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.
Kizhakkepati Thavazhi Tarwad Karnavan and Manager, Narayanan Nair Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad520
Horwill, J.1. The appellant and one Karthiyayini Amma, a lady of his tarwad, executed a kanom kychit in favour of defendants 9 and 10; and the appellant, as the karnavan of the tarwad, brought this suit for the redemption of the prior mortgages. The suit was decreed by the District Munsif of Walluvanad but in appeal the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam has given three reasons why the suit should not be decreed. The first is that the suit was premature, in that it was brought before the expiration of the period of the mortgage. The second is that the suit is not maintainable without Karthiyayani Amma's heirs being made parties to the suit, as the kychit was executed by her and the plaintiff jointly and not by the tarwad as represented by them. The third objection to the plaintiff's suit is that he has not asked to be allowed to redeem the whole of the property mortgaged. In appeal all these points have been argued, except that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the kanom ky...
Kazakkepati Thavazhi Tharwad Karnavan and Manager Cheroti Amma's Son N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1936
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.242
Horwill, J.1. The appellant and one Karthiyayini Amma, a lady of this Tarwad executed a kanom kychit in favour of the 9 oh and 10th defendants; and the appellant, as the karnavan of the Tarwad, brought this suit for the redemption of the prior mortgages. The suit was decreed by the District Munsif of Walluvanad but in appeal the Subordinate Judge of Oltapalam has given three xeasons why the suit should not be decreed. The first is that the suit was premature in that it was brought before the expiration of the period of the mortgage. The second is that the suit is not maintainable without Karthiya-yini Amma's heirs being made parties to the suit, as the keychit was executed by her and the plantiff jointly and not by the Tarwad as represented by them. The third objection to the plaintiff's suit is that he has not asked to be allowed to redeem the whole of the property mortgaged. In appeal all these points have been argued, except that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the...
Thirunavukkarasu Pandaram and anr. Vs. Parasurama Aiyar by His Authori ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ838
Cornish, J.1. The appellants have appealed against the order of the lower appellate Court which has held them liable to execution of a personal decree passed against them in a Cochin Court. The appellants were defendants 1 and 2, and were minors at the time when the suit was filed. The third defendant was the executor appointed by their father's will and was also the testamentary guardian. The third defendant was sued in that capacity. None of the defendants appeared in the suit. An ex parte decree was made, the Court appointing the Nazir as the guardian in the suit of the two minor defendants. In pursuance of Section 44, Civil Procedure Code, the decree was transmitted to the Tinnevelly District Munsiff's Court for execution, by attachment and sale of certain movable property of the first two defendants within the jurisdiction of the Tinnevelly Court. Objection to execution was made by the appellants that they were not subject at the time of the suit to the jurisdiction of the Cochin ...
Thirunavakkaru Pandaram and anr. Vs. Parasurama Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad97; 167Ind.Cas.13
Cornish, J.1. The appellants have appealed against the order of the lower Appellate Court which has held them liable to execution of a personal decree passed against them in a Cochin Court. The appellants were defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and were minors at the time when the suit was filed. The 3rd defendant was the executor appointed by their father's will and was also the testamentary guardian. The 3rd defendant was sued in that capacity. None of the defendants appeared in the suit. An ex parte decree was made, the Court appointing the Nazir as the guardian in the suit of the two minor defendants. In pursuance of Section 44, Civil Procedure Code, the decree was transmitted to the Tinnevelly District Munsif's Court for execution, by attachment and sale of certain movable property of the first two defendants within the jurisdiction of the Tinnevelly Court. Objection to execution was made by the appellants that they were not subject at the time of the suit to the jurisdiction of the Cochin ...
T.V.A.K.T. Annamalai Chettiar Vs. T.T.K.K. Kumarappan Sriranga Chariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1936
Reported in: (1936)71MLJ867
Burn, J.1. There is only one point for decision in these appeals and that may be stated as follows: When there is a final decree for sale of mortgaged property, is it permissible for the executing Court to enquire into a plea raised by the judgment-debtor that the property is not liable to be sold on the ground that it is a temple service inam and therefore inalienable? The allegation of the judgment-debtor that the roperty is inalienable temple service inam is denied by the decree-holder. The learned Advocate for the respondent is not able to cite any authority for the proposition that the executing Court in such a case has jurisdiction to enquire into the question of fact whether the land is inalienable or not. Mr. Rajah Aiyar for the Appellant in L.P. A. No. 35 of 1935 has brought to our notice a decision of Mr. Justice Pakenham Walsh in Ranga Aiyar v. Sundararaja Aiyangar (1933) 37 L.W. 358, which is exactly in his favour. The learned Advocate for the respondent relies upon Rajah o...
Ramanathan Chettiar, Minor by Next Friend C.T.R.M. Chidambaram Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1936
Reported in: (1937)1MLJ16
M. Venkatasubba Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. This suit has been brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is not bound by the decree obtained in the High Court by the first defendant against the second, in C.S. No. 448 of 1932. The facts may be briefly stated. Chidambara, the undivided brother of the second defendant (Vairavan) died in 1907. The plaintiff who was born in 1922 is the natural born son of the second defendant but was adopted in 1924 to the deceased Chidambara by his widow Valliammal. A mortgage by the deposit of title deeds was granted on 30th May, 1927, by the second defendant to the first, to secure a debt of Rs. 50,000 and on that mortgage the first defendant brought the suit above-mentioned and obtained a decree. It is this decree that the plaintiff impeaches and seeks to get rid of.2. The learned trial Judge on the Original Side has found first, that Chidambara and Vairavan, who were members of a Nattukottai Chetty Hindu family, inherited a banking concern, ...
Ramanathan Chettiar Minor by Next Friend C.T. Rm. Chidambaram Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad345; 168Ind.Cas.731
Venkatasubba Rao, Offg. C.J.1. This suit has been brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he is not bound by the decree obtained in the High Court by the 1st defendant against the 2nd, in C.S. No. 448 of 1932. The facts may be briefly stated. Chidambara, the undivided brother of the 2nd defendant (Vairavan) died in 1907. The plaintiff who was born in 1922, is the natural son of the 2nd defendant but was adopted in 1924, to the deceased Chidambara by his widow Valliammal. A. mortgage by the deposit of title deeds was granted on May 30, 1927, by the 2nd defendant to the 1st, to secure a debt of Rs. 50,000 and on that mortgage the 1st defendant brought the suit above-mentioned and obtained a decree. It is this decree that the plaintiff impeaches and seeks to get rid of.2. The learned trial Judge on the Original Side has found first, that Chidambara and Vairavan who were members of a Nattukottai Chetty Hindu family, inherited a banking concern, which till Chidambara's death they bo...
Karuppana Goundar and anr. Vs. V.C.T.N. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Mad963; (1936)71MLJ646
Cornish, J.1. The appellants are the sureties upon a bond given by them to the Court in pursuance of the provision in Section 55(4), Civil Procedure Code.2. The respondent, a decree-holder having arrested his judgment-debtor, that person expressed his intention of taking the benefit of the Insolvency Act, the decree debt being for Rs. 2,000. Accordingly, the appellants entered into a bond whereby they undertook to produce the debtor before the Court whenever directed:To cause him to file an insolvency petition within one month from that date, and to get him to prosecute it to its very end and also to produce him in the meantime.3. In short the bond appears to have been so framed as to carry into effect the purpose for which security can be required by the Court under Section 55(4), namely, to ensure that a debtor who on his arrest, and in order to be released from arrest expresses an intention to apply to be declared an insolvent shall carry out that intention. It so happened that the ...
Al. St. an. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Al. Vr. P. Pethaperumal Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad163; (1937)1MLJ605
Cornish, J.1. The appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge appointing a Receiver. The appellant was the twenty-first plaintiff in a suit brought by a group of persons of the A.L. family against a group of defendants representing the V.R. family for a declaration that both these families were entitled to the management and trusteeship of certain temple properties under a scheme framed by agreement between the families in 1907. The plaint prayed further reliefs against the first defendant in particular by way of an injunction and for an account. The suit was decreed. The right of all the members of the A.L. and V.R. families to the trusteeship, as also the validity of the 1907 agreement and scheme, were declared; the first defendant was restrained from interfering with the rights of the A.L. family and he was directed to account for his management. For this purpose a commissioner was appointed and this commissioner was also appointed receiver for the special purpose of at onc...
B. Ramayya Vs. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad172
Venkatasubba Rao, Offg. C.J.1. The same question arises in the three appeals, namely, is Dr. Iswarayya to be treated as having died a Christian or a Hindu? He was originally a Hindu and a Brahmin by birth and became a convert to Christianity. What is now alleged by his Brahmin brother Ramayya is, that Dr. Iswarayya changed his religion again in 1926 and became a Hindu by re-conversion. A definite case was put forward in the trial Court, namely, that the deceased underwent a formal ceremony of expiation and re-conversion. This case the trial Judge has found to be utterly false, and we must without hesitation affirm the finding. Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J. seems to have thought that without undergoing a formal ceremony, a convert to Christianity cannot again become a Hindu. For this purpose he relies upon the following observations in Ratansi D. Morarji v. Administrator General Madras AIR 1928 Mad 1279:A European does not become a Hindu merely because he professes a theoretical allegiance t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »