Chennai Court October 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.
Ramaswamy Chettiar Alias Sethu Chettiar and ors. Vs. K.S.M. Manikkam C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ56
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah dated 22nd February, 1932, in O.S. No. 198 of 1930 on his file. The suit was one instituted by the two plaintiffs to recover nearly Rs. 13,000 from defendants 1 to 4. The suit claim was based on a document dated 2nd February, 1926, Ex. A. That document was brought about as the result of an arrangement arrived at between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the fifth defendant on the other immediately after the death of the sister of the fifth defendant who had been married to the first plaintiff who was then a minor. In fact the case of the plaintiffs was that disputes arose about the properties that had been given to this lady Valliammai Achi at the time of her marriage between the first plaintiff and the fifth defendant, each claiming the money as his. This dispute arose before the corpse was removed from the house of the first plaintiff and a number of caste men and relations acted as panchayat...
K.N. Ramakrishna Aiyar and anr. Vs. Parameswara Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad424; (1938)1MLJ439
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The two appellants were the second and the third defendants in the Court below. The appeal was filed by the first appellant, but as he did not press it the third respondent was made a co-appellant, and he has alone supported it. The suit was filed by the first respondent, who is the father of the second respondent, for partition of the family properties. The first defendant was the father of the appellants and the first respondent, but he died during the pendency of the litigation. The suit was filed on the 1st September, 1919 and on the 31st December, 1926, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the first respondent. The final decree was passed on the 31st March, 1931, and the appeal is concerned with this decree.2. The first question which arises relates to the provision to be made for the marriage of the sister of the appellants and the first and fourth respondents, the 37th defendant. The learned trial Judge has held that the expenses of this...
S. Badsha Sahib and Co. Vs. Thaliyil Vettath Lakshmi Kutty Kovilamma a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ814
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. There was a mortgage granted on the 1st July, 1923, by the first defendant and his deceased brother in favour of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and another, which comprised 27 items. The transaction, we understand, was one of simple mortgage in respect of 23 out of them and in regard to the remaining four items, what was created was a usufructuary mortgage, which was to subsist for nine years. On the same date, the aforesaid four items were taken back by the mortgagors on lease for a period of five years. This suit has been brought to recover the items comprised in the lease with arrears of rent. The appellant before us is the 36th defendant, claiming under an alleged lease from the mortgagors, who complains that the lower Court has wrongly disallowed his claim to improvements.2. Turning first to the pleadings, it is noticeable that in the written statement filed by the appellant, no such claim was made. There it is stated that he lent large sums to the mortgagors, who furthe...
A.T. Lakshmi Ambalam Vs. Andiammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad66; (1937)2MLJ885
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This is a petition praying that an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devakottai, awarding Rs. 15 as maintenance to a woman daughter, be revised.2. The petitioner resisted the respondent's claim for maintenance on two important grounds. The chief ground was that the woman seeking to be maintained was not his lawful wife. The pleadings are not exactly explicit on the point but their meaning is quite clear. Thus, petitioner said in his statement 'She was taken as wife by me 12 years ago, though there was no actual marriage'. There was a great deal of evidence on both sides on this question, but the Magistrate declined to give a definite finding. He seems to have been under the impression that a woman is entitled to maintenance if she has lived with a man as his wife for 12 years and has also borne him a child. That, however, is certainly not the law. Only legally married woman are entitled to maintenance. I must therefore send this case back to the lower Court for ...
Pandivi Satyanandam and ors. Vs. Paramkusam Nammayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad307
Burn, J.1. These appeals and O.R.P. No. 331 of 1935 arise out of orders passed by the learned District Judge of East Godavari and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Ellore, in the course of proceedings taken in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 18 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court Ellore. The suit was for partition of joint family property, but besides the members of the joint family, many persons were imp leaded as defendants on the allegation that they were in possession of joint family properties, moveable and immovable. On 16th September 1930, the Subordinate Judge passed a 'preliminary decree', and this was transferred for execution to the District Court of East Godavari. In that Court, three applications for execution ware put in by the plaintiff and defendant 5, against defendants 40-43. The first was E.P. No. 151 of 1931 by the plaintiff, presented on 6th October 1931, in which he prayed for arrest of defendants 40-43, and for attachment and sale of their moveable and immova...
K. Subba Reddi Vs. M. Chengalraya Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad314
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit Under Section 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, for the framing of a scheme in respect of the administration of two village temples and for incidental reliefs relating thereto. The plaint also prayed for the removal of the defendant from trusteeship, and for vesting certain properties in the plaintiff as trustee. Certain sums of money were also claimed as due from the defendant to the institution. The learned Judge dismissed the defendant from the trusteeship and allowed a small portion of the money claimed, but dismissed the suit so far as it claimed relief in respect of the lands forming item 1 in Schedule B to the plaint on the ground that those lands had been constituted a special trust and that the Court acting Under Section 73, Endowments Act, had no jurisdiction to award any relief in respect thereof. In this appeal by the plaintiff nearly all the reliefs disallowed by the lower Court were claimed in the memo of appea...
S.H. Badsha Sahib and Co. Vs. Thaliyil Vettath Lakshmi Kutti Kovilamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad171; 174Ind.Cas.325
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. There was a mortgage granted on July 1, 1923, by defendant No. 1 and his deceased brother in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 and another, which comprised 27 items. The transaction, we understand, was one of simple mortgage in respect of 23 out of them and in regard to the remaining four items, what was created was a usufructuary mortgage, which was to subsist for nine years. On the same date, the aforesaid four items were taken back by the mortgagors on lease for a period of five years. This suit has been brought to recover the items comprised in the lease with arrears of rent. The appellant before us is defendant No. 36 claiming under an alleged lease from the mortgagors, who complains that the lower Court has wrongly disallowed his claim to improvements.2. Turning first to the pleadings, it is noticeable that in the written statement filed by the appellant no such claim was made. There it is stated that he lent large sums to the mortgagors, who further caused ...
The Secretary of State for India in Council by the Collector Vs. Vinja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad218; (1938)1MLJ54
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for an order excusing delay in seeking to have the abatement of Appeal No. 399 of 1931 set aside and for an order setting aside the abatement. The petitioner is the Secretary of State for India in Council, acting through the Collector of West Godavari District. It appears that the respondent died on the 18th September, 1935, but the learned Government Pleader did not become aware of his death until the 4th Of May this year, that is, two days before the Court closed for the long vacation. The learned Government Pleader promptly communicated with the Collector, who on the re-opening of the Court on the 15th July filed the present application. The learned Advocate for the respondent does not contend that there was any delay in filing the application after the news of the death had been received, but he does contend that the Court should not set aside the abatement. His argument is that ignorance of the death of the respondent i...
K. Rangaswamy Reddiar Vs. V. Venkataperumal Reddiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ139
1. The main point in this appeal is what is the court-fee payable on the plaint.2. As a result of two decrees obtained in two suits, O.S. No. 15 of 1912 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput and O.S. No. 47 of 1910 on the file of the District Court of Chingleput, one Krishna Reddy was entitled to recover possession of certain immovable properties from defendants 1 and 2 on payment of a certain sum of money to them. Some time after these rights were finally ascertained by the said decrees, he surrendered the rights so obtained, by those decrees in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 22,000 by a deed of settlement dated 27th June, 1927. It is this deed of settlement that the plaintiff as the reversioner of the said Krishna Reddy after his death, seeks to set aside. The plaintiff's case is that the said deed of, settlement was brought about by fraud, coercion and undue influence practised upon Krishna Reddy and therefore it should be declared not bindin...
Most Revd. Dr. L. Mathias, S.C., the Archbishop of Madras and the Pres ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ241
Gentle, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiffs are suing the defendants for a sum of Rs. 5,300, together with interest, which it is alleged was. deposited by the plaintiffs or by those in whose shoes the plaintiffs now stand, with the defendant Bank, upon fixed deposit for a specified period, and at the end of that period, the money was not returned to the plaintiffs. In the written statement, in addition to formal matters such as not admitting the allegations, it is alleged that the one who received the actual deposit was not authorised by the defendants so to do, and was acting outside his authority when he accepted the deposit from the plaintiffs, that under the rules and bye-laws of the defendant Bank the panchayatdars have a discretion to accept or not to accept a deposit of every description before the Bank is bound by the deposit and that the mere receipt by the person who in fact received this money, namely, the secretary, would not constitute a valid deposit and that the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »