Chennai Court April 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.
Kuppuswamy and anr. Vs. Rasappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad865
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 7 and 8 on whose behalf the suit properties had been purchased from defendant 1 by a sale-deed dated 15th November 1928. The suit was instituted for recovery of two sums of money from defendant 1 and by sale of the suit properties and defendants 7 and 8 were impleaded as subsequent purchasers. In respect of one item, namely, a sum of Rs. 2,500, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled thereto under a mortgage-deed, Ex. A dated 20th September 1921, executed by defendant 1 in favour of the plaintiff. In respect of the other sum, the plaintiff claimed that according to the terms of a release deed which formed part of the settlement of accounts between himself and defendant 1 in respect of a partnership business carried on by them, defendant 1 had undertaken the liability to pay off certain debts but on account of his default the plaintiff was obliged to pay the same and that according to the terms of that arrangement he was entitled to...
Municipal Council Vs. Nidamarti Jaladurga Prasadarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad857
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of two Small Cause suits on the file of the Sub-Court, Rajahmundry, wherein the plaintiff claimed refund of certain taxes from the Municipal Council of Rajahmundry on the ground that they had been illegally levied. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the plaintiff's claim to a certain extent and dismissed it in respect of other portions of the claim; hence these revision petitions filed by both parties.2. Questions have been raised with reference to three items of taxes: (1) Education tax, (2) profession tax and (3) property tax. As regards education tax the learned Judge held that the levy was unauthorised because an education fund had not been constituted in the first instance as contemplated by Section 32, Elementary Education Act of 1920. The evidence adduced before the lower Court showed that a resolution had been passed by the Municipal Council on 30th October 1922, for the levy of an elementary education tax at the rat...
S.E. Makudam Mohammad Vs. T.V. Mohammad Sheik Abdul Qadir and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1936
Reported in: 164Ind.Cas.611
1. This is an appeal from the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly, dated February 20, 1934, reversing in appeal the decree, of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly dated January 27, 1933 in O.S. No. 279 of 1931 and remanding that suit for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by him. The suit was one for a declaration of the plaintiff's exclusive title to a house and for cancellation of the entry of the 2nd defendant's name in the house-tax payment register of the Union Board as the joint owner of the house along with the plaintiff and also for a mandatory injunction directing the President of the Union Board, the 1st defendant, to strike off the 2nd defendant's name from the register.2. The really contesting defendant was the 2nd defendant who denied the title of the plaintiff. A number of issues were framed by the trial Court but after all the evidence had been taken, both parties made an endorsement on the plaint to the effect that if with the key prod...
Thotapalle Sarvabhatla Venkata Chandikamba Vs. Kanala Indrakanti Viswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ264
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this Second Appeal is whether the suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Cade. The facts necessary for the disposal of this question may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is the widow of one Krishnayya. The said Krishnayya was adopted by one Venkatasubbamma to her husband under an authority given to her by a will. Before adoption she seems to have entered into an arrangement with the adopted son in and by which the adopted boy should have absolute right in some of the properties of her husband and she should enjoy the rest of his properties during her lifetime. The adopted son died without leaving any issue. As during the lifetime of the plaintiff's husband the adoptive mother was managing the estate and she declined to put the plaintiff in possession of the properties after his death, the plaintiff instituted a suit O.S. No. 23 of 1920 on the file of the sub-Court, Kurnool through her father as next friend, she being then a mirfor, for...
R.T. Kesavuloo Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad613; 163Ind.Cas.354; (1936)71MLJ336
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from an order allowing execution. The execution petition with which we are concerned, was filed on 15th January, 1934. The question is whether or not it was barred by limitation. The judgment-debtor attacks the view of the lower Court that it was filed in time.2. The decree was passed on 24th January, 1922 and nine execution petitions preceded the present petition. The petitions and the orders made thereon are given below:1. E.P. Filed on 1-2-1922 Order D/23-2-1922'Batta not paid. Dismissed'.2. E.P. Filed on 3-3-1922 Order D/11-3-1922praying for the 'Transfer'.transfer of the decree to the Madras SmallCause Court.3. E.P. Dated 29-4-1924. Order D/30-4-1924'Returned' (for satisfying cer-tain conditions).4. E.P. Filed on 24-10-1924. Order D/30-10-1924'Returned' (for satisfying cer-tain conditions).5. E.P. Filed on 8-4-1926. Order 12-4-1926'Returned' (for satisfying cer-tain conditions).6. E.P. Filed on 3-9-1926. Order D/7-9-1926'Returned' (for sati...
Chattoh Govindan Vs. Kunnoth Kunnappu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ514
ORDER1. With regard to the amount directed to be paid by the respondents to the appellant, the respondents are at liberty to set off Rs. 82-5-6 (being the balance of the costs of the two lower Courts payable to them by the appellant after giving credit for Rs. 25 due to the appellant for costs in C.M.P. No. 876 of 1933 on the file of the High Court), and the balance alone need be deposited by the respondents....
Kuppuswami Aiyar and ors. Vs. Sabapathy Pathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad943; (1937)2MLJ24
1. This second appeal raises limitation. The main facts are not in dispute. 3 and the father of the second plaintiff sold the suit property to one Chidambara Pathan and his brother Vaithyalinga Pathan, by a sale-deed dated the 16th October, 1911, and as on the said date the second plaintiff was a minor, a sum of Rs. 800 was retained with the vendees to be paid either on the second plaintiff attaining majority or on the vendors giving security. On the said date a mortgage-deed was executed by both Vaithyalinga Pathan and Chidambara Pathan in favour of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff for Rs. 800 securing that amount. The recital as regards payment under the said mortgage is to this effect:We will pay you the said sum of Rs. 800 without any objection together with interest at 11 as. per cent, per mensem at any time whenever you demand us to pay after giving security for the sum.2. On the 19th December, 1915, the vendees appear to have usuf ructuarily mortgaged t...
Chathoth Govindan Vs. Kunnoth Kuntappu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad917; 165Ind.Cas.592
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to recover possession of a house from the defendants. The plaintiff and his deceased brother Kanari were members of a tarwad. At the intance of the plaintiff a sum of Rs 100 was borrowed on the security of a mortgage of the suit house by both Kanari and the plaintiff by a deed of mortgage dated August 1, 1923 (Ex. A). The said sum of Rs. 100 was borrowed solely for the purpose of the plaintiff. On the said date an arrangement appears to have been come to between both the brothers which was embodied in a document, Ex. I bearing the said date. It is styled a settlement deed. In and by the said deed the plaintiff agreed to forego all his interest in the said property in favour of his brother Kanari in case he failed to discharge the said mortgage debt within a period of two years from the said date. The deed also provides that at the end of the said two years the said Kanari will hold the property absolutely free from all claims by t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›