Chennai Court November 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.
Katta Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad318; (1938)1MLJ187
Pandrang Row, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Varadachariar, J., can be disposed of briefly. The case relates to a grant of three acres of valuable land by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the daffadar of his office in June, 1922. That grant was set aside by the Collector in June, 1925, under his revisional powers just within three years after the original grant. The original suit was instituted by the sons of the grantee to declare the Collector's order null and void and the original grant by the Revenue Divisional Officer valid. It must be mentioned in this connection that subsequent to the grant, the land had been improved at some expense by the grantee and the Collector granted one acre out of the three acres to the sons of the grantee as compensation for the improvement. The learned District Munsiff who heard this suit, dismissed it as he was of opinion that the original grant by the Revenue Divisional Officer was null and void and that the Collector's order ...
Alamelu Ammal Vs. C. Parthasarathy Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad326; (1938)2MLJ95
Wadsworth, J.1. T.O.S. No. 16 of 1936 is an application to revoke the letters of administration granted as in an intestacy in O. P. No. 129 of 1914 (now T. O.S. No. 11 of 1936) and to grant probate to the petitioner Alamelu Animal of a will a copy of which is tendered in evidence. The alleged testator is one Krishnamoorthi, husband of the petitioner Alamelu Ammal. He died on 26th April, 1914, leaving, by the petitioner, three sons and a daughter, the eldest son being the present respondent, Parthasarathi. There was another family by one Ethiraja Ammal, who was either a wife or a concubine. The will which Alamelu Ammal propounds divides the estate between the petitioner, her daughter and the children of the alleged concubine.2. Shortly after the death of Krishnamoorthi, his son, the present respondent Parthasarathi, applied for letters of administration as in an intestacy. Notices were served on his mother, and his brothers and sister and in due course letters of administration were iss...
Puthia Kovilagath thekke Kettu Thavazhiyil Manavedan Vs. Puthia Kovila ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad474
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This petition raises some questions as to the court, fee payable on a plaint filed by the petitioner, in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Calicut, for partition of certain Tavazhi properties on the footing that the plaintiff is a junior member thereof and that the suit properties are tavazhi properties. The plaint makes reference to certain mortgages and debts and alleges that these mortgages and debts are not binding on the tavazhi. The relief portion is very inartistically drawn and rightly or wrongly she lower Court has construed it as praying for certain declarations. On objection taken to the sufficiency of the court-fee paid, the lower Court has directed the plaintiff to pay Court-fee Under Section 7, Clause V, Court-fees Act, In respect of the plaintiff's share in items 1570 to 1595 of the plaint schedule and to pay court-fee under Article 17-A(i), Schedule 2, in respect of the debts referred to in paras. 8 to 10 of the plaint. The petitioner has accepte...
Ramakrishna Reddy and anr. Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad461
1. The provisions of Section 75(3), Provincial Insolvency Act clearly show that the order of the District Judge of Bellary dated 28th September 1934 and made in I. A. No. 409 of 1934 in I.P. No. 4 of 1929 is appeal able with the leave of the District Court or of the High Court. We are therefore unable to concur in the view of our learned brother Burn J. that the order is not appeal able at all. Further the circumstances of the case clearly demand that leave to appeal should be given, there having been no decision on the merits. The appeal is therefore allowed and leave to appeal from the order of the District Court, Bellary, granted. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›