Chennai Court December 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.
Natesa Nattar and ors. Vs. Manicka Nattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad398; (1938)1MLJ181
Venkatasubba Rao, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of Cornish, J. The facts so far as they are material to the question before us may be briefly stated. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the fifth defendant, the mother of defendants 1 to 4 on the foot of a promissory note executed by her. Defendants 1 to 4 were minors and the suit was brought and the decree was obtained against the mother alone. In execution of that decree the plaintiff, alleging that the promissory note was executed in respect of a debt binding upon the minors, attached their property. A claim petition was filed on their behalf, which was allowed. The plaintiff thereupon filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for getting rid of the adverse order made against him on the claim petition. Subsequently, he was allowed to amend his plaint by the addition of a paragraph in which he alleged that he was entitled to be subrogated to the fifth defendant's right. 2. The District Munsi...
Gojineni Bapayya Vs. Gojineni Ramakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad568; (1938)1MLJ582
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question to be decided in this appeal is, whether or not there was a completed partition between the plaintiff and his brothers, the defendants. If the plaintiff's allegation that there was a partition, is found to be true, he will be entitled to the injunction claimed; otherwise not. The only defendant who denied the partition, is the first defendant, who was the manager of the family. At the trial two documents were filed, described as partition lists (Exs. E and E-1). Ex. E relates to the lands owned by the family and sets out the items that fell to the share of each member; Ex. E-1 is a sketch of the houses and similarly describes which items were allotted to which member. There are some subsidiary conditions appended as to the mode of enjoyment. The partition set up in the plaint was an oral partition and the first defendant boldly denied that there was in fact any partition ever effected. The plaintiff was then obliged to produce the lists (Exs. E and E...
P.M.V.P. Pappu Reddiar (Deceased) and anr. Vs. S.A. Pichu Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad493; (1938)1MLJ829
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question which this Letters Patent Appeal raises is an important one, and the facts divested of all that is immaterial, may be shortly stated. The first defendant filed a suit against defendants 7 and 8, got their properties attached before judgment and obtained a decree in 1923 in due course. Defendants 7 and 8 sold in 1924 under Ex. A the properties in question to the second defendant. In the sale-deed the vendors (that is, defendants 7 and 8) disclosed the attachment that, had been effected and undertook to get the properties sold released from the attachment. In 1925, by virtue of a transaction we need not go into, the first defendant, to whom about Rs. 5,000 was due under his decree, received in full satisfaction of his claim Rs. 4,500 (that is, the concurrent finding of the Courts below accepted by Varadachariar, J.), in pursuance of an agreement with the judgment-debtors, namely, defendants 7 and 8. In 1927 the plaintiff obtained a mortgage of the suit...
Madras Automobiles and anr. Vs. Modern Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad545
Pandrang Row, J.1. The only point raised in this appeal is whether the respondent in this appeal, i.e. the Modern Bank Ltd., Coimbatore, was a bona fide pledge of a certain motor car belonging to the appellant. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant against the bank as defendant 2 and against one Ramaswami Iyer as defendant I to recover either the car and the difference between the original price of the car and its present value or, in the alternative, the value of the car with interest. Defendant 2 was imp leaded because the car was pledged by defendant 1 with defendant 2 bank in December 1928, for a sum of Rs. 2200 odd. The suit was resisted on several grounds by defendant 1 but it is unnecessary to refer to his contentions, because there is no appeal by him from the decree passed against him. The present appeal by the plaintiff is from the decree dismissing the suit as against defendant 2. The main point on which defendant 2 succeeded was that defendant 2 acted ...
C. Krishnaveni Ammal and anr. Vs. P.S. Subrahmanyam Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad547
Wadsworth, J.1. Plaintiff sues on a series of mortgages. The following geneological tree will help to make the facts clear: MUNISWAMI CHETTY | ________________________________ | | Sadasiva Gangadhara (died) (Died 1934) Visalakshi D. 4 | | | Thayumanaya D. 3. | (died after suit) __________________________ | | Subramaniam Somasundaram D. 1. (Insolvent) D 2.2. Defendant 5 is the Official Assignee representing defendant 1. Defendant 6 is another mortgagee. He has died and his executor is defendant 7. Thus the Official Assignee, and defendant 2 now represent Sadasiva's branch and defendant 4 represents Gangadhar's branch. Sadasiva and Gangadhara had a rice mill at Ponneri and a provision business in Madras. On 2nd August 1930, Sadasiva executed a promissory note, Ex. A, for Rs. 1900 in favour of the plaintiffs, and he is alleged also to have deposited the title deeds of 16 Audiappa Chetty Street, item 1 in the plaint schedule, as security. Ex. B dated 2nd August 1930 is the collateral secur...
Abubacker Labbai Vs. Chinnathambi Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad262; (1938)1MLJ159
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The following question has been referred to the Court under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act by the Board of Revenue as the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of the Presidency:Whether the document, a security bond for Rs. 4,500 executed in pursuance of an order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur, hypothecating also immovable property, should be stamped under Article 40, Schedule I, or under Article 57, Schedule I, of the Indian Stamp Act.2. These articles correspond respectively to Articles 33 and 46 of the Madras Stamp Amendment Act of 1922.3. The facts are shortly these. One Abubacker Labbai, Chinnathambi Rowther applied in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur under the Provincial Insolvency Act to be adjudged an insolvent, and under Section 21(1) of that Act was required to give a bond with two sureties for his due appearance in the insolvency proceedings. A bond was accordingly executed by two sureties in favour of th...
Sri Sri Durga Madhava Deo Garu Vs. Sri Sri Radhamohana Rajendra Deo Ga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad522; (1938)1MLJ437
King, J.1. The appellant here is a junior member of the family of the Zamindar of Chikati who in the year 1912 filed a suit for maintenance and obtained a decree granting him maintenance at Rs. 500 a month from the date of his plaint and future maintenance to date from the 1st May, 1912. For some years, apparently, this maintenance was paid without any need for the appellant to have recourse to execution, but after 1923 for some years the appellant's case was that he had frequently to file execution petitions and therefore realised his maintenance only after considerable delay. He accordingly filed the present suit O.S. No. 32 of 1929 to recover from the defendant interest upon the amounts of maintenance which he had thus realised in execution. The principal defence to his suit was based upon Section 34(2), Civil Procedure Code, which runs as follows:Where such a decree (that is, a decree for the payment of money) is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such aggreg...
In Re: Veeraswami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad399; (1938)1MLJ402
ORDERVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The point raised is a novel one. Pandrang Row, J., decided a second appeal against the petitioner, who thereupon applied for a review of the learned Judge's judgment. Review was refused and the present appeal, is from the order of refusal. The learned Judge was not asked to certify under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent that the case was a fit one for appeal, and the question is, whether the present appeal without leave is competent.2. The argument turns on the following words within brackets in Clause 15:Not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court.3. The contention is put thus: what these words contemplate is a judgment in respect of an appellate decree or order made by a Subordinate Court; Pandrang Row J.'s judgment refusing to review (for the present purpose his order may be assumed to be ...
In Re: Mr. N. Gopala Aiyar, Pleader; in Re: K. Sambasiva Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ410
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Mr. N. Gopala Aiyar, a pleader practising in the Court of the District Munsiff of Mannargudi, has been charged with professional misconduct and the District Judge of West Tanjore has submitted to this Court his report on the inquiry. The charge against the respondent was that he wrote to one Ramachandra Aiyar, a Vakil's clerk at Tanjore, to obtain surreptitiously a copy of the judgment in S.C.S. No. 541 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Mannargudi, by offering some inducement or bribe to the Record Clerk of the District Court. The learned District Judge has held the charge to be proved, but in the circumstances of the case has suggested that a suspension for a period of two or three months or a severe warning would meet the case.2. The letter on which the complaint was based reads as follows:Plaintiff's witness, K. Sambasiva Aiyar (Ettakudi Sambu). In the judgment of the above suit, it has been said that Sambu has given false evidenc...
In Re: G. Apledaer Vs. K. Sambasiva Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1937
Reported in: 173Ind.Cas.1008
Leach, C.J.1. Mr. N.G., a Pleader, practising in the Court of the District Munsif of Mannargudi, has been charged with professional misconduct and the District Judge of West Tanjore has submitted to this Court his report on the inquiry. The charge against the respondent was that he wrote to one Ramachandra Ayyar, a Vakil's clerk at Tanjore, to obtain surreptitiously a copy of the judgment in S.C.S. No. 541 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Mannargudi, by offering some Inducement or bribe to the record clerk of the District Court. The learned District Judge has held the charge to be proved, but in the circumstances of the case, has suggested that a suspension for a period of 2 or 3 months or a severe warning would meet the case. The letter on which the complaint was based reads as follows:Plaintiff's witnesses, K. Sambasiva Ayyar (Ettakkudi Sambu). In the judgment of the above suit, it has been said that Sambu has given false evidence and that he is not honest. So the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »