Chennai Court March 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.
Periakaruppa Pillai Vs. (Minor) Satyanarayanamoorthi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad136
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for redemption of a mortgage. One Muthayya Thevar mortgaged items 1 to 6 of the plaint schedule with one Krishna Iyengar who in his turn mortgaged items 1 to 7 in respect whereof he had the mortgage right and item 7 which belonged to him absolutely to the defendant under a deed of mortgage dated 7th June 1904. At a rent sale the plaintiff purchased a portion of item 3 and took symbolical delivery of the same subject to the mortgage in favour of the defendant. Then the plaintiff called upon the defendant to take a proportionate amount of the mortgage or allow him to redeem the entire mortgage (by payment of the entire mortgage amount). The defendant declined to accede to either of the courses suggested by the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff filed O.P. No. 28 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Ramnad and deposited a sum of Rs. 600, the amount which according to him was payable under the deed of mortgage in favour of the defendant an...
Palani Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Kaveri Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad551; 166Ind.Cas.385
ORDERCornish, J.1. This Revision Petition raises a question of the Presidency Small Cause Court's jurisdiction.2. The petitioner-plaintiffs having unsuccessfully claimed certain moveables attached by order of the City Civil Court instituted a suit in that Court to establish their right to the property in dispute. This was in pursuance of the power given by Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code. The plaint was returned by the Court. I have some difficulty in understanding the reason; but apparently the learned Judge of the City Civil Court took the view that since the Full Bench in Rajammal v. Narayanasami Naicker 1915 39 Mad 219 had ruled that the Small Cause Court was competent to entertain such a suit, that Court was the proper Court to which the plaint should be presented. I may observe in passing that what the Full Bench decided in the particular case was that a suit by an unsuccessful party in claim proceedings in the Small Cause Court to recover property attached by order of that Court i...
Balakrishnan and ors. Vs. Chittoor Bank and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad937; 167Ind.Cas.706
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals arise out of O.S. Mos. 17 and 39 of 1931, on. the die of the Sub-Court of Palghat. Some of the questions raised in these suits have already been dealt with by us in the judgment delivered by us in Appeals Nos. 253 and 350 of 1933. The present appeals have been preferred by defendants Nos. 7 to 9 in these suits. They are the sons of defendant No. 5 who joined as a surety in the promissory notes which gave rise to these suits. Defendant No. 5 has been held liable for the debts; the appellants contend that as these debts were not borrowed for any necessity of their family, the family property should not be held liable for the discharge of the debts. The lower Court applied the rule of the Hindu Law and held that as the debts are not illegal or immoral, the son's shares in the family property are liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the father's debt, independently of any question of family necessity. We may mention that in the first instance the...
Krishnaswami Gounden Vs. Palani Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.223
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The father of the minors in question made a will describing the appellant before us as his executor. The minors' mother presented a petition in the lower Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, that the appellant was not merely the executor but also the minors testamentary guardian, and prayed for his removal as such guardian and for appointment of herself in his stead. The lower Court made an order imposing certain conditions on the appellant in regard to the discharge of his duties as guardian and directing him to furnish security for an amount which has been specified. The correctness of this order has been impeached before us.2. Though the learned Judge does not say under what provisions of law he has acted, the respondent's Counsel seeks to justify the order by reference to Sections 43. Guardians and Wards Act. But that section enables a Court to regulate by its order the conduct of guardian either appointed or declared by the Court. That leads us to the qu...
Bava C. Vaithilinga Mudaliar Vs. the Board of Control, Sri Thyagarajas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad581; 165Ind.Cas.820; (1936)71MLJ87
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the provisions in a scheme decree are executable. I have repeatedly held that they are not, but as in two cases decided by Ramesam, J., and my learned brother a different view has been expressed, I have considered the matter carefully and anxiously in the light of the long and learned arguments which have been addressed to us. The difficulty in my opinion, arises from the different view-points as regards the meaning and scope of what is generally termed a scheme suit. As I observed in Ranganatha Thathachariar v. Krishnaswami Thathachariari decided by Oldfield, J., and myself, what the plaintiff in a scheme suit prays for is a scheme and when the decree frames a scheme, there remains nothing further to obtain by way of execution. I distinguish there the other classes of suits from scheme suits in this respect. In a money suit, for example, the successful plaintiff obtains a decree for money, that is to say, a decree di...
Muthan Chettiar and anr. Vs. Venkituswami Naicken
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad819; (1936)71MLJ170
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These appeals raise a question of some importance as to the scope and effect of Sections 51 and 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The facts may be briefly stated. The decree in question was obtained on 7th March, 1933, and the property was attached in due course. Subsequently on 1 lth August, 1934, the judgment-debtors presented a petition for being adjudicated insolvents. An interim receiver was appointed and on 3rd September, 1934, he was directed to take possession of the insolvents' property. In the meantime the executing Court had directed the attached property to be sold. The date fixed for sale was 26th September, 1934. On that date the interim receiver and one of the insolvent judgment-debtors presented to the executing Court an application under Section 52, which, though strictly not in conformity with that section, we are prepared to treat as falling within it. On the 26th September, 1934, the learned Subordinate Judge (Mr. Krishna Nambiyar) made an ...
Devabhaktuni Sithamahalakshmamma Vs. Pamulapati Kotayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad825; (1936)71MLJ259
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in these second appeals is as regards the power of a father to make a gift of a portion of joint family immoveable property in favour of his daughter or daughter's daughter. The plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 1185, 1187 and 1188 of 1926, out of which second appeals 217, 220 and 218 respectively arise, are the sisters of the second defendant, and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1186 of 1926 is the daughter of another sister of the second defendant. The second defendant is the son of one Gavani Ramaswami. The said Ramaswami and his son Gopala Rao and the second defendant were members of an undivided Hindu family. On the 26th August, 1925, the said Ramaswami executed 4 deeds of gift in favour of the plaintiffs in the said suits giving them each about 2 acres of wet land and put them in possession of the same. The first defendant is a creditor who obtained a decree against the second defendant in O.S. No. 373 of 1925 on the file of the Additional District Mun...
M. Subbayya thevar, Zamindar of Uttumalai Vs. Sivagnana Marudappa Pand ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad828; (1936)71MLJ568
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant who has been directed by the decree of the lower Court to pay certain sums of money to the plaintiff, his son, towards maintenance. The plaintiff is an adult and is not under the Hindu Law ordinarily entitled to enforce payment of maintenance as a 'personal' obligation of the father. Where the father is in possession of joint family property, the adult son is entitled to be maintained from out of the income of the joint family property but it is doubtful if he can maintain a suit for maintenance against the father when he could as well sue for partition. Where the property in the father's possession is impartible the son would not, even if the impartible estate be joint family property, be entitled to sue for partition and in such cases a suit for maintenance has been permitted.2. In the present case the plaint proceeded on the footing that the defendant was in possession of the Uttumalai Zamindari in some character other than that...
The Official Assignee of Madras Representing the Estate of R. Kasi Vis ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad785; 165Ind.Cas.301; (1936)71MLJ250
1. One Visvanadha Mudaliar, now deceased, a dealer in tobacco and the 1st defendant who is also doing business in tobacco purchased goods from him and eventually on account of such dealings and of a promissory note for Rs. 2450 on the 20th September, 1928 there was a sum of Rs. 6323-13-10 owing to Visvanadha Mudaliar on a balance of accounts. According to the account books of Visvanadha Mudaliar there was on the 20th September 1928 a settlement of accounts and a promissory note for the before-mentioned amount was executed by the 1st defendant in favour of Visvanadha Mudaliar payable on demand. It is necessary to mention also that the 2nd and 3rd defendants were trustees appointed by Visvanadha Mudaliar under a deed of trust dated 23rd August, 1928, under which Visvanadha Mudaliar himself and the 2nd and 3rd defendants were to be trustees of this business for the purpose of realising the assets and outstand-ings of it. After this deed of trust the 2nd and 3rd defendants enterted into po...
Kandaswami Mudaliar Vs. thevammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad848; 165Ind.Cas.225; (1937)2MLJ54
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit is upon a promissory note dated 27th June, 1923. The question is whether it is barred by limitation. On the 27th March, 1926, a payment of Rs. 85 towards interest was made on the back of the note and on the 23rd July, 1928, a promissory note (Ex. B) was executed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 200. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the said promissory note was towards a portion of the interest due under Ex. A. It has been found concurrently by both the lower Courts that the said promissory note was executed only towards interest due under Ex. A and therefore the suit claim is not barred by limitation and decreed the plaintiff's claim. In second appeal it is contended for the defendant that the view of the lower Courts is wrong. It is urged before me by Mr. Periasami Gounder that the suit promissory note, Ex. B, does not refer to the suit debt at all but purports to be for cash received and that it does not appear from the note that the said sum of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »