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.
Madrakkata Valiamatathil Narayana Kanakapille and anr. Vs. Madrakkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1936
Reported in: 166Ind.Cas.66; (1936)71MLJ648
Varadachariar, J.1. This revision petition arises out ot what purported to be an application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. If the matter were really one falling under that rule, I should not have thought fit to interfere in this case, but as there is scarcely any dispute as to the facts and I am satisfied that the order of the District Munsiff declaring the defendants ex parte has not got to be set aside under Order 9, Rule 13, but is to be held illegal for other reasons, which I shall presently state, I regret that I have no alternative but to set aside that order, though I very much sympathise with the attitude which the District Munsiff felt impelled to take when he thought that the defendants were not acting bona fide.2. The suit had been partly heard, when on the 20th January, 1933, it was referred on the application of both parties to the arbitration of certain persons. It appears from the B Diary, and it is also stated by the District Munsiff in his later judgmen...
Marina Mangamma and ors. Vs. Mutyala Dorayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad100; 166Ind.Cas.59; (1936)71MLJ688
Pandrang Row, J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the only question for us to decide is whether the view adopted by Varadachariar, J., namely, that in the absence of direct evidence one way or the other there is no presumption as to the quantum of interest which a Hindu female takes in respect of immovable property given to her, is right or not.2. The case is one in which during the partition in the lifetime of the father one of the shares was given to the widowed daughter who had no children. The plaintiffs' claim that the properties were given to her for life only as maintenance and the daughter claims that they were given to her as an absolute estate with full powers of alienation. The suit was one to declare that the deed of gift executed by the widow in favour of certain of her nephews is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs after her death. It would appear that the lower appellate Court, that is, the Subordinate Judge, was under the impression that there was a presumption in fa...
Puliyeri Kunhakuttan Alias Kelu Vs. Imbichikuttan Alias Imbichikunhan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1936
Reported in: 165Ind.Cas.963; (1936)71MLJ727
1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Varadachariar, J., in Second Appeal No. 3 of 1931. The facts are all set out in the first paragraph of that judgment and it is unnecessary to repeat them. The only question for decision is whether Ex. Ill, a renewal of the kanom demise Ex. A, four years before the expiry of the period under the latter, but to take effect on the date of the renewal itself, executed by a predecessor of the fourth defendant, who was the then stanom holder to the father of defendants 1 and 2, in respect of properties appertaining to the stanom, is valid and binding on the stanom, in the absence of proof of a valid necessity for such a renewal. Our learned brother, preferring to follow the trend of recent decisions of this Court, the last of which is C.M.A. No. 406 of 1928, to that reported in Vatavatta Nair v. Kenath Puthen Vittil Kuppassan Menon (1918) 36 M.L.J. 630, held that it was valid. Mr. K.P. Ramakrishna Aiyar for the appellant, relying on the decision i...
The Dharapuram Janopakara Nidhi, Ltd., by Its Present Secretary A. Adi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad44; 166Ind.Cas.308; (1937)1MLJ642
Horwill, J.1. The finding of the lower Courts is that this property has been enjoyed adversely by the defendant from a time prior to 9th July, 1917, and that he has therefore perfected a title to the property by adverse possession. In S.A., it is contended that, by operation of law, possession was interrupted on 9th July, 1917.2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has emphasised that when a symbolical delivery is given or where a Boundary Officer determines a Boundary and an application is not made to a Civil Court within a year, adverse possession is deemed by law to have been broken. By analogy, he contends that where a Court dismisses a claim petition it is not open to the defeated claimant to contend that he was in possession on the date of his claim petition. The effect of a symbolical delivery or a decision of a survey officer is clearly different from that resulting from a mere order of Court. In the case of a symbolical delivery, an amin actually goes to the disputed proper...
Sarvothama Pai and anr. Vs. Govinda Pai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad11
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal by plaintiffs 2 and 3 represented by their mother as next friend. They, with their elder brother plaintiff 1, sued for partition and in the plaint they included (1) a claim for past mesne profits from 7th September 1923 up to date of suit and (2) a claim for a small amount as representing the value of their share of moveable properties belonging to the family. So far as the right to partition was concerned, defendant 1 who was the Ejman did not care to insist on any objection founded on the fact of the appellants' minority. A partition has therefore been directed by consent of parties. As regards the share of the move-ables claimed, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the claim was not proved. In dealing with the claim for mesne profits, he found that the plaintiffs had not been excluded as alleged in the plaint, but on the other hand were being maintained by defendant 1 till shortly before suit. He also refers to the fact that under an ord...
(Sivapuram) Kotayya and anr. Vs. (Sivapuram) Subbaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad114
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is one of res judicata. The facts necessary for the disposal of this may be shortly stated. The suit is in ejectment against the defendant and for recovery of possession of certain lands on the ground that the defendant is in occupation thereof as a tenant under a lease given by the plaintiffs. The defence is a denial of the lease as well as the title of the plaintiffs. Previous to the institution of this suit the plaintiffs filed a suit, O.S. No. 4 of 1925, on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Markapur for recovery of possession of the lands from the defendant alleging that they are the owners thereof, that they leased the land to the defendant, that the defendant was unlawfully setting up title thereto and prayed that the right of the plaintiffs in the suit land may be declared and possession be delivered to them free of any objection by the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement in that suit stating that...
S.M.A.M.S. Meyyappa Chettiar Vs. Seethachi Achi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad200
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against an order refusing to make the appellant a party defendant to the suit, O.S. No. 56 of 1930, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Devakotta. There is another connected C.M.A. No. 313 of 1934 refusing to record a compromise alleged to have been entered into between the parties to the said suit and also the appellant. There is another C.R.P. No. 1061 of 1934, arising out of the same matter permitting withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff. These matters have been dealt with by no less than three Subordinate Judges and have come up to the High Court in some form or other and were dealt with by no less than five learned Judges of this Court. The result has been that some of the orders are not reconcilable one with the other, and when the matters came up for final disposal it caused not a little embarrassment to the trial Judge so as to prevent him from having a correct approach to the several questions presented to him...
Thangachami Naicker and anr. Vs. Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad268; 173Ind.Cas.90
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The legal representatives of one Errammal, the senior widow of the zamindar of Thevaram, are the appellants and appeals are preferred against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dismissing I.A. No. 190 of 1931 filed by Errammal as zamindarini of Thevaram for a direction to the Receiver appointed under the compromise decree in O.S. No. 31 of 1925 to hand over to her the zamin villages specified in Schedule A of the compromise decree, to which she was not a party, and allowing I.A. No. 170 of 1932 filed by respondent 1, the decree-holder in O.S. No. 31 of 1925, against the Receiver for an order to deliver the properties to him in accordance with the compromise decree. A preliminary objection was taken to the competency of the appeals, and, so far as is material, the facts are that the zamin and some other properties were mortgaged by the zamindar to two Chettiars for amounts borrowed by him. The zamindar died in 1901 bequeathing the estate to his daughter ...
V.K.K. Peer Bathummal Beevi Vs. Nagur Meerammal Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad108; (1936)71MLJ725
Cornish, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a mortgage suit against first defendant in the suit. The second defendant was made a party to that suit, but was dismissed as an unnecessary party. The appellant obtained a decree on his mortgage, and then the first defendant died. The second defendant was brought on record as legal representative of the first defendant and there is no doubt that she was properly brought on record as his legal representative. In execution the appellant purchased the property, but when he tried to get possession he was resisted by second defendant who claimed title to the property in her own right and independently of the judgment-debtor. The appellant then took proceedings under Order 21, Rule 95. Parenthetically it may be observed that this rule had no application as second defendant was not claiming under a title created by the judgment-debtor. However, the Court decided that it could not determine the question of title, but made an order for symbolica...
Mooka Pandaram Vs. Sinnu Muthiriyan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Mad167; 166Ind.Cas.77; (1936)71MLJ761
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These are applications which arise out of an order of the District Magistrate of Trichinopoly staying the order of the Sub-Magistrate of Turaiyur in M.C. No. 12 of 1936-pending the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Musiri, to whom the District Magistrate forwarded an application by one of the parties in M.C. No. 12 of 1936 under Section 144(4), Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Magistrate passed an order on the application of the present petitioner prohibiting the counter-petitioners from interference with the performance of a certain festival by the petitioner. Some of the counter-petitioners applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Musiri under Section 144(4), Criminal Procedure Code, for rescinding the order, and thereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after calling for the records passed an order confirming it except as regards counter-petitioners 1 to 6 in respect of whom the order was set aside apparently because they gave an undertaking before th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »