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.
Taluk Board, Chidambaram and ors. Vs. Varadesesha Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad226
Madhvan Nair, J.1. The decision in Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 supports the appellant's case that personal decree for costs cannot be passed against a person who is a non-mortgagor in a suit by the mortgagee, but in Ramakrishna Ayyar v. Raghunatha Ayyar : AIR1931Mad272 it was held that such a decree can be passed. In Rajagopalaswami Naicken v. Palanisaml Chettiar : AIR1932Mad155 , Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 was considered and explained by the learned Judges. Though the circumstances were somewhat different, the learned Judges held that a decree for costs personally against the non-mortgagor can be passed on a mortgage action. In Subramanin Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar : AIR1935Mad121 the proposition is stated to be an undoubted one, though there is no discussion of the point. I am inclined to agree with the decision subsequent to Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao (1916) 3 A.I.R. Mad 763 which held that the Courts have a di...
The Taluk Board and ors. Vs. Varadesesha Iyengar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.784
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The decision in Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 763, supports the appellant's case that personal decree for costs cannot be passed against a person who is a non mortgagor in a suit by the mortgagee but in Ramakrishna Ayyar v. Raghunatha Ayyar : AIR1931Mad272 , it was held that such a decree can be passed, in. Rajagopalaswami Naicker v. Palaniswami Chettiar : AIR1932Mad155 , and Venugopalachariar v. Padmanabha Rao 29 M.L.J. 120 : 30 Ind. Cas. 188 : A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 763, was considered and explained by the learned Judges. Though the circumstances were somewhat different, the learned-Judges held that a decree for costs personally against the non mortgagor. can be passed on a mortgage action, In Subramania Aiyar v. Swaminaha Ayyar : AIR1935Mad121 , the proposition is stated to be an undoubted one, though there is no discussion of the point. I am inclined to agree with the decision subsequent to Venugopalachariar v....
P.P. Sundararaja Aiyangar Vs. P.L. Mannarsawmi and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad528; (1937)1MLJ610
Horwill, J.1. This was a suit by an unregistered partnership against a debtor. The only question raised in the suit and in this petition is whether, in view of the fact that the money was borrowed before the Indian Partnership Act came into force, the suit is maintainable in the face of Section 69 of the Act.2. Section 69 makes it clear that no suit of the description can be brought after the Act comes into force. It is argued that this is controlled by Section 74; but Section 74 in my opinion although it keeps intact any rights that may have accrued before the Act came into force, does not affect the enforcement of that right by means of a suit which is governed by Section 69. By virtue of Section 1 of the Act, Section 69 came into force one year after the rest of the Act and undoubtedly the purpose of this is to give persons a year's grace in bringing suits of this description or in getting themselves registered. In view of the plain wording of Section 69, I find that the learned Dis...
Peravalli Kotayya and ors. Vs. Ponnapalli Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad685; (1937)2MLJ573
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits instituted by the Agraharamdars of Arepalli Taluk, Guntur District, against the tenants for recovery of rents or damages for use and occupation in respect of the holdings in their occupation. All the suits excepting one, namelyj O.S. No. 153 of 1918 were filed in the District Munsiff's Court of Repalli. The said O.S. No. 153 of 1918 was filed in the District Munsiff's Court of Tenali.2. The main question in these suits is whether the Civil Court or the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to take cognisance of them. The allegations in the plaints are that the Agraha-ramdars own both the melwaram and the kudiwaram by virtue of the original grant and that at no time the tenants had occupancy rights. The plea of the tenants is that Arepalli Agraha-ram is an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act and their holdings being comprised in the said estate, the Revenue Court only has got jurisdiction to dete...
N. Muthusivami Pillai and ors. Vs. N.S. Manickavasagam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad591
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question of court-fee. The suit was originally instituted under Section 92, Civil P.C., with the sanction of the Advocate-General for the removal of the defendants from the possession of the suit property, for the appointment of a trustee to manage it, for vesting the said property in the said trustee, for framing a scheme for its management and for other incidental reliefs. A fixed fee of Rs. 50 was paid under Article 17(iii), Schedule 2, Madras Court-fees Amending Act. The main allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiffs are members of a caste known as Siruvaikudi Vellalars, that the suit property was acquired and constructed out of caste funds subscribed from time to time by members of the caste for the general purposes of the caste, that the object of the acquisition was to use the property as a rest house 'for such of the members of the community as might visit Thiruvannamalai for rendering worship, whether ...
N. Muthusami Pillai and ors. Vs. N.S. Manickavasagam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1937
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.819
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question of court-fee. The suit was originally instituted under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, with the sanction of the Advocate-General for the removal of the defendants from the possession of the suit property, for the appointment of a trustee to manage it, for vesting the said property in the said trustee, for framing a scheme for its management and for other incidental reliefs. A fixed fee of Rs. 50 was paid under Article 17 (III) of Schedule II of the Madras Court Fees Amending Act. The main allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiffs are members of a caste known as Siruvaikudi Vellalars, that the suit property was acquired and constructed out of caste funds subscribed from time to time by members of the caste for the general purposes of the caste, that the object of the acquisition was to use the property as rest house for such of the members of the community as might visit Thiruvannamalai for rendering worsh...
Peravali Kottya and ors. Vs. Ponnappali Ramakrishnayaya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1937
Reported in: 171Ind.Cas.133
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of a batch of suits instituted by the agraharamdars of Arepalli Taluk, Guntur District, against the tenants for recovery of rents or damages for use and occupation in respect of the holdings in their occupation. All the suits; excepting, one, namely, O.S. No. 153 of 1918 were filed in the District Munsifs Court of Repalli, The said O.S. No. 153 of 1918 was filed in the District Munsif's Court of Tenali.2. The main question in these suits is whether the Civil Court or the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to take cognisance of them. The allegations in the plaints are that the, agraharamdars own both the melwaram, and the kudivaram, by virtue of the original grant and that at no time the tenants had occupancy rights. The plea of the tenants is that Arepalli agraharam is an estate within the meaning: of the Estates Land Act and their holdings being comprised in the said: estate the Revenue Court only has got jurisdiction to det...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›