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.
Rajammal Vs. G.S. Parthasarathi Ayyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad600; 165Ind.Cas.471
Cornish, J.1. Plaintiff 1, who is the appellant here and was the appellant in the lower appellate Court, made an application for leave to appeal as a pauper. The application was presented on 10th June 1929, the last day of the period of limitation for appealing. She did not file a copy of the decree against which she sought to appeal until 3rd September 1929. The District Judge gave leave to appeal in forma pauperis on 17th December 1929, and on the same occasion the delay in presenting copies of the decree and judgment was excused. The lower appellate Court, when the appeal came on for hearing, upheld the preliminary objection that the appeal was out of time and that, inasmuch as no copy of the decree appealed from had been produced until after the expiry of the period of limitation, there was no valid presentation of the appeal.2. Undoubtedly it is a condition required by Order 41, Rule 1, Civil P.C., to the validity of an appeal that the memorandum of appeal presented by the appella...
Chinnammal Vs. Chidambara Kothanar (Since Alleged to Have Become Insan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad626; 165Ind.Cas.481; (1936)71MLJ506
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This case has had a long history. It was commenced in 1918 and what we hope is the final order, we are now pronouncing in 1936.2. Before dealing with the appeal we must advert to a certain matter that has happened. The appellant filed an affidavit and persuaded the office to treat the respondent as a lunatic without notice to his counsel on the record. Some person was appointed as his guardian ad litem, whose name was entered in the cause-list in the place of the respondent's counsel. The respondent was not a lunatic so found by inquisition and the procedure adopted, we need hardly point out, is extremely irregular. At the request of Mr. Vaidyanatha Aiyar, the respondent's counsel, we directed that his name should appear in this day's list and whether the respondent is a lunatic or not, he has now had the benefit of being represented by his counsel on the record. His guardian ad litem, we may observe, did neither appear in Court, nor was he represented.3. The que...
Sivagami Achi and ors. Vs. P.S. Subramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad978
Varadachariar, J.1. This litigation is an off shoot of certain proceedings that took place in the insolvency of one N.S. Swaminabhan Chetti, a trader of Mannargudi, who was adjudicated insolvent in October 1922. The present suit was brought by one, who may be conveniently referred to by the vilasam P.S., against certain defendants, who may be referred to by their vilasam S. A., for recovery of a sum of money which the plaintiff claimed had become repayable to him by reason of the decision of the insolvency Court in O. P. No. 46 of 1924, in the insolvency of N.S. The lower Court gave the plaintiff a decree as prayed for and hence this appeal by the defendants. To understand the question raised before us, it is necessary to state a few facts: P.S. was indebted to N.S. and N.S. was in turn indebted to S A. On the eve of the insolvency of N.S., an arrangement is said to have been come to whereby, in payment of the debt due from N.S. to S.A., P.S. was persuaded to give a promissory note in ...
Ellammal and ors. Vs. A.R. Karuppan Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad625; (1936)70MLJ688
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The short question is, which is the provision that applies to the facts - Rule 2, or Rule 3 of Order 17, Civil Procedure Code? The lower Court has held that the suit could not be deemed to have been decided ex parte, that the provision applicable therefore is Rule 3 and that the petitioners' remedy, if any, would be by way of preferring an appeal against the decree passed. Consequently the application under Order 9, Rule 13, filed upon the footing that the decree was passed ex parte, was rejected. We are clear that the lower Court's order cannot be sustained.2. On the 14th July, the first witness for the defence was examined and at the defendants' request the case was adjourned to the 30th July. On that day, two further witnesses on their behalf were examined and the case was again at their request adjourned to the 6th August. On the adjourned date, neither the defendants nor their vakil was present; another Advocate appearing on their vakil's behalf applied for ...
Rangaswami Goundan and anr. Vs. Arumugha Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad702; 163Ind.Cas.799; (1936)71MLJ296
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in these second appeals relates to the dispute between two adjacent owners of plots in regard to the right to cut the branches of an overhanging tree. It is settled law that an owner of land can cut the branches of trees which overhang on his land. But it is contended that it would make a difference if the plots were held in common ownership, and one of the plots with the trees thereon with its branches overhanging on another is sold. The main facts in this case are not in dispute. The appellants are the owners of survey No. 333. To the south of this plot is survey No. 338/2 which belongs to the respondent. Both these plots belonged to one common owner, one Roya Goundan the father of one Arunachala and the first appellant. The second appellant is the son of the first appellant. Arunachala had a son Palani. In a partition among the members of the family survey No. 333 and the western half of 338-2 were allotted among others to the appellant's branch ...
Ramanandhan Chettiar Vs. Veerappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad84; 173Ind.Cas.468
Pandrang Row, J.1. These appeals arise out of certain execution proceedings in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura, namely E.P. No. 104 of 1928, E.A. No. 436 of 1929 and E.P. No. 42 of 1931. The Substantial petition was E.P. No. 104 of 1928 in which Veerappa Chettiar and his four minor brothers were the petitioners and they sought as attaching decree-holders in O.S. No. 330 of 1911 to execute the decree in O.S. No. 153 of 1910. E.A. No. 436 of 1929 was for rateable distribution by the same petitioners and it was heard along with E.P. No. 104 of 1928 and both were disposed of by one and the same order. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the decree-holder in O.S. No. 153 of 1910 who was the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 330 of 1911 was barred or estopped from setting up the plea that the execution of the decree in O.S. No. 330 of 1911 was barred by limitation. Though as a matter of fact he found that the decree was barred by limitation he found however that, in the...
Sait Balakrishan Lal Hanuman Prasad, Firm Marwadi Co. Vs. Mandali Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad851
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the promisee of a promissory note executed in September 1930 for Rs. 600 by defendant 2, who had been given a general power of attorney by the mother of defendant 1 to carry on a business in running buses. Defendant 1 at the time the note was executed was a minor. His father had died and his mother was his guardian. The purpose recited in the note for the borrowing of the sum of Rs. 600 was that the amount was required to renew licences to be issued by the District Board in order that two buses might ply for trade. The learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur tried this claim as a Small Cause suit. Though he gives no definite findings, on the facts he is prepared to assume that the mother had a right to execute this power of attorney to defendant 2 for the conduct of the business. The learned Subordinate Judge goes on to say that if only there were some evidence of necessity, evidence that this money was really unable to be made available from ...
Sait Balakishan Lal Hanuman Prasad Firm, Marwadi and Co. Vs. Mandala V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.1064
King, J.1. The petitioner in this case is the promisee of a promissory note executed in September 1930, for Rs. 600 by the 2nd defendant, who had been given a general power-of-attorney by the mother of the 1st defendant to carry on a business in running buses. The 1st defendant at the time the note was executed was a minor. His father had died and his mother was his guardian. The purpose recited in the note for the borrowing of the sum of Rs. 600 was that the amount was required to renew licences to be issued by the District Board in order that two buses might ply for trade. The learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur tried this claim as a small cause suit. Though he gives no definite findings, on the facts he is prepared to assume that the mother had a right to execute this power-of-attorney to the 2nd defendant for the conduct of the business. The learned Subordinate Judge goes on to say that if only there were some evidence of necessity, evidence that this money was really unable to be ...
Muniappa Mudali Vs. Thangavelu Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad362; 173Ind.Cas.387
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit is for rectification of a sale deed dated 9th March 1926, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of plaintiff 1. The plaintiffs owned in house No. 50, Akkanampalayam Street, Conjeevaram, the front or street portion (50-A) and the back portion (50-C), the middle portion belonging to a dayadhi of theirs. The plaintiffs mortgaged both the portions of the house owned by them to the Pillapalayam Co-operative Society. The Society brought the mortgaged property to sale through Court. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff 1 under an arrangement with the defendant had the property purchased in the defendant's name with funds provided by him, that symbolical delivery was obtained and in spite of such delivery the plaintiffs continued in possession. On 9th March 1926 the defendant conveyed the property to the plaintiffs by a sale deed bearing the said date, but by a mistake the street portion was omitted to...
Ambalavana Pillai and ors. Vs. Gowri Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad871
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgagee's suit for sale. The appellants (defendants 1 to 4) are the sons of one Muthuvelayudham Pillai who died early in 1910, when the eldest son defendant 1 had just attained majority. It is said that Muthuvelayudham left a will whereby he appointed his wife's brother Arunachala to be the guardian of his minor sons. According to the decision of the Full Bench in Chidambara Pillai v. Rangaswami Naicker 1919 41 Mad 561 this appointment of Arunachala as guardian must be held to be invalid as the father and sons were members of a joint Hindu family and the property was ancestral. The evidence establishes that Muthu Velayudha was indebted to the extent of about Rs. 10,000 at his death and some of the creditors pressed for payment. A sum of Rs. 8,000 was accordingly borrowed in October 1910 under the suit mortgage to pay off the creditors named in the mortgage bond Ex. A. The mortgage bond was executed by defendant 1 and by Arunachala as te...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »