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.
Kancherla Krishnamurthy Vs. Tadokonda Anjayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad635; 164Ind.Cas.465
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 6 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...
T.D. Karuppanna Pillai Vs. F.W. Haughtan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad547; (1936)70MLJ695
King, J.1. The appellant in this Second Appeal was a member of the Municipal Council, Coonoor. The Council had farmed out the right to collect fees on cart stands in Coonoor to one Fakeer Muhamad, and it appears that the appellant refused to pay Fakeer Muhammad certain fees which were demanded by him. Fakeer Muhammad took the matter to the respondent who was then the Chairman of the Coonoor Municipality and after exhausting every attempt to induce the appellant to pay the fees to Fakeer Muhammad, the respondent finally prosecuted him before the Bench Magistrate of Coonoor under Sch, IV, Rule 30, Sub-rule 2 read with Section 344 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The Bench Court acquitted the appellant on the ground that the fees were due not to the Council but to the contractor and therefore Section 344 of the Act did not apply. The appellant thereupon filed a suit against the Chairman (respondent) for damages for malicious prosecution in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nil...
Swarnambal Ammal Vs. Saradambalammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad497; 163Ind.Cas.752
Cornish, J.1. One Kanakaraya by his will dated 15th July 18y7 gave cash, jewels and other moveable property to defendant 1, a lady who had been living with him as his wife; and to the husband of the plaintiff he devised a certain house. The testator died in 1914. It appears that after his death the plaintiff's husband as well as defendant 1 and her daughters continued to live in this house. The plaintiff's husband died in 1919, and in 1929 his widow, the present plaintiff, brought a suit to recover possession of this house as her husband's heir. The defence was that the house was the property of defendant 1, acquired by her with her own money, and that Kanakaraya had no power to dispose of it by his will. The lower appellate Court has found as a fact that the house was the self acquired property of defendant 1, but has held that she must be presumed to have made her election to take the legacy given her by the will and consequently to have affirmed the devise of the house in favour of ...
Savcar U. Vaikunta Bhat Vs. K. Sarvothama Rao, Official Liquidator of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad574; (1936)70MLJ604
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question argued in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by Section 42(6) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The facts necessary for the disposal of this question may be briefly stated. The plaintiff became a member of the Rural Credit Society, Uppinangady, in 1914. His case is that he resigned his membership and withdrew his share capital in 1918; The society went into liquidation in 1923, and one Giriappa became the liquidator and he passed an order on 9th July 1925, that the plaintiff was not liable; subsequently the present liquidator Mr. Kannan Nair succeeded him and he passed an order Ex. II. on 6th December 1927 directing the plaintiff to contribute a sum of Rs. 500. To avoid coercive process, the plaintiff paid the amount and seeks a refund of the same. The plaintiff's contention is that under Section 23 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, which governs the case his liability continued only for two years from the date of his ceasin...
Manikka Mooppanar and ors. Vs. Peria Muniyandi Pandithan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad541; (1936)70MLJ724
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 20th November, 1933, affirming on appeal the Decree of the District Munsif of Srivilliputhur dated 12th April, 1933, in O.S. No. 592 of 1931, a suit to recover Rs. 325 from the defendants as commission due to him for having negotiated the sale of some lands by one Alamelu Ammal in favour of the defendant. According to the plaint, the plaintiff was looking after the family affairs of the deceased husband of Alamelu Animal for a long time and the defendants came to him and it was agreed between him and the defendants that certain lands which were going to be sold by Alamelu Ammal to satisfy her creditors should not be sold to strangers but should be sold to the defendants cheaply according to the then market price, and that for such trouble as the plaintiff took in the matter, the defendants should pay him a commission of 5 per cent, on the sale price, that in accordance with tha...
Nambiappa Muthirian and ors. Vs. Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad630; 163Ind.Cas.711
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the Judge of the Small Cause at Trichinopoly dated 17th October 1933 in 13. O.S. No. 6031 of 1932, a suit to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. The defence put forward by the defendant was as follows: There were disputes between him and his elder brother with regard to the partition of the i properties, and as the elder brother had incurred large debts which he want-ad to be treated as family debts, the defendant himself claimed that he had also incurred debts and that they should be treated as family debts too and that he accordingly executed the suit promissory note in favour 'of the plaintiff nominally and without consideration and got it allotted towards his share in the family partition, so that he might not suffer loss by taking over his elder brother's debts. In short the defence was that he executed the promissory note as a piece of evidence to conv...
Koti Viswanadham Vs. Pandiri Satyanandham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad665
ORDERBurn, J.1. It is not disputed that by executing the document Ex. 0 the petitioner has transferred the whole of his interest in the subject-matter of the appeal to a third party. It is contended for him that Order 33, Rule 5(e) has no application because there was no appeal in contemplation at the time when he executed Ex.-C. Ex.-C was executed in 1932 when the suit was pending; the decree was passed on 17th July 1934 and only thereafter the question of an appeal by this petitioner could arise. I cannot accept this reading of Order 33, Rule 5(e). There is no doubt whatever but that an appeal is now 'proposed' and that the would-be appellant has entered into an agreement under which another person has obtained an interest in the subject-matter of the appeal. The case falls precisely within the words of Rule 5(e), Order 33, and I must respectfully decline the petitioner's learned advocate's invitation to follow the ruling in Abdul Jabbar v. Sambibi 1934 Cal 740. I prefer with respect...
Koti Vishwandham Vs. Pandiri Satyanandham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1936
Reported in: 162Ind.Cas.840
ORDERBurn, J.1. This application coming on for bearing upon perusing the application and the judgment and decree of the lower Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate, for the petitioner, and of Mr. G. Chandrasekhara for Mr. G. Lakshmanna, Advocate, for the 10th respondent, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 having been replaced by the 10th respondent, the Official Receiver no notice having been taken out to the 5th respondent he having been given up, and respondents Nos. 6 to 9 not appearing in person or by pleader, the Court made the following2. It is not disputed that by executing the document Ex. C the petitioner has transferred the whole of his interest in the subject-matter of the appeal to a third parly. It is contended for him that Order XXXIII, Rule 5 (e) has no application because there was no appeal in contemplation at the time when he executed Ex. C. Exhibit 0 was executed in 1932 when the suit was pending; the decree was passed on July 17, 1934, and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›