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.
Sri Rajah Tyada Pusapati Simhadriraju Dakshinakavata Dugarajulum Garu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad357; (1937)1MLJ303
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree in a mortgage suit filed in the Court of the Agency District Judge of Vizagapatam and the only point pressed before us is one of limitation.2. This suit became necessary by reason of the rule laid down by the Privy Council in Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of Jeypore (1919) 37 M.L.J. 11 : L.R. 46 IndAp 151 : I.L.R. 42 Mad. 813 that where a mortgage comprises property situate within the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts in British India and also property situate in the Agency Tracts which are subject to the special jurisdiction of the Agent under Madras Act XXIV of 1839, the ordinary Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the suit so far as it relates to the property situate within the Agency tracts. In the present case the two mortgages executed in November, 1895 and May, 1897, respectively, comprised properties partly situate in the Vizagapatam District proper and partly in the Vizagapatam Agency. T...
Aga Mirza Nasarali Khoyee and Co. by Its Sole Proprietor, Aga Mirza Na ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.313; (1937)2MLJ131
M. Venkatasubra Rao, Kt., O.C.J.1. On the important questions of law relating to the sale of goods which this appeal raises, able arguments have been addressed to us by the Counsel on both sides. The suit has been brought for the price of certain skins sold and the defendants have counterclaimed for damages on the ground that the goods supplied do not fulfil the description in the contract. The plaintiff against whom damages have been awarded by the learned Trial Judge, has filed this appeal.2. The contract is obviously not for sale of specific goods and this has been conceded by Mr. Radhakrishnayya for the appellant. We must therefore proceed upon the footing that the sale was by description and that the contract is governed by Section 16 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act. The first question that arises is, what is the effect of the stipulation in the contract that runs:To be fair average quality of description and to be passed by Messrs. Gordon Woodroffe & Co., Ltd., Aladras, as such'....
Manavadan, Son of Kuttimbatti Thamburatti Vs. P.K. Manavadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad966
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. The suit is by a junior member of Petinharakettu 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 oases of this kind. We agree with our learned brother in his op...
K.P.K. Pattinharakettu Vs. P.K. Manavedan Alias Cheriathan Raja Averga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.112
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 Patinharakettu Tavazhi of Pudia Kovilagam for the removal of the manager 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 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 it was open to the Court, when circumstances require to appointed an interim Receiver incases of this kind. We agree with our learned brother in his opinion that, i...
Gopisetti Sanyasi Rao Dora Through His Advocate Mr. B. Jagannadha Das ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad964; 165Ind.Cas.647; (1936)71MLJ538
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the Order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Berhampore in E.A. No. 20 of 1933 in E.P. No. 100 of 1933 in O.S. No. 20 of l921. The Appellant is the judgment-debtor and the respondent, the decree-holder in O.S. No. 20 of 1921 in which the respondent obtained a decree for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per mensem. In the decree certain properties were charged with the payment of maintenance to the respondent. There were other properties charged with the payment of maintenance to the respondent's daughter but with those we are not now concerned. The judgment-debtor not having paid the maintenance, the decree-holder brought the charged property to sale and purchased it herself the purchase being said to be subject to her own maintenance charge. The judgment-debtor having again fallen into arrears in payment of the maintenance, the decree-holder again applied in E.P. No. 100 of 1933 for realisation of the arrears by arrest of the defendant and by sale o...
Yadavalli Suryanarayana Vs. Challa Viswanatham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad956; (1936)71MLJ518
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an objection raised by the appellant to the attachment of certain property in his possession in execution of the decree obtained by the plaintiff (first respondent) against the appellant and another in O.S. No. 150 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Bezwada. The appellant and one Yadavalli Venkata Narasayya were brothers and members of an undivided Hindu family. On a debt contracted by the said Venkata Narasayya as the eldest and managing member of that family on a pronote, the plaintiff instituted the said suit impleading both the brothers. In the said suit the appellant filed a written statement alleging that he went out of the family having been adopted by his paternal uncle, that by virtue of the said adoption he ceased to be a member of the joint family and therefore was not liable to the suit debt. One of the issues raised in the said case was : 'whether the 2nd defendant (appellant in ...
Valipireddy Papi Reddy (Minor) by Next Friend and Mother Ademma Vs. Va ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad841; 165Ind.Cas.669; (1936)71MLJ522
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2,648 alleged to be due for interest for 4 years on a mortgage deed dated 8th September, 1921, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is the paternal uncle of the minor plaintiff. They were both members of a joint family. In 1921 they effected a division of their joint family property and in the said division among other properties outstandings to the extent of nearly Rs. 10,000 fell to the share of the minor plaintiff. In regard to the said outstandings an arrangement seems to have been come to subsequently between the plaintiff's mother as guardian on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant. The arrangement appears to be this; the defendant should take over all the said bonds absolutely for himself and pay the minor plaintiff Rs. 10,000 within a period of 12 years in the meantime paying interest on the said sum of Rs. 10,000 at the rate of eight annas per month every year. ...
Hari Rao and anr. Vs. V.E.N.K.R.M.V.R.M. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad980; 166Ind.Cas.360
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against the preliminary decree in a suit for accounts instituted by a principal against the heirs of his agent. The only point for determination is a question of limitation. There has been some difference of opinion as to whether Article 89, Limitation Act is to be applied only to suits for accounts instituted against the agent himself and not to suits instituted against his heirs; but as in the present case the application of Article 89 to the suit is perhaps the most favourable from the defendants' point of view and as we have come to the conclusion that even under Article 89 the suit is not barred, it is unnecessary to deal with the divergence of authority as to the applicability of Article 89 to the case.2. The defendants' father H. Seshagiri Row died on 14th August 1925 and this suit was instituted on 14th August 1928. It would therefore be in time unless the agency should be held to have terminated some time before the death of H.S. It has ac...
C.V. Chelapathi Rao Naidu Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Rel ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad36; 166Ind.Cas.188; (1936)71MLJ624
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal and the connected revision petition arise out of an application under Section 80(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (I of 1925), in respect of the temple of Sri Ranganadhaswami at Hospet. In the first instance, it was claimed both before the Board and before the District Court that the temple was a private one but that part of the claim has not been pressed and the only point remaining to be determined is whether or not it falls within the definition of 'an excepted temple' in Section 9(5) of the Act.2. The learned District Judge has referred to one or two errors into which the Board had fallen when passing its order dated 21st April, 1926. As the learned District Judge has dealt with the matter fully, I do not see that anything turns upon the errors found in the Board's order. The learned District Judge has held that though the petitioner's grandfather one Mr. Chelapathi Rao Naidu was the founder (wholly or at least in part) of the temple a...
Nallamothu Venkatarayadu and ors. Vs. Juladi Subbiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad969
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application under Section 107, Government of India Act, and Articles 15 and 16, Letters Patent for calling up the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasaraopet, dated 21st November 1935 and those of the District Collector, Guntur, dated 5th December 1935, passed in connexion with the objection petition presented by the petitioners, protesting against the election of certain persons, who are shown as respondents, as members of the village panchayat of Nadendla village. These respondents do not appear. The records were called for and notice to the respondents was ordered by my learned brother Burn, J. and the matter has been argued by Mr. Govindarajachariar for the petitioners, no one appearing on the other side. The main objection taken in this application is that the Revenue Divisional Officer failed to conduct an enquiry into the objection petition by way of taking such evidence as the petitioners-might have adduced in support of their ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›