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.
Palaniandi Pillai and anr. Vs. Rosappa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.458
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 XXI, 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 cut of the property in the schedule annexed to the plaint filed by him. The properties were owned by the 3rd defendant from whom the 1st defendant purchased; and he in turn sold them to 2nd 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. Tending the suit the said properties appear to have been purchased by the, appellants from the 2nd 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 made an app...
Ellappa Naiker and ors. Vs. Sivasubramania Maniagaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ607
Varadachariar, J.1. These petitions ask for the revision of two orders passed by the District Collector of Tinnevelly, in petitions presented to him under Section 205 of the Estates Land Act, against the orders of the Sub-Collector passed on two applications under Section 131 of the Estates Land Act.2. The applications to the Sub-Collector purported to be made on behalf of a mortgagee of the holding, a portion whereof had been sold for arrears of rent. An objection was raised before the Sub-Collector that the applications should not be treated as properly presented, because Subbayya Naidu who purported to present the petitions was not an agent of the mortgagee in the sense contemplated by Sections 36 and 37 of the old Civil Procedure Code, corresponding to Rules 1 and 2 of Order 3 of the present Code. The Sub-Collector however treated that objection as not fatal; but, on the merits, he was of opinion that as deposed to by the Village Officers who had been examined as witnesses on the c...
T. Sivasankaram Pillai and anr. Vs. Taluk Board of Penukonda and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad945
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. The Revision Petitions arise out of two small cause suits filed for the recovery of two sums alleged to be due to the plaintiff-it is in substance a claim for reimbursement under an arrangement agreed to by the Taluk Board of Penukonda to pay the plaintiff the expenses incurred by him in certain contemplated proceedings. The lower Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The District Munsif dismissed the suits on two preliminary grounds, both of which turn on the construction of Section 225, Local Boards Act. The provision for notice in that section as well as the enactment of a shorter period of limitation are coextensive except as regards suits for immoveable property. If the suit is not one of the kind contemplated by Section 225, the decision of the lower Court must be held to be erroneous on both the grounds viz., that of maintainability without notice and that of limitation. The distinction between the cases in which notice is necessary under Secti...
T. Sivasankaram Pillai and anr. Vs. Taluk Board of Penukonda
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.478
Varadachariar, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of two small cause suits tiled for the recovery of two sums alleged to be clue to the plaintiffs--it is in substance a claim for reimbursement under an arrangement agreed to by the Taluk Board of Penukonda to pay the plaintiff the expenses incurred by him in certain contemplated proceedings. The lower Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The District Munsif dismissed the suits on two preliminary grounds, both of which turn on the construction of Section 225 of the Local Boards Act. The provision for notice in that section as well as the enactment of a shorter period of limitation are co-extensive except as regards suits for immovable property. If the suit is not one of the kind contemplated by Section 225, the decision of the lower Court must be held to be ' erroneous on both the grounds, viz., that of maintainability without notice and that of limitation.2. The distinction between the cases in which notice is necessary ...
Ellappa Naicker and ors. Vs. Sivasubramania Maniagaran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad293; 169Ind.Cas.244
Varadhachariar, J.1. These petitions ask for the revision of two orders passed by the District Collector of Time velly, in petitions presented to him under Section 203 of the Estates Land Act, against the orders of the Sub-Collector passed on two applications under Section 131 of the Estates Land Act.2. The applications to the Sub-Collector purported to be made on behalf of a mortgagee of the holding, a portion whereof had been sold for arrears of rent. An objection was raised before the Sub-Collector that the applications should not be treated as properly presented, because Subbayya Naidu who purported to present the petitions was not an agent of the mortgagee in the sense contemplated by Sections 36 and 37 of the old Civil Procedure Code, corresponding to Rules and 2 of Order III of the present Code. The Sub Collector, however, treated that objection as not fatal; but on the merits, he was of opinion that as deposed by the village officers who had been examined as witnesses on the co...
Magham Chinna Subbaroyudu and ors. Vs. Vangala Narasimha Reddi and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad939; 166Ind.Cas.750
ORDERCornish, J.1. I do not agree with the Munsif that an acknowledgment within Section 19, Limitation Act, must contain a promise to pay or amount to a promise to pay. That view is contrary to Peri Ramasami v. Chandra Kottayya 1925 47 MLJ 840. Nor do I agree with the Munsif that an acknowledgment of the correctness of an account requires a stamp to be valid. It depends on whether the acknowledgment is one within the Stamp Act; and I think the reasons given in Nagappa Chetty v. V.A.A.R. Firm : AIR1925Mad1215 , that an acknowledgment which is merely intended to acknowledge the correctness of an account is not one requiring a stamp, are applicable to the acknowledgment in this case. But I think that the lower Court's decision can be supported on the facts given in the evidence. Plaintiff said that the dealings were with defendants 1 and 2, but in cross-examination he admitted that defendant 1 alone received the money paid in those dealings and that the account stood only in his name. The...
Vijiathammal Vs. M. Kadir Sultan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad27; 158Ind.Cas.242; (1937)1MLJ23
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the Judgment of Varadachariar, J., dated 12th March, 1935, in S.A. No. 482 of 1931. The plaintiff who is the appellant sued to recover a sum of Rs. 1,000 with interest thereon and her case was that that amount was deposited by her with the firm of defendants 1 and 2 at Negapatam on 21st November, 1924, the actual payment having been made to the third defendant who was then the local agent of the firm of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 denied that the firm was bound by the transaction which the agent had no power to enter into on their behalf and it was also contended that the transaction was not entered in the books of the firm and the firm did not get the benefit of the money in question. In other words they disclaimed their liability altogether. The plaintiff had asked for a decree in the alternative against the third defendant in case she was not able to establish the liability of defendants 1 and 2. In the trial Court t...
R.M.P.R.A.P.R. Kasi Chettiar Alias Perichiappa Chettiar Vs. V.A.L.V. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad176; 165Ind.Cas.1006; (1937)2MLJ165
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce the charge created by a security bond (Ex. H) dated 1st May, 1925, executed by one Lakshmanan Chettiar, the uncle of the defendant, to secure repayment of moneys due on dealings that had gone on for some years between Lakshmanan Chettiar and the plaintiff. The plaint stated generally in paragraph 2 that Lakshmanan Chettiar died without issue leaving no other heir except the defendant and that the defendant has succeeded to and has been enjoying the properties of the deceased Lakshmanan Chettiar as his heir. The defendant contended that he and Lakshmanan Chettiar were members of an undivided Hindu family, that, of the two items included in the security bond, item I was the self-acquisition of his father and could not therefore be subjected to a charge by Lakshmanan Chettiar, that item II was the joint property of the two branches to the extent of one-third and that the security bond could accordingly bind only Laksh...
Vjijiathammal Vs. M. Kadir Sultan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.831
1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Varadachariar, J., dated March 12, 1935, in S.A. No. 482 of 1931. The plaintiff who is the appellant sued to recover a sum of Rs. 1,000 with interest thereon and her case was that that amount was deposited by her with the firm of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 at Negapatam on November 21, 1924, the actual payment having been made to the 3rd defendant who was then the local agent of the firm of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 denied that the firm was bound by the transaction which the agent had no power to enter into on their behalf and it was also contended that the transaction was not entered in the books of the firm and the firm did not get the benefit of the money in question, in other words they disclaimed their liability altogether. The plaintiff had asked for a decree in the alternative against the 3rd defendant in case she was not able to establish the liability of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the trial Court there...
Marudakonar and anr. Vs. Veerammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1936
Reported in: 168Ind.Cas.402; (1937)2MLJ17
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff who, as assignee of the rights of one Rangaswami Naidu under the suit mortgage bond Ex. A, sued to recover from the defendants and from the mortgaged properties a sum of Rs. 8,000.2. The plaint followed the lines suggested by the assignment deed, as to the nature of the plaintiff's claim. Rangaswami Naidu had been conducting a kuri chit with 18 members and it was expected that the chit will run for 18 years. The first defendant Veerammal was one of the subscribers to that chit and was holding 1 1/2 tickets in respect of which Rs. 750 was payable per annum at the rate of Rs. 500 per chit. In the first auction held on November 11, 1921, the first defendant became the successful bidder. As per the rules of the kuri chit she was willing to bid at a discount of more than Rs. 5,600 per ticket, with the result that out of the Rs. 9,000 which constituted the collection for the first year she received only Rs. 3,374 per chit or Rs. 5,0151 f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »