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.
G. Mohideen Sahib Vs. Kotta Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad813
Horwill, J.1. The appellant brought a suit on an agreement against the father of the respondent. During the course of the trial, the father died and the respondent was brought on record as his legal representative. Thereupon an additional issue was framed 'whether defendant 2 or his share of the family properties is not liable for the suit debt'. It is difficult to see why this issue was framed at all, because defendant 2 was brought on record merely as the representative of the father and so the question whether his own property was liable for the debt or not was not in issue. However, this issue was framed; but the appellant made an endorsement on the written statement to the effect that ho did not press this issue against the defendant and so the suit proceeded on the same footing as before defendant 2's father's death, i.e. the question became whether this agreement was true. The result of the suit was that a decree was given against the assets of the deceased defendant in the son'...
Vadlamannati Venkatanarayana Rao Vs. Gottumukkula Venkata Somaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ251
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal has been brought against an order made by the lower Court, refusing execution against the respondent. The decree that was sought to be executed was one passed in O.S. No. 7 of 1922 inter alia against the respondent's father, who was the 5th defendant in the suit. Into the chequered history of that suit, it is unnecessary to enter; it is sufficient to state for the present purpose, that the suit itself was commenced in 1919 (it was originally numbered as O.S. No. 96 of 1919), that a decree for possession was passed against the 5th defendant in May, 1933, that in execution of that decree the plaintiff obtained possession of the lands in October of the same year and that by a further judgment delivered on 3rd April, 1935, mesne profits were awarded against the fifth defendant, who subsequently died in the following June. (To avoid confusion, it may be stated that the formal decree drawn up in respect of mesne profits bears a later date, namely, 22nd July...
Vadlamanati Venkatanarayana Rao Vs. Gottumukkule Venkata Somaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad610; 171Ind.Cas.101
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This appeal has been brought against an order made by the lower Court, refusing execution against the respondent. The decree that was sought to be executed was one passed in 0. Section No. 7 of 1922 inter alia against the respondent's father, who was defendant No. 5 in the suit. Into the chequered history of ,that suit, it is unnecessary to enter; it is sufficient to state for the present purpose, that the suit itself was commenced in 1919 (it was originally numbered as 96 of 1919), that a decree for possession was passed against defendant No. 5 in May 1933, that in execution of that decree the plaintiff obtained possession of the lands in October of the same year and that by a further judgment delivered on April 3, 1935, mesne profits were awarded against defendant No. 5 who subsequently died in the following June. (To avoid confusion it may be stated that the formal decree drawn up in respect of mesne profits bears a later dale, namely July 22, 1935, but that i...
Ayitham China Suryarao Vs. Maddala Suryachandra Rao, Minor by Mother a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad638; (1937)1MLJ676
King, J.1. The minor defendant in this case with his mother as guardian, and his two uncles, one of whom is Narasimhamurti, P.W. 3, effected a partition of their immovable property in October, 1930. As one of the terms of that partition, and in order to equalise the shares of the three members of the family, it was arranged that P.W. 3 should pay off all the family debts and that the other two should execute promissory notes in his favour for Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 700, respectively. Accordingly defendant's mother executed the suit promissory note in favour of P.W. 3 for Rs. 700 on the same day. This note was transferred by P.W. 3 to the plaintiff, who has now sued the defendant upon it.2. The main defence raised was that the minor defendant is not liable upon the pronote. In order to meet that defence it was necessary for plaintiff to prove that the pronote was executed for necessity. To prove this he called P.W. 3, who spoke to the terms of the partition. In cross-examination he admitted ...
Ayitham Chinna Surya Rao Vs. Maddala Suryachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-02-1937
Reported in: 175Ind.Cas.246
King, J.1. The minor defendant in this case with his mother as guardian, and his two uncles, one of whom is Narasimhamurthi, P.W. No. 3 effected a partition of their movable property in October 1930. As one of the terms of that partition, and in order to equalise the shares of the three members of the family, it: was arranged that P.W. No. 3 should pay off all the family debts and that the other two should execute promissory notes, in his favour for Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 700, respectively. Accordingly defendant's mother executed the suit promissory note in favour of P.W. No. 3 for Rs. 700 on the same day. This note was transferred by P.W. No. 3 to the plaintiff, who has now sued the defendant upon it.2. The main defence was that the minor defendant is not liable upon the pro note. In order to meet that defence, it was necessary for plaintiff to prove that the, promissory note was executed for necessity. To prove this, he called P.W. No. 3 who spoke to the terms of the partition. In cross e...
A.P.M. Syed Ibrahim Sahib and Brother Vs. V.S. Gurulinga Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad185; (1937)2MLJ717
Stodart, J.1. The appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a firm and the suit was against a debtor of the firm to recover money due on dealings. The suit was filed on 12th October, 1933, that is, it was presented into Court on that day and it was admitted to the file on 20th November, 1933. The Partnership Act IX of 1932 came into force on 1st October, 1932, except Section 69 which came into force according to Section 1(3) of the Act on 1st October, 1933. And the question for decision in this suit is whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 69 the suit is maintainable. Section 69(2) is:No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered, and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of firms as partners in the firm.'2. This suit was instituted after 1st October, 1933, and the trial Court and the Court of first appeal have both held that it is no...
Periaswami Vs. Vaidhilingan Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad718
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgagee's suit for sale. The mortgage sued on (Ex. A) was executed in 1925 by defendant 1 for himself and as guardian of his five minor sons. Defendant 2, the eldest son, attained majority during the pendency of the suit and by the written statement filed on behalf of the minor sons, questions were raised as to the binding character of the mortgage as against the interests of the sons in the mortgaged property. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 4,000. Objection was taken particularly in respect of two items of consideration, viz. a sum of Rs. 2,242 directed to be paid by the mortgagee to one Manicka Pillai who had obtained a decree against the father in Order Section No. 30 of 1921 on the file of the Court of the Trichinopoly Subordinate Judge's Court and a sum of Rs. 960-12-0 left with the mortgagee to be paid to a Nattukottai Chetti from whom money had been borrowed by defendant 1 on a promissory note (Ex. F) dated 9th October 1923. I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›