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.
A.P.S. Muhammad Ibrahim Vs. Allapichai Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad24
ORDERHorwill, J.1. An ex parte decree was passed against the defendant in Penang and the decree was transferred to the present plaintiff, a resident of British India. The transferee decree-holder brought a suit to enforce that decree and that suit was decreed ex parte. The defendant who was in India to celebrate his daughter's marriage, discovered that an ex parte decree had been passed; and he applied to the Court to set it aside. This the Court did. The defendant thereupon left the jurisdiction of the Court almost immediately, presumably for Penang. A written statement was filed by his power-of-attorney agent and an application made by him to examine the defendant and two witnesses on commission. The learned District Munsif permitted the examination of the witnesses on commission but not the defendant, the reason given being that the defendant was present at the time of the hearing of the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and he could easily have approached the Court and got ...
In Re: Subbia Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad788; 165Ind.Cas.330
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a case taken up in revision by Burn, J., on a perusal of the calendar and judgment in S. C. No. 49 of 1936 on the file of the Sessions Judge of Madura. In that case, one Subbia Goundan was charged with having voluntarily caused hurt to his wife Nachammal, aged 20 years, and also with culpable homicide not amounting to murder of his mother-in-law, Nagammal, aged 60 years, who died as a result of the injury received by her. The beating of the wife took place first, and when the wife's mother Nagammal went there, she received an injury and fell down and died soon afterwards. There is no need to go into the details of the evidence so far as the charge of causing hurt to the wife is concerned, for the accused was acquitted of that charge and no appeal has been filed by the Local Government from the order of acquittal. The only reference that has to be made to this charge is necessitated by the learned Sessions Judge's insistence in more than one place on what he c...
Sri Sri Sri Nandamani Ananga Bhima Deo Kesari Gajapathi Vs. Sri Madana ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.659; (1936)71MLJ604
Burn, J.1. These appeals are from the judgment of our learned brother, King, J., in Modono Mahono Deo v. Kunja Behari : AIR1935Mad786 . The facts have been set out in the judgment of our learned brother and need not be repeated here. We do not find that there is any very great difficulty in this case. The only point that arises for decision is whether the decree-holder, the appellant herein, 'applied in accordance with law' for execution when his petition, E.P. No. 1414 of 1923 and the connected petitions were presented to the District Munsiff on 20th November, 1923. The last execution petition before that had been presented in 1920 and the execution petition now under consideration was presented in 1925, and therefore it is clear that unless the application of 1923 was one made in accordance with law, Article 179 (as it then was) of the Indian Limitation Act will bar execution. Now, to begin with, E.P. No. 1414 of 1923 and the connected execution petitions are not apparently in themse...
Balasundaram Vs. Kamakshi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad958; (1936)71MLJ785
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff prays for a declaration that the mortgage dated 6th July, 1925, executed by one Rajammal in favour of the deceased husband of the first defendant is of no effect as against the plaintiff as reversioner to the estate of the deceased Papathi Ammal, mother of Rajammal, and cannot convey rights beyond the life time of Rajammal. There is also a prayer, for an injunction which is not now pressed.2. The second defendant supports the plaintiff.3. The first defendant contends that Rajammal was the absolute owner of the suit house and that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the suit property as a reversioner in the event of her death.4. The evidence in the case is somewhat scanty, but it raises certain interesting questions with reference to the devolution of property in the dancing girl caste. On the materials before me the following facts seem to be established. One Papathi Animal who died many years ago had two daughters, Rajammal and the second defendant. It...
(Firm) Ratnaji Chandanmall Vs. Kolli Ramakrishnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad95
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is one of restitution. The facts necessary for the disposal of the same may be briefly stated. Respondent 1 filed a suit O.S. No. 657 of 1928, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Repalle against one Moturi Chimpayya and others for recovery of possession of certain immoveable property and for mesne profits for the year 1927. During the pendency of that suit he applied for the appointment of a receiver and a receiver was accordingly appointed on 12th December 1929. The receiver leased the said property and deposited the amount collected by him, a sum of Rs. 451, into Court as rent for the year 1929. The said suit was ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiff. He then applied to the Court for payment of the said sum of money, but the Court took the view that since he had not prayed for future profits in his plaint, he would not be entitled to the said amount until he takes appropriate proceedings to establish his r...
Kizhedath Pappi Amma and ors. Vs. Rama Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad438; 173Ind.Cas.147
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 6 to 9 against that portion of the lower Court's decree which held the properties of the appellant's tarwad liable to satisfy the plaintiff's claim under a promissory note (Ex. A) executed by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of defendant 5 and endorsed over by him to the plaintiff. The suit was in the first instance instituted against the executants alone; but as defendant 1 was also the karnavan of the tarwad, and as the plaint alleged that the promissory note has bean executed for tarwad necessity, the plaint prayed specifically for a direction for payment of the suit debt out of the tarwad properties. Defendant 1 denied the allegation that the note was executed for tarwad necessity. It however appears to have been considered safer to have this question of tarwad necessity raised by some of the other members of the tarwad: the appellants were on their own application added as defendants 6 to 9 and they put the point of tarwad necessity d...
In Re: Annia Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad914; 165Ind.Cas.656
Stodart, J.1. Plaintiffs being undivided brothers filed this suit to set aside a sale of land effected by their mother at a time when they were minors and under her guardianship. The suit is governed by Article 44, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, and must be brought within three years of the minor's attaining majority. Plaintiff 1 is a major and the suit is within three years of his attaining his majority. The other two plaintiffs are still minors. But plaintiffs have an elder brother who was more than 21 years old at the time of the suit and the lower appellate Court, relying on Duraisami Sirumadan v. Nondisami Saluvan 1915 38 Mad 118, has held that the case is governed by Section 7, Lim. Act. After attaining his majority the eldest brother was the manager of the family. The property sold by the late guardian was joint family property. The eldest brother was therefore capable of giving a discharge without the concurrence of his younger brothers. Time ran as from the date when the eldest brother...
Arunachala thevan Vs. Madappa thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad949; 166Ind.Cas.852
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of certain properties entered into by defendant 1 with the plaintiff on 20th November 1927. Defendants 2 to 5 denied the agreement but both the Courts have found in favour of its genuineness. On 29th November 1927 defendant 1. executed a sale deed in respect of the same properties in favour of defendants 2 to 5. Hence this suit for specific performance. Defendants 2 to 5 contended that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the plaitiffs's agreement, and this point was raised by issues 2 and 3. The trial Court found against defendants 2 to 5 on both points and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate Court has reversed that decision and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Hence this appeal.2. Though at the end of para. 8 of its judgment, the lower appellate Court winds up with the words:Defendants 2 to 5 have discharged the onus of proving that they wer...
Kozhikkot Puthiya Kovilagath, Vs. P.K. Manavedan alias Cheriathan Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ629
K.S. Menon, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Pandrang Row, J., in A.A.O. No. 70 of 1936 confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dismissing an application for the appointment of an interim receiver pending disposal of O.S. No. 29 of 1935.2. The suit is by a junior member of Patinhafakettu Tavazhi of Pudia Kovilagam for the removal of the managers of the tavazhi appointed under a karar of 1914. Pending the suit this application was made for the appointment of a receiver for the management of the properties of the tavazhi. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application, holding that it was not competent for the Court to appoint an interim receiver in a case of this kind. Our learned brother Pandrang Row, J., differed from the. learned Subordinate Judge in his opinion on this point and held that it was open to the Court, when circumstances require, to appoint an interim receiver in cases of this kind. We agree with our learned brother i...
Masina Bavamma Vs. Yendru Papanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad971; 165Ind.Cas.620; (1937)1MLJ133
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that the property which is the subject-matter of the suit is her own property not liable to be attached in execution of a decree in S.C.S. No. 705 of 1931 on the file of the Sub-Court, Cocanada, obtained by the third defendant against her husband, the first defendant. It transpires that Subsequent to the passing of the decree in the said suit the first defendant was adjudicated insolvent on the 15th March, 1932 and all his property vested in the second defendant, the Official Receiver. The suit property was attached on the 13th April, 1932. The plaintiff preferred a claim under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, requesting the Court to release the property from attachment on the ground that the property is her own property as she purported to have purchased the same under a sale deed dated 10th November, 1930. The claim wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »