Chennai Court May 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.
Annamalai Pathar Vs. Sri-la-sri Vythilinga Pandara Sannadhi Avergal an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad295
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a suit for recovery of possession of the suit site and the value of trees alleged to have been cut and removed by the servants of defendant 1. The suit property is Town Survey No. 726 in Mayavaram town and forms part of the village Abisheka Kattalai which belongs to the temple of Sri Mayuranathaswami whereof defendant 1 is the trustee, defendant 2, being alleged to be a lessee under him. The pymash numbers of the said site are 1234 and 1235. The entry relating to No. 1235 in the pymash account shows that a portion thereof was in the occupation of one Samu Mudali who was described as Kasavargam Samu Mudali. The learned District Munsif inferred from this that in 1829 Samu Mudali was occupying a portion of Pymash No. 1235, as a Kasavargam tenant of the temple and the learned District Judge also concurs with the District Munsif. But in or about 1837 Samu Mudali purported to sell half of both Pymash Nos. 1234 and 1235 as absolute owner by a deed of sale dated...
C.V. Ramachandra Ayyar Vs. N.V. Sivaram Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad895
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, dated 15th April 1935 in an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Madura town dated 17th July 1933 in O.S. No. 270 of 1932, a suit for the recovery of the amount due to the plaintiff on a mortgage bond by sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage was executed by defendants 1 and 2 who were carrying on trade in partnership. As the plaint recites defendants 1 and 2 incurred debts in the course of that trade and owed to various persons various amounts and as a result of an arrangement between the creditors and the debtors a mortgage, Ex. A, was executed by them on 26th November 1925 in favour of the creditors including the plaintiffs. The plaintiff alleges that his share of the mortgage money was 'fixed at Rs. 1,100. The total amount of the mortgage was Rs 19,950. Subsequently defendants 1 and 2 were adjudged insolvents and the Official Receiver was impleaded as defendant 11. Defendants 4...
Venkoba Sah and anr. Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ454
1. These appeals relate to certain items of property which, admittedly on the 15th October, 1914, formed part of the joint family property of two undivided brothers, Sundara and Ekambara Pandaram. On that day Sundara Pandaram 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 the 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 questi...
Kotireddi Kotareddi Vs. Koonam Sivarama Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad916; 166Ind.Cas.535; (1936)71MLJ639
K.S. Menon, J.1. The first contention in this appeal is that the defendant must be deemed to have admitted the title set up by the plaintiff. Paragraph 4 of the written statement is relied on for this purpose. No doubt, the defendant pleads a subsequent exchange between him and the plaintiff to explain his possession. But in paragraphs 2 and 8, it is specifically alleged that if the exchange set up by him is not accepted, the plaintiff has to prove his title to evict. Further in both the Courts below, it was not even suggested that the defendant had admitted the plaintiff's title. There is therefore no force in this contention.2. It is next urged that, though the exchange under which the plaintiff is alleged to have obtained title to the property in dispute was in 1926, still as the trespass by the defendant was on 3rd September, 1930, that is, after the date on which Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act came into force, namely (1st April, 1930), the defendant is estopped from ...
Secretary of State Vs. V.M. Meyyappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad241
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to be assessed to income-tax on the income received by him from his business in Saigon and for recovery of tax levied from him for the years 1929-30 and 1930-31. Issue 1 in the case raised the question whether the suit was not barred by Section 67, Income-tax Act 11 of 1922. Dealing with this point as a preliminary issue, the District Munsif dismissed the suit as barred by that section. The lower appellate Court was of opinion that the suit would be maintainable if the assessment was ultra vires or had been made without jurisdiction. In view of the allegations in the plaint, it held that the Court must decide on evidence whether the plaintiff was permanently residing in French territory, as, in that case, any income there received by the plaintiff from the Saigon business would not be income assessable under the Act. It recorded as concession by the plaintiff's vakil that issue 6 in ...
Official Assignee Vs. Trustees of Port Trust
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad789; 166Ind.Cas.427
1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mockett, J. in the Insolvency Court. The facts leading up to this appeal need only be stated very briefly. C. K. Narayana Iyer & Sons, the insolvents, were dealers in groundnuts on a very large scale. They purchased groundnuts largely in the mofussil and these were consigned to them in Madras sometimes by their vendors and sometimes by themselves. Railway receipts were, in accordance with the railway practice, issued in respect of those groundnuts. On arrival in Madras the groundnuts came into the charge of the Port Trust. It is a general rule that these should not be handed over to the consignees without the production of the railway receipts but under Section 57 of the Indian Railways Act the Port Trust can hand over the goods to the consignee after taking an indemnity bond. At that time the insolvents used to pledge the railway receipts as security for advances made to them by some of the Madras banks and it has since been held by the Privy Co...
In Re: Kondapalli Ayyappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad913; 166Ind.Cas.550
ORDERMockett, J.1. In the Small Cause suit, which is now the subject of this Civil Revision Petition, the plaintiff sued the defendant on a promissory note. The Court delivered the following judgment:1. Suit for Rs. 140 due on a pronote dated 19th July 1932 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 100 payable with interest at 131/2 per cent per annum. 2. Defendant 1 contested that he is not liable for a sum of Rs. 70. 3. I believe the discharge. Decree for plaintiff with proportionate costs for Rs. 70. Suit for Rs. 70 is dismissed with costs.2. The petitioner's advocate contends that this judgment doss not conform to the provisions of Order 20, Rule 4, Civil P.C. which says:Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.3. He says that no reasons are given for believing the discharge and there is no discussion of any evidence. Rule 4, does not require that either the reasons for arriving at a conclusion ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›