Chennai Court July 1936 Judgments
Mutturi Suryanarayanamurty Vs. Karumuri Nagachandramowli
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad842; 165Ind.Cas.741; (1936)71MLJ497
Horwill, J.1. The District Judge of Kistna received an application from the petitioner to appeal in forma pauperis. Without considering whether or not there was any substance in the appeal he issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the petitioner should not be permitted to appeal in forma pauperis. The respondent appeared through a pleader and contended that there was no substance in the appeal and that it should, therefore, be dismissed, whether in fact the petitioner was a pauper or not. Apparently the question was then raised whether a that stage the Judge could hear the respondent's pleader on this point. The District Judge held that his previous Order issuing notice to the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be admitted in forma pauperis before he had considered the question as to whether there was any substance in the appeal was a wrong one. He therefore rescinded it and heard the pleaders on the question as to whether there was substance in the appeal. H...
Tag this Judgment!A.M.A.M.R. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Palani Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad948; 165Ind.Cas.664; (1936)71MLJ541
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. Sinna Goundan and his three sons were members of an undivided Hindu family. The respondent in this case filed a suit against the father, Sinna Goundan alone and obtained an attachment before judgment of the entire joint family property belonging to him and sons. He subsequently obtained a decree on the 12th July, 1933. Five months after he obtained the said decree, the father was adjudicated insolvent on or about the 11th November, 1933. Subsequent to the Order of adjudication the petitioner with the leave of the Insolvency Court filed a suit against the father and the sons and obtained an attachment before judgment of the sons' shares alone in the joint family property on the 4th February, 1934. Subsequently he got a decree on the 21st March, 1934. Then he filed an application for execution on the 31st July, 1934, to sell the sons' shares in the suit property and on the 19th March, 1935 the sale proceeds were realised in execution and deposited into Court. Mean...
Tag this Judgment!Mullangi Ramayya and ors. Vs. Thondapu Bapanamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.153; (1936)71MLJ700
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Varadachariar in Second Appeal No. 338 of 1931. The facts have been clearly set out in the judgments of the lower Courts and in the judgment of our learned brother and need not be repeated. Mr. Ch. Raghava Rao for the appellants who were the plaintiffs in the suit has contended again before us that the surrender by Sitamma in favour of her daughter's son now deceased who was the husband of the first defendant was invalid. This is put upon two grounds. In the first place, it is said that the surrender was only partial because the deed of surrender executed by Sitamma, Ex. 1, did not contain Survey No. 345, an item of land got in exchange by Gangaraju himself before he died. Ex. 1 contains Survey No. 260/3-A which was the survey number given up by Gangaraju when he obtained Survey No. 345 in exchange. Since one item of the estate of the husband was not surrendered by the widow, it is contended that the surrender as a whole was...
Tag this Judgment!Addepalli Lakshmanaswamy Vs. Gadireddi Narasimha Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad223; (1937)1MLJ414
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree on a promissory note (Ex. A) admittedly executed by him in favour of a Marwari firm of Rajahmundry for Rs. 3,250. The defence on the merits is framed in very general terms in issue No. 1, vis., 'was the pro-note executed under the circumstances mentioned in the written statement and is it void?' The question has been argued before us under various aspects. One of the pleas put forward by the defendant was that the pro-note was executed nominally. The learned Judge rightly observes that on the defendant's own showing it is difficult to understand this plea. The substance of the defence, however, is that the execution of this note is so connected with certain transactions between that Marwari firm and one G. Krishnamurthi, a merchant of Rajahmundry, that the defendant should be held to have incurred no liability whatever except to see that Krishnamurthi paid up his dues to the Marwari firm or that the transaction was...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswami Pillai Vs. Manikka Moopan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad990; 166Ind.Cas.670
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an application to enforce the terms of a security bond given by respondent 2 in the course of an interlocutory proceeding in the suit. The suit itself was for a permanent in-junction by the plaintiff against defendant 1 restraining him from interfering with the possession of the property. Immediately after filing the said suit he filed an application for a temporary injunction requesting the Court to restrain defendant 1 from interfering with his possession during the pendency of the suit, and when the application came on for hearing the parties seem to have entered into an agreement in and by which defendant 1 was to be in possession of the land in dispute during the pendency of the suit and he should, in case the plaintiff's title to the property is declared, pay him the profits of the said land.2. It was also stipulated among other terms that for the fulfilment of this obligation defendant 1 must also furni...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Yahia and Amaturrub Ghousunnissa Begum Alias Amir Begum
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.297; (1936)71MLJ430
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the aster granting protection in insolvency. The appellant is a Lohammadan wife whose husband has been required by a magisterial order under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to pay her maintenance. The maintenance has not been paid regularly and it was in respect of the debt for arrears of maintenance that the protection order in insolvency was granted.2. It is argued for the appellant that such arrears do not constitute a debt provable in insolvency with reference to Section 46 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. There is nothing in the terms of Section 46 which very obviously excludes such a debt. The exclusion of the debt could only be by virtue of its being not a 'debt or liability, certain or contingent, to use the words of Sub-Section (3) of the section. There is express authority in a very old Calcutta case, Tokee Bibee v. Abdool Khan I.L.R (1879) 5 Cal. 536 for the view that arrears of maintenance under a magi...
Tag this Judgment!Ariyaputra Nadalwan and ors. Vs. Nachimuthu Malavarayan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad918; 165Ind.Cas.560; (1936)71MLJ488
Cornish, J.1. The sole question argued in this second Appeal relates to the construction of a document marked as Ex. B in the case. Is it a transfer of property or is it merely a release deed? It is described as a release deed, but one must look at its substance and not its form. It was executed by the reversioner of a widow one month after that widow's death and after the succession to the property covered by the deed had fallen to the reversioner. It happened that during the widow's lifetime and while she was still in the ownership of her limited estate in the property the reversioner had executed a sale deed of it for Rs. 2,000 in favour of the respondent. This sale vas inoperative by virtue of Section 6(a), Transfer of Property Act. This transaction is however referred to in the later deed Ex. B, and the reference has in my opinion an important bearing on the construction which Ex. B must receive. The document recites the sale of the property to the respondent during the widow's li...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›