Chennai Court January 1937 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.
V.S. Subramania Asari Vs. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad560; (1937)1MLJ569
Horwill, J.1. The respondent in this application is the mortgagee and the petitioner the mortgagor. The mortgagee brought a suit for sale and obtained a preliminary decree and then for a final decree. A sale of the property was held and 32 days later the petitioner put in an application purporting to be under Order 21, Rule 89, to set aside the sale, depositing the whole mortgage amount plus five per cent, for the auction-purchaser and costs. The Court held that under Article 166 (although the provision of the Limitation Act is not mentioned) the application was not in time and dismissed it. The petitioner then filed a review petition stating that his application was not one under Order 21, Rule 89, but one under Order 34, Rule 5. No serious objection to the hearing of this review application was made on the ground that a review did not lie and after full discussion of the applicability of Order 34, Rule 5, Order 21, Rules 89 to 92, and Article 166 of the Limitation Act, the Court pass...
Janaki Ammal Vs. Marudai Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad864
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The petition must be dismissed with costs, though the lower Court's order must be modified very materially. I find that the settlement deed in question settled the property sought to be attached on the settlor's widow, the judgment-debtor, and out of its income she had to maintain the settlor himself, his mother and the child then born and it had in view the maintenance also of subsequent born children. The settlor died and so did his mother and, contrary to anticipations, there were no further children. Therefore the only child alive is the one in existence at the date of the settlement --a daughter--who is now of age. The settlement contains the all-important provision that the widow was not to alienate the property. She became a judgment-dabtor and the plaintiff sought to execute his decree on that property and the point was raised that it was not attachable under Section 60(n), Civil P.C., it being a right to maintenance.2. As has been very properly pointed out...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Marati Kunti Venkoba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ32
Mockett, J.1. The first and second accused were charged before the Sessions Judge of Kurnool under two sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, (1) under Section 364, abduction with intent to murder, and (2) under Section 302, murder, the person concerned in each case being one Veeranna who, it will later be seen, was unquestionably murdered on 13th October, 1935. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted both the accused of murder and has convicted them both under Section 364, Indian Penal Code, has sentenced the first accused to transportation for life, and the second accused to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. The first accused has appealed against his conviction (Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1936) and the Crown has appealed against the acquittal of the accused for murder (Criminal Appeal No. 615 of 1936).2. The first accused lives at Kurnool and the deceased woman Veeranna, was concerned with him in his business which unquestionably was that of an unauthorised practitioner. He see...
Marreddi Seshireddi Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ29
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Official Receiver in an insolvency claiming half the amount of the costs which he had paid as an unsuccessful co-defendant in a partition suit filed against him, the debtor and others. The decree so far as it relates to costs, and to the petitioner is against him jointly and severally. His claim in the suit filed by him is that as he was forced by reason of the terms of the decree for costs to pay up the whole of the costs he is entitled to claim from the debtor half the amount which he (the petitioner) was compelled to pay. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the leave of the Court to file the suit had not been obtained as is required by Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. A few further facts must first be stated; and these are that the suit in respect of which the costs were awarded against the present petitioner was a suit for partition brought by a younger brother of th...
Minor Sethurajan by Guardian Nataraj Sethurayan Vs. Guruswami Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ37
Mockett, J.1. This is a second appeal against the order of the District Judge of East Tanjore allowing the appeal against the order of the District Munsif of Shiyali. The decree-holder respondent obtained a decree against the father of the appellant and the appellant. He impleaded the appellant as a major. In execution the third defendant obstructed and a petition was put in by the decree-holder to have his obstruction removed and possession of the property delivered. The appellant then appeared by his mother as guardian and pleaded that he was a minor. The lower Court having so found, dismissed the petition. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal on the grounds that this matter could not be raised by the appellant in execution and that his proper remedy was by way of suit. The point for decision is which of these two views is correct.2. The appellant has argued that under Order 21, Rule 99, the petition was correctly dismissed because he being a minor, was in the same position a...
In Re: N. Duraiswami Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad786; 173Ind.Cas.608; (1937)2MLJ347
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this batch of second appeals is, what is the right principle to be applied in regard to valuation of suits filed under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act? Chapter VI of that Act deals inter alia with the sale of the ryots' holdings for arrears of rents due. S. Ill provides that when an arrear is not paid within the revenue year in which it accrued due it shall be lawful for the landholder to sell the holding or any part thereof in the prescribed manner. Section 112 then enacts that it shall be incumbent on the landholder intending to avail himself of this power, to serve a written notice on the defaulter, first, stating the amount due and secondly informing him that in default of his paying the amount or of his filing a suit contesting the landholder's right to sell within the time specified, the holding or a part thereof, as the case may be, will be sold. The present appeals arise out of suits filed by the tenants concerned under t...
Kuri Venkoba Char Vs. Kuri Sanjivappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad681; 173Ind.Cas.233
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question argued In this second appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to retain the sum of Rupees 1,500 paid by the defendant under a contract of sale. The said contract was entered into on 19th September 1930, in and by which certain lands of the plaintiff were agreed to be sold to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 3,000. The terms of the contract were embodied in a karar between the parties. Ex. A was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and Ex. I which is a counterpart was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. There is no difference in regard to the terms in both these documents. Ex. A runs thus:In the presence of some mediators I have settled the sale price of the land mentioned hereunder at Rs. 3,000 (Rupees three thousand). Out of the said amount, I have paid in cash this day a sum of Rs. 1,500 (Rupees fifteen hundred) as advance and I have taken possession of the said land from now. I shall pay the remaining ent...
Minor Sethurajan by Guardian Nataraja Sethurayan Vs. Guruswami Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1937
Reported in: 170Ind.Cas.86
Mockett, J.1. This is a second appeal against the order of the District Judge of East Tanjore allowing the appeal against the order of the District Munsif of Shyali. The decree-holder respondent obtained a decree against the father of the appellant and the appellant. He impleaded the appellant as a major. In execution the 3rd defendant obstructed and a petition was put in by the decree-holder to have his obstruction removed and possession of the property delivered. The appellant then appeared by his mother as guardian and pleaded that he was a minor. The lower Court having so found, dismissed the petition. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the grounds that this matter could not be raised by the appellant in execution and that his proper remedy was by way of suit. The point for decision is which of these two views is correct.2. The appellant has argued that under Order XXI, Rule 99, the petition was correctly dismissed because he being a minor, was in the same position as ...
T.S. Moidheen Pichai Sahib Vs. Nagoore Meera Rewther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad799; (1937)2MLJ536
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These are two connected appeals. The plaintiff is the same in the two suits out of which these appeals arise. The first defendant in the two suits are brothers. They had another brother. Each of these three brothers executed a hypothecation bond for Rs. 3,000 in favour of one, Usain Ali Rowther. The hypothecation bonds involved in these two suits are Exhibits A and B--two of the three hypothecation bonds. The mortgagee, Usain Ali, sub-mortgaged his mortgage rights under the three mortgages in favour of the fifth defendant, a Chetti firm under Ex. C. The sub-mortgage was for an amount not exceeding Rs. 9,000 that may be borrowed from the firm. The Chetti firm instituted O.S. No. 34 of 1921, a suit for the sale of the hypothecated properties, in exercise of its rights. The present plaintiff's predecessor, Usain Ali, was the first defendant in the suit, and the mortgagors were defendants 3 and 4. It was found in that suit that the mortgages and sub-mortgages were subsi...
The President of the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious En ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-22-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ413
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The principal question that has been argued in this batch of appeals is, whether the property in question in each case is held upon trust for the deity or whether the archakas possess in it any beneficial interest. Section 69 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act provides for payment of contributions by temples in order that certain expenses may be met. The amount of the contribution depends on the income of the temple and for the purpose of determining what the income is, the question becomes important under Section 70 whether a particular property belongs to the institution or not. The last mentioned section has since been amended, but the provision as it stood before the amendment, overns the present case. The contribution, the section enacted, was to be assessed on and notified to the trustee who would be bound to pay the amount within a certain prescribed time, from the funds of the temple concerned. ' In default of his doing so ', the section went on...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »