Chennai Court September 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.
Radhakrishna Chettiar Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad153; 166Ind.Cas.727; (1936)71MLJ823
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and the suit is for recovery of the plaint property from the respondent the purchaser in execution of the decree in S.C. Suit No. 192 of 1920 obtained by one Subramania Aiyar against Kaliammal the mother of the appellant. The appellant claims the property under the will of his father and the undisputed facts are that the father died in 1916 possessed of the plaint property and other properties situate in the villages of Mangalavaram and Sourirajanpatnam. He left him surviving his widow Kaliammal and son the appellant and after setting out the amount of his debts and charities to be conducted in perpetuity for the welfare of his soul the will directs, Kaliammal to sell the properties in Sourirajanpatnam, discharge the debts, pay Rs. 200 to a temple and invest the balance of sale proceeds in the purchase of properties. The will then provides that Kaliammal should as trustee enjoy the properties so purchased and the Mangalavaram property ...
Allavarapu Subbayya Vs. Jakka Peddayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad234
Cornish, J.1. The decree-holder is the appellant. He brought a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant 1, he being the younger brother of defendant 2. The suit was alone contested by defendant 2, but it ended in a compromise. This compromise was embodied in a decree and runs as follows:That if, out of the suit amount of Rupees 1,383-12-4, the sum of Rs. 800 is paid in two months from this date by the defendants to the plaintiff, that is, on 24th April 1933, in cash, the plaintiff shall give up the remaining suit amount and costs of the suit; that, in case the defendants fail to so pay the sum of Rs. 800 to the plaintiff on 24th April 1933, the plaintiff shall recover the suit amount or Rs. 1,383-12-4 only from the defendants from their moveable and immoveable properties in execution proceedings with execution costs and that as regards the costs in this suit, the plaintiff shall give up his costs and the defendants shall give up their costs.2. The sum of Rs. 800 was not paid on ...
The Co-operative Credit Society of Arungunam Village by Its President ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad31; (1936)71MLJ759
Cornish, J.1. The appellant is the Co-operative Credit Society of Arungunam, It obtained an award under the provisions of the Co-operative societies Act against true respondent for a sum of money. The award was made on 30th January, 1928. The application to enforce the award was made by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the Court on 15th January, 1932. The only question in this appeal is whether the application is time barred. Admittedly it is if Article 181 of the Limitation Act governs it. But the argument is that the application not being one under the Civil Procedure Code, the Limitation Act has no application. The application to enforce the award was made in accordance with the procedure laid down by Rule 14(5) of the Statutory Rules which have been framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. The particular course taken by the Registrar in the present case was under Rule 14(5)(b)lfwhich says:On application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of...
Venkataswamy Naicken, Minor by Next Friend Kaveti Naicken Vs. the Secr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ151
Cornish, J.1. The appellant, a minor, with his mother as next friend, brought a suit in forma pauperis against his father for a partition. The suit ended in a compromise whereby the suit was withdrawn. The compromise, however, provided that the next friend should pay the court-fee. The compromise was approved by the Court, but beyond that no order was made by the Court touching the payment of the court-fee. The next friend apparently has no means to pay the court-fee, and there seems some force in the suggestion that the compromise arrangement on this matter was a device to save the plaintiff from the liability.2. Order 33, Rule 11 provides that where the plaintiff fails in the suit-as he did in the present instance-the Court shall order the plaintiff, or any person added as a co-plaintiff to the suit, to pay the court-fees which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper. The Court which sanctioned the compromise having made no order under Ru...
The Co-operative Credit Society of Arungunam Vs. Chinnasawmi Udayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1936
Reported in: 167Ind.Cas.223
Cronish, J.1. The appellant is the Cooperative Credit Society of Arungunam. It obtained an award under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act against the respondent for a sum of money. The award was made on February 30, 1928. The application to enforce the award was made by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the Court on January 15, 1932. The only question in this appeal is whether the application is time barred. Admittedly it is, if Article 181 of the Limitation Act governs it. But the argument is that the application not being one under the Civil Procedure Code, the Limitation Act has no application. The application to enforce the award was made in accordance with the procedure laid down by Rule 14(5) of the Statutory Rules which have been framed under the Co-operative Societies Act. The particular course taken by the Registrar in the present case was under Rule 14(5)(b), which says:On application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the ...
Venkataswamy Naicken Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.949
Cronish, J.1. The appellant, a minor, with his mother as next friend, brought a suit in forma pauperis against his father for a partition. The suit ended in a compromise whereby the suit was withdrawn. The compromise, however, provided that the next friend should pay the court-fee. The compromise was approved by the Court, but beyond that no order was made by the Court touching the payment of the court-fee. The next friend apparently has no means to pay the court-fee, and there seems some force in the suggestion that the compromise arrangement on this matter was a device to save the plaintiff from the liability.2. Order XXXIII, Rule 11 provides that where the plaintiff fails in the suit-as he did in the present instance-the Court shall order the plaintiff, or any person added as a co-plaintiff to the suit to pay the court fee which would have been paid by the plaintiff if he had not been permitted to sue as a pauper. The Court which sanctioned the compromise having made no order under ...
Goteti Bayyapparaju Sarma and ors. Vs. Tadanki Subba Lakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-21-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad193
Venkataramana Rao, J1. The main question in this second appeal is whether the plaintiffs who are the auction-purchasers of a house in execution of a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 91 of 1923 on the file of the Sub-Court, Narasaraopet are entitled to eject the defendant who claims a right of residence in a portion of the said house. The plaintiff's father obtained a mortgage on 19th April 1911 of the said house from the son of the defendant. On 23rd February 1913, the defendant appears to have obtained a document from her son in and by which among other things she was entitled to reside in the eastern portion of the said house during the period of her natural life. The suit on the mortgage was instituted long thereafter and the decree was obtained on 6th May 1924. The defendant was not a party to the said suit. When the plaintiffs sought to take possession of the house they were obstructed by the defendant. To remove the said obstruction the plaintiffs filed an application Under Order 21, ...
Delli Venkatarama Dass Pantulu Vs. Nippani Venkataramanayya Pantulu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad109; (1936)71MLJ747
1. In our opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct. We cannot agree with Mr. B.V. Ramanarasu that the question in dispute was res judicata. The learned Advocate admits that there was no express adjudication, and in the face of the learned District Judge's order dated 21st April, 1931, it is impossible to hold that the doctrine of constructive res judicata can be applied.2. Mr. B.V. Ramanarasu's next contention is that the judgment-debtors are estopped by their own conduct in entering into an agreement with him for payment of interest, from denying their liability to interest. He relies on Subramania Pillai v. Corera (1924) 48 M.L.J. 121 and the Privy Council cases cited therein. But in all those cases there was a security bond in favour of the Court, an order of the Court accepting or sanctioning the arrangement made between parties out of Court, or at the least there was no denial, and no possibility of denial of the fact of the agreement. Here the agreement itsel...
The Salem Municipality by Its Commissioner Vs. S.G. Bakthavatsalu Naid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ770
Cornish, J.1. The petitioner is the Salem Municipality. On account of some arrears of tax the Municipality distrained a cart belonging to the respondent. The distraint was made on 16th April, 1934. This distraint was declared illegal in some proceedings before a Magistrate on 7th July, 1934, and the cart was returned to the respondent on 7th November, 1934. The respondent brought a suit to recover damages for illegal distress. He gave notice of the suit on 18th October, 1934, and the plaint was filed on 18th January, 1935. The question is whether the suit is or is not barred by Section 350 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The lower Court held that it was not barred, and that the respondent was entitled to damages.2. Section 350 enacts that no suit for damages shall be instituted against a Municipal Council in respect of any act done in pursuance of the Act until the expiration of one month after a notice has been delivered at the Municipal Office stating the cause of action, ...
Commissioner, Salem Municipality Vs. S.G. Bakthavatsalu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad117
ORDERCornish, J.1. The petitioner is the Salem Municipality. On account of some arrears of tax the Municipality distrained a cart belonging to the respondent. The distraint was made on 16th April 1934. This distraint was declared illegal in some proceedings before a Magistrate on 7th July 1934, and the cart was returned to the respondent on 7th November 1934. The respondent brought a suit to recover damages for illegal distress. He gave notice of the suit on 18th October 1934, and the plaint was filed on 18th January 1935. The question is whether the suit is or is not barred by Section 350, Madras District Municipalities Act. The lower Court held that it was not barred, and that the respondent was entitled to damages.2. Section 350 enacts that no suit for damages shall be instituted against a Municipal Council in respect of any act done in pursuance of the act until the expiration of one month after a notice has been delivered at the Municipal Office stating the cause of action, the re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »