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.
Raja K.J. Venkatapathi Nayani Varu, Raja of Kangundi Vs. Rani Puttamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.314; (1936)71MLJ499
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance. The defendant is the Zamindar of Kangundi and the plaintiff is his third wife (the first and the second being dead).2. It is common ground that in or about May, 1929, when the plaintiff was pregnant, the defendant took her to Bangalore and arranged for her staying in a bungalow there belonging to the Kangundi estate. In the course of this suit, the defendant tried to make it appear that the plaintiff preferred to stay away at Bangalore. We are unable to accept that suggestion. The correspondence that has been exhibited in this case and particularly the defendant's reply (Ex. A-1) make it clear that it was by reason of the defendant's resolve that the plantiff had to stay alone at Bangalore.3. What exactly are the circumstances which led the defendant to come to that resolve is left in some obscurity. It appears that some time before taking this lady to Bangalore the defendant has for reasons of his own been arranging...
Adivikolanu Chakrapani Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Rajah Venkatadri Appa Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad303; 173Ind.Cas.307
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises the question of the right of the plaintiff to resume certain service inam lands in the possession of the defendants in the village of Adivikolanu in the Baharzalli Pargana of the Nidadavolu estate which originally formed part of the ancient Nuzvid Zamindari. The ground of resumption was that in or about 1852 the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title granted these lands to the defendants' predecessor-in-title who were karnams of the village and who were doing personal and private services to the proprietors of the estate. Money salaries were provided for the karnams in the place of emoluments annexed to their office by putting into operation the provisions of Act 2 of 1894, and as the services have been dispensed with by the plaintiff he was entitled to resume the lands. The main question in this case is whether the suit lands were service inam lands, and when they were granted and for what purpose. The learned District Munsif who tried the s...
Rakka Kudumban Vs. Arulayi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad228
Cornish, J.1. I think that this appeal must be allowed, upon the additional ground of appeal which has been filed, namely that the decision of the trial Court upon the plaintiff's title to and possession of the property was res judicata and not open to revision or reversal by the appellate Court. The plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff claimed to have title to and to be in possession of the suit land. His suit was decreed in the trial Court, and defendants 1 and 2 were restrained by injunction from interfering with his enjoyment of the same. Defendant 1, who claimed title to the land by purchase from defendant 2, and who had no other basis of title, appealed. Unfortunately, he neglected to make defendant 2 a respondent to the appeal. The result is, I think, that the decision against defendant 2 having become a final decision, operated as a bar to defendant 1's attempt to re-open that decision. This is the principle to be derived from the Privy Council ruling in V.P.R.V. Chokkaling...
Munshi Mohammad Abdul Aziz Vs. Gulam Julani
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad709
Cornish, J.1. The appellant was plaintiff in the suit, O.S. No. 251 of 1926, for a declaration of his right of way from a doorway in his premises over the defendant's adjacent yard marked Y on the plan, and for the removal of an obstruction by the defendant to that right of way. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. On appeal objection was taken that his claim was barred by operation of Section 11, Expln. IV, Civil P.C. As a result of an issue framed by the District Judge on this point, the trial Court found, and this finding has been accepted by the District Judge, that plaintiff's claim to an easement could and should have been raised by him in the previous suit between the parties, and that his failure to then raise it, is a bar to his setting it up in the present suit. The suit ha! accordingly been dismissed. In that previous suit, O.S. No. 496 of 1923, the position of the parties was reversed. The present defendant was then the plaintiff and he sued for a declaration of his sol...
Venkoba Sah and anr. Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad967
1. These appeals relate to certain items of property, which admittedly on 15th October 1914, formed part of the joint family property of two undivided brothers, Sundara and Ekambara Pandaram. On that day Sundara Panda-ram who was on his death bed executed what he calls a 'will' (Ex. A), in which certain provisions were made for his wife, Ranganayaki, in the event of her being unwilling to live on with her brother-in-law; and for his infant daughter Pattammal, to take effect at the time of her marriage. This will was attested by Ekambara, amongst other ' attestors, and subsequently registered by him. Ekambara however some years later executed a mortgage in favour of two Chetties, including in the security items of property set apart in the will for the maintenance of Ranganayaki and the marriage portion of Pattammal. The mortgagees obtained a decree on the mortgage and their rights as decree-holders were subsequently purchased in insolvency proceedings by one Venku Sah. The question now...
Narayani and ors. Vs. P. Sankunni Mannadiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad861; 165Ind.Cas.690; (1936)71MLJ545
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question in this second appeal is whether an ex parte decree in O.S. No. 134 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court at Palghat obtained by the second defendant against the third and fourth defendants and the first plaintiff is binding on the plaintiffs and the tavazhi to which they belong. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the fourth defendant are daughters of the third defendant; the third plaintiff is the daughter of the fourth defendant. They form members of a tavazhi, the third defendant being its manager. The suit property belongs in Jenm to the first and second defendants who are members of a tarwad. In 1912 the management of the tarwad was vested in one Ravunni Mannadiar since deceased and the second defendant. They gave a kanom demise of the said property by a deed dated 14th October, 1912, to one Ananthakrishna Pattar who assigned his interest to the tavazhi of the plaintiffs by an assignment deed dated 24th February; 1916. The parties to...
S. Muthuswami Maniagaran Vs. P.E.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar Firm
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad1
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The suit is upon a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,000 on the 1st August 1929. Defendant 3 is the son of defendant 1. The father of defendant 3 died on 8th May 1923, leaving behind him a widow who is defendant 1 and a minor son defendant 3 herein and two unmarried daughters. The properties left by the father were managed by defendant 1 as defendant 3's guardian. In 1926 she purported to execute a power of attorney in favour of defendant 2 authorising him to manage the estate on her behalf. On the 27th September 1927 both defendants 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 from the plaintiff on a promissory note Ex. A-l bearing the said date. The said promissory note runs as follows :Promissory note executed on 27th September 1927, in favour of P.A.R.M. Annamalai Chettiar A vergal by us both jointly, viz., (1) Kamakshi Ammal, wife of Nithyananda Muthuswami Moniyagarar, residing at Puthayakudi, Ayakudi Zamin, Palni Ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›