Thirumampu Valia Govinda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad573; 163Ind.Cas.190
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in these Second Appeals is, what is the Article of the Limitation Act applicable to a suit by a Court auction-purchaser or assignee under a private treaty of the arrears of maintenance due and payable to a junior member of a Malabar tarwad for the recovery thereof? The arrears are claimed according to a family karar which appears to have been executed on 17th May 1907 and provided for payment of allowances in cash and in kind to the various members of the family according to a certain scale. In S. A. 1794 of 1931 the claim is to recover the value of 1974 edangalis of paddy with interest and cash Rs. 29-12-7 which were due to one Tirumumpu, a member of the tarward whose right was purchased in execution of a decree obtained by the plaintiff against the said Tirumumpu. In S. As. Nos. 425 and 426 of 1932 the claims are similar, based on assignment deeds assigning the arrears due to certain other members. It may be stated that the arrears in all t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »