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.
P. Gopalaratna Iyengar Vs. A. Rajaratna Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad246; 173Ind.Cas.955
ORDERKing, J.1. This petition is concerned with an agreement between plaintiff and defendant that defendant should sell certain property to plaintiff for Rs. 2500. The undisputed facts of the case are that defendant executed a sale deed on 22nd May 1932, received Rs. 100 as an advance towards the purchase price, and handed over the sale deed to plaintiff. Subsequently the sale deed was returned by plaintiff to defendant and the four months' time for registration passed without any further payment on plaintiff's part. In 1935, plaintiff filed the present suit to recover the Rs. 100 from defendant with interest and also the charges he had incurred in purchasing the stamp. He based his claim upon a repudiation of the contract by defendant, who, he said, asked for the return of the sale deed in order to sell the property to some one else. The learned District Munsif refused to believe this allegation on plaintiff's part, and held that defendant's evidence that plaintiff returned the sale d...
K. Rangaswami Reddiar Vs. K. Venkataperumal Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad241; 174Ind.Cas.983
1. The main point in this appeal is what is the court-fee payable on the plaint 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 Nos. 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 Nos. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 22,000 by a deed of settlement dated June 27, 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 plaintiffs 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 no...
Gutta Venkayya and ors. Vs. Punyamurthula Venkata Rattamma (Died) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad253; (1937)2MLJ916
ORDER1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Jackson. The decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge. In second appeal to this Court, the plaintiff succeeded. The Munsiff as well as the Subordinate Judge found that the defendants have no occupancy rights either under the Estates Land Act or independent of it, but nevertheless dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not make out a right to eject. In second appeal, Mr. Justice Jackson accepted the findings of the lower Courts in regard to occupancy rights both within and outside the Act, but differing from the lower Courts held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession.2. We have heard an argument from Mr. Venkataramana Rao on the question whether the plaintiff has or has not a right to eject, granting that the defendants are bound by the findings in regard to occupancy rights. On this point, on account of the course we propose to adopt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›