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.
Eliyangattail 4th Sree Kanda Rajah Vs. Kununi Tharayil Ammu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad12; 168Ind.Cas.315
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of South Malabar, dated October 20, 1932, in A.S. No. 507 of 1931 allowing the appeal with costs. The appeal was preferred by one Ammu from the order of the District Munsif of Ponnani, dated June 18, 1931, in E.A. No. 1658 of 1930 in O.S. No. 50 of 1927. Ammu was the mortgagee from the original kanom tenant Moidu and he instituted a suit on the mortgage (O.S. No. 50 of 1927), and brought the mortgaged property to sale and purchased it himself. Delivery was obstructed by several persons and one of them is the appellant here. The present appeal relates to a portion of the mortgaged property. The appellant obtained his title from one Gjpala Menon who in turn got it in Court sale of the rights of one Karunakara Menon who had obtained an assignment from the widow of Moidu acting on her own behalf and also as guardian of her minor children under Ex. E. The District Munsif dismissed the petition of Ammu, that is respond...
G.V. Muthusami Chetty Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras as the Assig ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ289
1. Part of the property of one S.A. Ananthanaryana Chetty consisted of two stables in Madura. These stables were usufructuarily mortgaged by him to his son-in-law on 11th April, 1923. On 11th February, 1925, S.A. Ananthanarayana Chetti was adjudicated insolvent. In March, 1931, the Official Assignee applied under Section 55 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act to have the mortgage deed set aside and an order was duly passed in his favour in February, 1932. Having thus had the mortgage deed annulled the Official Assignee made a further application under Sections 7 and 36 of the Act in December, 1934, to call upon the mortgagee to account for the rents and profits which he had received from the mortgaged property. Our learned brother Mockett, J., who heard this application has held under Section 7 that the mortgagee is liable to account for the whole of the rents and profits which he has received since the mortgage was effected. Against this order the mortgagee appeals, contending in h...
Kammula Venkataramayya and anr. Vs. Yillapani Pullayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ458
1. This second Appeal has been referred to a Bench by Venkataramana Rao, J., because the views expressed by Coutts-Trotter, C.J., in Kamayya v. Mamayya (1916) 32 M.L.J. 484 and Subbaraya Chetty v. Subbaraya Chetty (1926) 24 L.W. 500 and with Ramesam, J., in Ramaswami Naicker v. Alamelu Ammal (1923) 46 M.L.J. 298 and by Abdur Rahim, J., in Suryanaraya Nayakaram v. Butchalah Naidu (1916) 1 M.W.N. 107, appear to be in conflict with the other decisions of this High Court and of the Privy Council in Petherperumal Chetty v. Muniandy Servai (1908) 18 M.L.J. 277 : L.R. 35 Cal. 551 and other cases.2. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was one instituted by a minor plaintiff by his father and next friend and his brother for recovery of possession of the suit lands which were conveyed in the name of their deceased mother Bangaramma by her father, the first defendant. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The sale deed in question is dated 11th October, 1916. The def...
Moravaneni Veerayya and ors. Vs. Sree Raja Bommadevara Venkata Bhashya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad887
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree which directed them to hand over possession to the plaintiff of the suit lands and pay mesne profits. The defendants' right to possession rests upon Ex. K, a patta dated 31st October 1923, granted to them by the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff contends that the suit lands have been allotted to him at a partition between himself and his father and that the patta whereby, after the preliminary decree in the partition suit, the father has granted permanent occupancy rights to the defendants in what till then were homefarm lands of the estate is not binding on him. It is therefore necessary to investigate the circumstances under which this patta was granted. Plaintiff's father was the zamindar of South Vellore and in 1920 a suit for partition was instituted against the father by the plaintiff's mother acting as next friend. Allegations of gross mismanagement were made against the father and were more than justified....
K. Anantharam Singh and anr. Vs. Marwadi Thara Chand and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad634
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The execution petition, which has given rise to this pre sent appeal, is the sequel of the decision of the High Court reported in Kesar Singh v. Secretary of State 1926 49 Mad 652. The properties originally belonged to one Anantharama Singh who died in 1865, and on his death they devolved upon his widow Ramabhoi. She died in the year 1900 and a dispute then arose as to who became entitled to Anantharama Singh's estate. The Government claimed it on the ground of escheat. One Kesar Singh put forward a claim, alleging first that he had been adopted by Ramabhoi, and secondly, that he was a heritable bandhu of Anantharama Singh. In the suit filed by the Government for possession (O.S. No. 11 of 1920) Kesar Singh was impleaded and he was the main contesting defendant. Several others also were added as defendants and of them we are at present concerned with, defendants 24 and 25, by name Gomaji and Tara Chand respectively. They held a usufructuary mortgage created in th...
Meddukuri Peda Jogarao Vs. Yenugu Chinnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad853; (1936)71MLJ301
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada dated 13th March, 1933, allowing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram dated 7th December, 1931, in E.A. No. 642 of 1931, an application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, for removal of obstruction caused by the respondents and for delivery of the property on the ground that the respondents had purchased the property pendente lite from the first defendant in O.S. No. 278 of 1919, the first petitioner being the plaintiff therein. The transfer, in question was dated 30th April, 1919, whereas the suit (O.S. No. 278) was instituted on 24th March, 1919, as an application for leave to sue as a pauper.2. The sole question that is argued in this appeal is that the transfer in question (Ex. II) was not a transfer during the pendency of O.S. No. 278 because, though the application for leave to sue as a pauper was filed prior to the transfer, nevertheless the appl...
Ragireddi Subbarao Vs. Ragireddi Subbarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ419
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for partition of the suit land of about 6 acres 10 cents in extent and recovery of one-third share therein with mesne profits. The first plaintiff is the son of the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff, the first defendant's father, late Narayanasami and the second defendant were brothers and formed members of an undivided Hindu family. The family was in possession of considerable property. In December, 1916, the brothers effected a partition and the properties which fell to each were being enjoyed by the respective branches ever since the said date. It is alleged in the plaint that at the said partition the suit land which is a cocoanut garden was not divided but was reserved for a future partition, that the first defendant is in possession of the same wrongfully refusing to effect a partition and delivery of the same on the ground that his father got the same as and for his jyeshtabagam at the partition between his brothers and that the allotm...
Vaikuntam Pillai and anr. Vs. Avudiappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad127
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/12th share in the suit properties. Defendant 1 is the father of the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 are the brothers of the plaintiff and also the sons of defendant 1. Defendant 6 is the brother of defendant 1, and defendant 7 is the son of defendant 6. The claim was resisted by defendants 6 and 7 mostly on the ground that there was a division in the family 18 years before the suit, and that the properties in Schedule 2 and some other plaint mentioned properties belonged to defendant 6 solely as his self acquisition. Both the lower Courts concurrently found against the case of defendant 6. They came to the conclusion that the parties constituted a joint family on the date of the institution of the suit. It was also found that the properties comprised in Schedule 2 were also joint family properties. They mainly consisted of outstandings which were advanced either out of the income from family ...
K. Santha and ors. Vs. Subbiah Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1936
Reported in: (1987)1MLJ366
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The petitioners are the landladies. They are the owners of the building which is the subject matter of these eviction proceedings. They filed a petition under Section (2)(ii) and (iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises on the ground that he had committed acts of waste on the building. The petitioners' case was that one Chandravadanammal the mother of the petitioners, during her lifetime, some time in 1963 leased the premises to the respondent. According to the petitioners, originally the leased premises consisted of a house and a car shed on the western side and later, the shed on the eastern side also was leased to him. The main ground on which eviction is prayed for was that the house portion of the premises was leased for residential purposes and only the shed portions were given for non-residential purposes. However, without the consent of the landladies the respondent has con...
Mudenur Nagappa Vs. Firm of Bhagavanji Rasaji by Its Partners
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad593; (1936)71MLJ378
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. These appeals raise the question of the extent of the authority of a partner to bind by his acts the partnership of which he is a member. A firm by name Bhagvanji Rasaji consisting of seven partners obtained a decree for about Rs. 4,000. Two persons (i) Sakalchand (ii) Nagappa putting forward rival claims to the decree in question applied to the Lower Court for its execution as transferee decree-holders. Sakalchand alleged an assignment in his favour dated 8th September, 1932 by Jasraj one of the seven partners; Nagappa's claim was based on a similar assignment made on 24th September, 1932 by another partner Jovarmul Bhagvanji. The learned District Judge having rejected both the applications, the assignees have filed? the appeals in question.2. The assignment in favour of Sakalchand was for Rs. 1,300 and that in favour of Nagappa for Rs. 1,701. It is not alleged that either of the sums has been brought into the partnership assets for the common benefit of the par...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »