Chennai Court March 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.
Swaminathan Alias Muthuvelu Udayar Vs. the Official Receiver of Ramnad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad549; (1937)1MLJ727
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This case was admitted by Burn, J., on the ground that the question involved in the case is of some general importance. On the exact matter in question, there seems to be some difference of opinion. A Bench of the Rangoon High Court in Mitra v. Corporation of Royal Exchange Assurance A.I.R. 1930 Rang. 259 has taken the view that an Official Receiver cannot be allowed to sue as a pauper where he himself is possessed of sufficient funds to carry on the suit. A different view has been taken by the Allahabad High Court in Mohammad Zaki v. The Municipal Board of Mainpuri (1918) 16 A.L.J. 440. The nearest analogy in my opinion seems to be the case of an executor in regard to which the preponderance of opinion in this Court has been that he can be permitted to sue as a pauper if the estate which he represents, does not possess sufficient funds to carry on the suit - vide Sivagami Ammal v. Gopalaswami Odayar (1924) 48 M.L.J. 390 and Ammakannammal v. Damodara . A di...
Pazhangotte Unnikanna Menon Vs. Karimkulangara tarward Karnavan, Laksh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ358
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a kanom granted by the trustees of the Chen-gattoor Ayyappan temple in favour of the tarwad of defendants 1 to 29 and the sole question for determination is whether the melkanom granted by the second plaintiff, one of the five trustees, to the first plaintiff, is valid. The melkanom was not granted in consultation with the other trustees nor is it the act of t&e; majority. It would therefore be invalid under the general law, vide Kunhan v. Moorthi : (1910)20MLJ951 and the execution of renewals in favour of the original kanomdars by the other trustees independently of the second plaintiff cannot possibly entitle the second plaintiff to act by himself. The melkanom in question cannot therefore be upheld under the general law, nor does Section 76 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act empower the Endowments Board to authorise an alienation of temple property by persons not competent under the general law t...
Pazhangette Unnikanna Menon Vs. Karimkulangara tarwad karnavan Lakshmi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad842
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a kanom granted by the trustees of the Chengattor Ayyappan temple in favour of the tarwad of defendants 1 to 29 and the sole question for determination is whether the melkanom granted by plaintiff 2, one of the five trustees to plaintiff 1 is valid. The melkanom was not granted in consultation with the other trustees nor is it the act of the majority. It would therefore be invalid under the general law: vide Kumban v Moorthi (1911) 34 Mad 406, and the execution of renewals in favour of the original kanomdars by the other trustees independently of plaintiff 2 cannot possibly entitle plaintiff 2 to act by himself. The melkanom in question cannot therefore be upheld under the general law, nor does Section 76, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act empower the Endowments Board to authorize an alienation of temple property by persons not competent under the general law to deal with it. That section only invalidates...
Chunduri Panakala Rao Vs. Penugonda Kumaraswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad763
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of an order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur impounding a document, Ex. A., which was filed in S.C.S. No. 173 of 1932 on the file of the Sub-Court, Narasapur. The suit was upon a promissory note and the document was tendered in evidence, filed and proved in proof of the consideration for the note on 21st October 1932, and on the very same day the learned Judge delivered judgment decreeing the suit. On 15th February 1933, the office of the Subordinate Judge brought to his notice that Ex. A was not properly stamped and thereupon he impounded the document, and sent it to the Collector with a letter bearing date 24th February 1933. Thereupon the Collector levied a penalty of Rs. 185 and recovered it from the plaintiff in that case. This was on 29th March 1933 and the document was returned to the Court on 23rd April 1933. The plaintiff thereupon instituted a suit out of which C.R.P. No. 329 of 1935 arises ...
The Champion Automobiles Ltd. by Director K.M. Rao Vs. the Chartered B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad858; 173Ind.Cas.989; (1937)2MLJ546
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The material facts necessary for the decision of the points involved in this revision petition are these. The plaintiffs who are a firm of merchants carrying on business under the name of the Champion Automobiles, Ltd., entered into a contract with Eis ., the bill to be drawn on them through the Chartered Bank of India and the shipment of goods to be by post parcel and the condition as regards payment to be thirty days after sight documents against payment. On the 12th December, 1932, the Chartered Bank of India presented a bill of exchange drawn on the plaintiffs by Eis Manufacturing Company and endorsed in their favour in and by which the drawees ought to pay the amount within thirty days after sight and it was accepted by the plaintiffs on the 12th December, 1932. The bill became due and payable on 14th January, 1933, adding the customary days of grace and which date was stamped on the bill itself. On the 14th January, 1933, the Bank -presented a memorandum o...
Sengava Naick and anr. Vs. Perumal Reddiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad965
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The point for decision in this second appeal lies within a narrow compass. The material facts are as follows: On 29th September 1910, one Aiyyappa Naick executed a registered deed of mortgage in favour of one Sundara Reddi for Rs. 150 payable on 29th September 1911. The said mortgage comprised two Bets of properties described in schedules 1 and 2 to the plaint. By virtue of an assignment dated 30th June 1916 from Sundara Reddi, the rights under the said mortgage became vested in the plaintiffs. The said Aiyappa Naick died subsequent to the date of the mortgage and his widow Lingammal executed a mortgage on 20th April 1920 to defendant 1 in and by which she mortgaged the properties in the said schedule 1 and also some other properties. Subsequent to this mortgage she conveyed the properties comprised in both the schedules to the plaintiffs by a sale deed dated 6th August 1921 in discharge of the mortgage debt and a cash payment of Rs. 76. Defendant 1 instituted a...
Kondava Nayakar Vs. Chinna Ramaswami Naickar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad317
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit although ordered to be served with notice on the former occasion of this petition has not appeared and therefore I have heard an ex party argument. If there was any argument to be advanced on his side, it is his own fault that such an argument has not been presented. It is sufficient for me to say that the contention of the petitioner here seems to me to be quite sound and in the absence of any argument to the contrary I shall uphold that contention.2. Shortly the facts are that the petitioner is defendant 1 and he took a lease of the suit property for five years in 1928 from defendant 2 who was the owner of it. In 1931 the lease was cancelled and id appears that the petitioner then surrendered possession. The plaintiff gob a decree against defendant 2 and in execution of that decree brought six acres of the property to sale. The sale was not confirmed at once because there was an application to set it aside presented by defendant 2 which...
T. Varadarajulu Naidu and Kuppuswami Naidu and Co. by Its Partners Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad4767; (1937)2MLJ273
Horwill, J.1. The petitioners (partners in a firm) brought S.C.S. No. 719 of 1933 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput for the sum of Rs. 509-12-4, due to them by the respondents debtors. They brought their suit on 30th October, 1933, when the firm was unregistered. This apparently escaped the notice of the office of the Subordinate Judge and also of the defendants. This deficiency was however rectified by the plaintiffs in July, 1934. The defendants filed their written statement on 15th December, 1933, making no reference to the fact that the suit had been instituted without registration of the partnership. The suit was posted for hearing on 20th December, 1934, more than a year after the filing of the written statement; and on the previous day, that is, on the 19th December, 1934, the defendants applied to be allowed to raise a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit. They contended that the suit having been filed before the partnership was registered ...
Kotambiyakath Pathu Kutti Umma and ors. Vs. Nedungadi Bank Ltd. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad731; 173Ind.Cas.699
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Calicut dated 11th December 1930 in Order Section No. 56 of 1927, a suit to set aside an order passed in execution proceedings in O.S. No. 63 of 1924, which was a suit on the foot of a mortgage executed by defendant 5 in favour of the plaintiff, the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. The mortgage-deed, Ex. C, was one dated 8th May 1922. In execution of the decree the bank purchased the mortgaged property, but when an attempt was made to obtain delivery of possession there was resistance by defendants 1 to 4 in respect of the particular item which is the subject matter of the present suit, there being in all 21 mortgaged items. The resisters relied upon a wakf deed executed by defendant 5, namely Ex. 2 dated 29th September 1921, i. e. about seven months before the mortgage in favour of the Bank. An application by the Bank to remove the resistance of these defendants was made in 1926; that application was ...
Vadrevu Venkataratnam Garu Vs. Maharajah of Pittapur and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad68; 175Ind.Cas.889
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this casa is whether the suit land is a riparian land abutting the river Yeleru and whether the plaintiff is not entitled to levy water cases for the utilization of the water for the irrigation of the suit land. The question whether a particular land is a riparian tenement is always a question of fact depending on the circumstances of the case and upon several factors. I am satisfied upon the circumstances of this case that the suit land is a riparian tenement. The suit land is a pre-settlement in am within the geographical limits of the Zamindari of Pittapur. It is a single block of land about 11 acres in extent bordered by the stream Yeleru part of the land is dry and part of the land is wet. There is a channel, which takes water from the Yelerui river to irrigate a portion of the defendants' lands. The origin of the channel is unknown, equally so the origin of the inam. Having regard to the geographical situation of this plot, one can fairly p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »