Chennai Court August 1936 Judgments
T. Syed Pitchai Rowther and ors. Vs. K. Devaji Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad21; 166Ind.Cas.777; (1936)71MLJ611
Horwill, J.1. From time immemorial there has existed a temple known as the Muthalamman temple on the village site of Ganguvaripatti in the Periyakulam Taluk and in comparitively recent years the Mohammadans of the village have erected a mosque a short distance away. In order to avoid friction between the two communities certain executive orders have been passed; but apparently there has been no trouble. The temple is situated in an unoccupied part of the village site and the worshippers of the temple have always congregated there on festival days for worship. Adjoining the mosque to the east is a pound, which was granted to the Mohammadans on the express understanding that they should not build over it and to the east of the pound is a plot that once* belonged to one Venkatachalam Chetti, who sold it in 1914 to the mosque. The Hindus now seek to restrain the Mohammadans from interfering with the worship and, in particular, from opening doors on the southern side of the plot recently pu...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliappa Nadalwar and ors. Vs. P. Pl. Pl. Ramaswami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad955; 166Ind.Cas.69; (1936)71MLJ656
Cornish, J.1. The appellant was petitioner under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to have his title to certain property sold to him by the insolvent declared. The facts, which must be taken as found, are that on 30th March, 1926, the petitioner acquired by purchase for Rs. 6,000, the property from the insolvent, the property being sold to satisfy the claims of the mortgagee of the property. On 18th October, 1928, the insolvent filed his insolvency petition and was adjudged insolvent on 18th April, 1929. There can be no dispute, and there is none, that the sale to the petitioner was unimpeachable under the Insolvency Act, and that his title to the property was absolute against the Official Receiver. Nevertheless, the Official Receiver purported to sell the equity of redemption upon the property to second respondent for Rs. 200. The petitioner put his claim to the property before the Official Receiver, but that officer dismissed it as belated. Hence, the petition under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kantheeswaram Ekanathalingaswami Koil Through Its Trustee M. Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.9; (1936)71MLJ677
ORDERM. Venkatasubba Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The Officiating Chief Justice.--The plaintiff omitted to claim in his plaint future mesne profits and subsequently applied for permission to amend his plaint by including a claim for such profits. The lower Court, which passed a decree in his favour for possession, rejected that application. Against the decree for possession, the defendants filed an appeal in this Court and in the memorandum of objections which the plaintiff filed, a claim was again put forward here to future mesne profits. Two questions have been argued and they arise in this way. The plaintiff contended that on his memorandum of objections no Court-fee was payable, as the claim which he preferred in appeal in this Court could not in principle differ from any claim he might have put forward in the Court of First Instance. This contention was overruled by Mr. White, the then Taxing Officer who held that an ad valorem Court-fee was payable on the amount claimed. Two ques...
Tag this Judgment!Kotamreddi Subba Reddi Vs. Perumareddi Venkatanarasimharreddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad266; (1936)71MLJ804
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the District Judge of Nellore refusing to receive a plaint.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies and it is conceded that no appeal lies. A revision petition has been filed and I therefore propose to deal with the said petition.3. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 8,131-13-0 upon a promissory note executed by defendants 1, 5 and 8 in favour of the plaintiff and also for a declaration that a certain mortgage executed by the eighth defendant in favour of the ninth defendant is void and not binding upon the creditors of the family of defendants 1 to 8. On the last date of limitation, that is, on the 24th February, 1934, the plaintiff appeared to have gone to the office of his pleader and asked him to prepare a plaint and file the same in Court that day. It was about 12 noon when he saw his pleader. The Court-fee leviable on the plaint is a sum of Rs. 710-12-0. It seems that the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Anumolu Narayana Rao, Minor and anr. by their Mother and Guardian Anum ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ543
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for money, instituted by the indorsee of a promissory note (Ex. A) dated 8th August, 1925, for Rs. 5,000 executed in favour of the 4th defendant by one A.Venkatarayudu deceased (hereinafter referred to as A.V.). The endorsement purports to have been made on 2nd July, 1926, in consideration of the plaintiff undertaking to pay off the debt due by the 4th defendant to one G. Venkatarayudu (hereinafter referred to as G.V.) under Ex. B, a pronote dated 2nd August, 1924, for Rs. 4,000. It is common ground that after the suit note was endorsed to the plaintiff, a notice was sent through D.W. 4, a vakil of Guntur, demanding payment of the money, and that A.V. sent a reply stating that the pronote was devoid of consideration. The reply notice is not now forthcoming and it is therefore not possible to say nor is D.W. 4 able to remember what more was stated in it as to the circumstances under which and the purpose for which the note was execute...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Mariamman Koil Devasthanam Through Its Managing Trustee S. Ramaswa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad103; 166Ind.Cas.169; (1936)71MLJ594
ORDERK.S. Menon, J.1. This is an application to issue a writ of certiorari to the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board, to call for the records in connection with their proceedings dated 1st August, 1935, and to quash the same. The petitioner is the managing trustee of Sri Mariamman Koil Devasthanam. By an order dated 17th July, 1934, he was removed from the office of trustee by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board. The petitioner questioned the correctness of the order and applied for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order in C.M.P. No. 3053 of 1934, and this Court held that that order of the Board was ultra vires and directed the Board to pay the petitioner Rs. 200 for his costs. The Board appears to have paid the amount of costs. On 1st August, 1935, the Board, acting under Section 70 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board Act, assessed the amount of costs and expenses incurred by them in connection with the said proceedings at Rs. 560-14-0 and m...
Tag this Judgment!M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar Firm by Partner M.S.A. Subramania Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad991; 165Ind.Cas.939; (1936)71MLJ663
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an application to revise an order of the District Munsif of Vellore, dated 30th March, 1936, dismissing an application of the plaintiff to amend the plaint and to treat the suit as having been instituted on 25th September, 1933 or on 28th March, 1936, the date of the application for amendment.2. The plaintiff in this suit is a firm. When the defendant raised the objection that as the firm was not registered the suit was liable to be dismissed in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, the plaintiff got the firm registered and applied for the amendment of the plaint as mentioned above. The lower Court dismissed the application holding that by the amendment the defect which existed at the time of the institution of the suit could not be rectified and that the suit could not be treated as having been instituted on the date of the petition for amendment; hence this petition.3. It is not disputed - and indeed it is clear that the suit as ...
Tag this Judgment!A.Pr.L.M.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar Vs. K. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ707
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This miscellaneous second appeal raises a question as to the effect of an annulment in regard to the share of the insolvent who was at the moment of adjudication a member of a Joint undivided Hindu family. The insolvent one Raghava Aiyangar and his brother the first defendant were undivided brothers of a joint family owning certain immovable property. In 1922 the said Raghava Aiyangar was adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court. Subsequent to his adjudication and before obtaining the order of discharge he appeared to have borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of money on a promissory note. He died thereafter. Subsequent to his death the plaintiff filed in or about 1930 O.S. No. 1098 of 1929 on the said promissory note against the first defendant, and his sons, defendants 2 and 3, and also the fourth defendant who was the widow of the said Raghava Aiyangar. A decree was passed in the said suit against the defendants for the amount claimed by the plaintiff payable ...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Ramanathan and anr. Vs. Sp. Rm. R.M. Meyyappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.70; (1937)1MLJ36
1. The mere absence of a guardian ad litem is not by itself a sufficient cause for allowing an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. Vide Peda Satyam v. Krishnamurthy : AIR1935Mad435 , where it is pointed out that a guardian ad litem may have perfectly good reason for refusing to put forward a defence on behalf of a minor. We may observe that there is another class of cases, of which this appears to be an instance. It is quite possible for a guardian ad litem knowing that the minor has no defence to the suit, to protract and delay the proceedings by all the varied devises which are commonly practised. When these are exhausted, a further stratagem is to allow a decree to be passed ex parte and then apply to have it set aside, and prefer an appeal from the order refusing to set aside. All these proceedings are very inexpensive and they cause delays which are as vexatious as they are lengthy.2. In this case, we are not satisfied that the guardian has betrayed the inter...
Tag this Judgment!Palaparthi Ramamurthi Vs. Palaparthi Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad19
Horwill, J.1. The questions arising in this second appeal are whether Ex. 7 is a relevant document rightly admitted in evidence by the. lower Courts and whether the lower appellate Court was right in, admitting Ex. 14 series to show that Ex. 7 was a genuine document. The trial Court, because the wording of Ex. 7 did not accord very well with its other findings and because it did not bear the postal; seal of the Nizam's State from which it purported to have been sent, declared it to be a spurious document. The reasons given by the District Munsif for declaring it spurious were very inadequate and on the face of the document it bears its own proof of genuineness. The lower appellate Court would therefore have failed in its duty if it had not admitted other letters issued from the Nizam's State to show that such letters do not necessarily bear the Hydera bad State seal. The defendants had no reason to believe that the genuineness of Ex. 7 would be doubted and they could not therefore have...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »