Chennai Court August 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.
Muthayyan Swaminatha Sastrial and ors. Vs. S. Narayanaswami Sastrial a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad936
ORDERMenon, J.1. This is an application to revise-the order of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, dated 24th January 1935, in C. M. A. No. 15 of 34, setting aside an order of the District Munsif of Valangiman, returning the plaint in-; O.S. No. 6 of 34 for presentation to the proper Court.2. The suit was for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 9 from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint properties. It was alleged that the properties were Samudayam properties owned by the mirasdars of the village, that plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant 10 were appointed as managers for the properties, that the other plaintiffs were lessees under those managers and that defendants 2 to 9 were interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. The defendants denied those allegations and contended that plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendant 10 were not appointed managers in respect of those properties. The learned District Munsif, holding that the suit was in eff...
G.T.S. Abdul Latiff Sahib Vs. T.V. Kuppuswami Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad946
Horwill, J.1. Defendant 1 was a shareholder and director of the plaintiff Bank, and in enjoyment of one of the privileges of -membership he borrowed from the Bank a sum of Rs. 3,000. Afterwards, in-order to avail himself of an amendment of the rules permitting the borrowing of money among subscribers of the shares, this sum was divided into three loans of Rs. 1,500, Rs. 1,200 and Rs. 300. According to the terms of the bond, he was to pay interest of Rs. 18-12-0 every month and to repay the principal within a year. As a member of the Society he had also to pay Rs. 30 a month towards his 30 shares. Up to May 1924, the monthly payments were regularly made; but from June onwards the plaintiff Bank appropriated a sufficient sum from other accounts to meet the interest due on these mortgage bonds and monthly subscriptions.2. In this suit on the mortgage bond, the question that arises is whether the appropriation towards interest came within the mischief of Section 20, Lim. Act, and so saved ...
In Re: Abdul Gani Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.387; (1936)71MLJ536
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a jail appeal in which notice has been ordered to issue by my brother Burn, J., on the ground that the sentence appeared to be excessive. The appellant was convicted as a result of the unanimous verdict of the jury to the effect that he was guilty of theft, after a trial conducted before the Sessions Judge of South Arcot. The charge to the jury is vitiated by a defect in the definition of the offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge omitted to tell the jury that it was only a dishonest retention or receipt of stolen property that constituted the offence. He charged the jury in the following terms:If a person receives or retains stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, then he is said to commit an offence punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code.2. Vide para. 2 of the charge. In paragraph 8, in dealing with the presumption arising from recent possession of stolen property not a...
M.R.M. Ramaswami Chettiar Alias M.T.T.V.M. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. M.T ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ641
Horwill, J.1. The facts as found by the lower appellate Court were that the father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff after him have been in possession of the suit property since the date of the agreement, Ex. D, under which, on the face of the document, the suit property was conveyed to the plaintiff's father for a consideration of Rs. 2,000 paid on a hundi. That part of Ex. D which deals with this property contains a further agreement that if Muthu Veeran, the father of the plaintiff, requires any document or power, etc., therefor, the defendants' grandfather should without delay have the same completed whenever required at the cost of the plaintiff's father. The learned Subordinate Judge found, in agreement with the trial Court, that this agreement in Ex. D ought not to be specifically performed, because of the laches of the plaintiff and his father, who have taken no steps during the course of 21 years to get this document executed, because of the changes in the possession of the p...
Sri Emberumanar Jeer Swamigal Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.256; (1936)71MLJ588
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ calling for the records in M.A. No. 4 of 1935 and the connected proceedings in M.A. No. 9 of 1935 with the orders passed thereon by the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras and to quash the order passed by the Board in M.A. No. 9 of 1935. The order in question runs as follows:The petitioners (Appalwar Pakshiraja Iyengar and others) are entitled to 9th theertham and 9th place in the distribution of honours as claimed by them in Sri Athinathar Alwar Temple, Alwarthirunagiri, Tiruchendur Taluk, Tinnevelly District.2. The trustee of Sri Athinathar Alwar Temple, Alwarthirunagiri, Tiruchendur Taluk, Tinnevelly District, is hereby directed to observe the order of distribution of theertham as stated above in supersession of the directions given in Board's Order No. 277 dated 12th May, 1927.3. This order shall not in any way affect the Board's Order No. 277 dated 12th May, 1927 regarding distribution...
Durjati Subbayya Vs. Anantaraju Nagayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad951; 166Ind.Cas.75; (1936)71MLJ619
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant who seeks to defeat the claims of the plaintiffs as reversioners to the estate of one Sundararamiah, by setting himself up as the adopted son of Sundararamiah. Sundararamiah admittedly died on the 5th March, 1878, and it is not denied that he died of cholera. It is the appellant's case that just before his death he orally authorised his wife to take a boy in adoption and that the first defendant who is the son of a cousin of Sundararamiah was accordingly adopted by the widow about a year after Sundararamiah's death.2. This alleged adoption was the subject of adjudication in a suit for declaration instituted by the first plaintiff and his brothers so long ago as in 1883. (O.S. No. 877 of 1883.) In that litigation, the Court of first instance upheld the adoption; but, on appeal, the lower appellate Court held that the adoption was invalid as not authorised by Sundararamiah or consented to by the sapindas. This decision was conf...
Brithichand Sowcar Vs. Fatima Bi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad954
Gentle, J.1. This is an appeal by way of a Civil Revision Petition against the decision of the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, in which he fixed the rent payable by the person who is occupying the superstructure erected on a piece of land. The application before him was made under S. V, Madras City Tenants' Protection Act. The original tenant was occupying the land only and, as I understand it, erected on the land a superstructure which covered the entire land; then he was the occupier of the land and the superstructure. He mortgaged to the petitioner in this revision petition the superstructure alone, and either the mortgagee or some person deriving title from him is now the occupier of that superstructure and in fact also must be the occupier of the land. Section 2(a) of the Act to which I have referred defines 'land' and says: ' Land' does not include buildings.' On behalf of the petitioner it has been argued before me that since the mortgagee was only the ...
R. Kesavalu Naidu Vs. T. Jayaganapathi Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad940
ORDERHorwill, J.1. These are disputes between the successors of two puisne mortgagees, each having obtained a decree without making the other a party. One Srinivasalu Naidu was appointed a receiver in his suit and was allowed to remain in possession as such until his death. After his death, the other mortgagees, through whom the respondents claim, put in a petition for possession and the petition was granted ex parte. The present petitioners, the successors in interest of Srinivasalu Naidu, thereupon filed applications under Order 21, Rule 100, complaining of the dispossession and setting forth their right to retain possession. After enquiry an order was passed confirming the previous order and dismissing the petitions. A preliminary objection has been taken here as to the maintainability of the petitions. I have no doubt from the authorities quoted to me, e.g., Seetaramayya v. Subramanian 1935 58 Mad 936, Birj Mohan Thakoor v. Uma Nath Choudhury (1892) 19 IA 154, Sundaram v. Mamsa Mav...
Palaniyandi Pillai and anr. Vs. Rasappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad173; (1937)2MLJ108
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether an application for restitution made by the appellants for recovery of a sum of money deposited by them into Court for setting aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sustainable. The plaintiff-respondent in this appeal filed a suit O.S. No. 440 of 1917 to recover a certain annuity from and out of the property in the Schedule annexed to the plaint filed by him. The properties were owned by the third defendant from whom the first defendant purchased; and he in turn sold them to the second defendant. A decree was passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing among other things payment of the amount by sale of the properties Pending the suit the said properties appear to have been purchased by the appellants from the second defendant. In consequence of the said decree in the above suit the properties were brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff-decree-holder. The appellant ...
A. Krishnaswami Iyengar and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad962
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the father of the appellants, a shrotriamdar of Thiruvenkaranai village, for inter alia a declaration that he is entitled to irrigate survey Nos. 414 and 417 of Kannavakan village with water of the channel C D leading from the Tenneri tank to his adjacent shrotriam land of Thiruvenkaranai village, and for recovery of the amount levied as penal assessment, and the sole question for determination is whether by reason of his being a shrotriamdar of Thiruvenkaranai village which is entitled to 6/100ths of the water of the Tenneri tank, and the channel C D ending in his adjoining shrotriam land, of Thiruvenkaranai, the plaintiff is entitled to use the water from the channel C D free of charge for irrigating the plaint lands.2. The plaint lands are ryotwari wet lands of Kannavakam village registered under the Kannavakam tank, and as found by the Courts below they were being irrigated with water from the Kannavakam tank, till their purch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »