Chennai Court April 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.
Panyam Thirumalappa Vs. Alasyam Ramappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad133; (1937)2MLJ511
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of the plaintiff's one-third share in certain items of immovable property and for incidental reliefs. It is the plaintiff's case that his deceased brother Yerikalappa, the second defendant and Nettekalappa the father of the first defendant were partners in an Abkari business from 1892 to 1904, that out of the funds of that business they purchased the suit properties, that in 1904, there was a dissolution and settlement of accounts between them evidenced by Ex. A, that under that arrangement provision was made for the discharge of debts and for division of the outstandings and that as regards the immovable properties which had been purchased with the funds of the partnership, the three partners agreed that they should be entitled to the same in equal shares. The plaint adds that for many years after the date of Ex. A, Yerikalappa and after his death the plaintiff as his surviving brother were receiving his one-...
Malireddi Narayanaswamy Vs. Kondapalli Gopalaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad6
Varadachariar, J.1. The decision of this second appeal turns on the interpretation of Ex. B (dated 22nd April 1922), a deed of gift executed in favour of the plaintiff's deceased wife by her father. The donee died without issue within a couple of years after Ex. B and that led to disputes between the plaintiff and his father-in-law. There are some portions of the document which are not very aptly worded, but, taking the document as a whole, I feel no serious doubt as to the intention of the donor. In interpreting the document, two considerations have to be borne in mind: (1) that a Hindu father making a gift to his daughter ordinarily desires that that property should devolve only on the children born to her and not upon other heirs in her husband's family and (2) that such a parent making a gift to his daughter soon after her marriage thinks it inauspicious to refer in terms to her death without issue and often employs circumlocutory language to indicate that contingency. That portion...
The Official Receiver Vs. Muhammad Meera Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad872; (1937)2MLJ378
Varadachariar, J.1. In this case I am asked under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the decision of the Courts below which upheld a mortgage (Ex. I) in favour of the second respondent. The circumstances of the case clearly invite scrutiny; but, after an investigation, both the Courts have held that the transaction was not the result of a desire or intention on the part of the insolvent to prefer the second respondent but the result of pressure from the creditor and also of a desire on the part of the insolvent to secure a certain benefit to himself. I do not find myself in a position to say that this concurrent finding is vitiated by any underlying error of law or misdirection.2. Ex. I was put through in a form not always adopted in that it was executed not directly by the insolvent but by the first respondent to whom the insolvent by a document of even date purported to sell the last part of his property, making it part of the consideration for the sale that the...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad787; (1937)2MLJ296
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a somewhat unusual claim but the Courts below have found in the plaintiff's favour on the facts. The main point for determination in the second appeal is the question of limitation.2. In 1909 there were disputes between the plaintiff and his father as to the possession of certain lands, the father claiming them to be his self-acquisitions and the plaintiff claiming them to be ancestral property in his possession. To avoid a breach of the peace, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code, early in 1910, but instead of appointing a receiver to manage the property, he asked the village karji, the second defendant to look after the lands. The village karji deposes that he looked after the lands only for one or two years and that thereafter the Magistrate got the lands cultivated by somebody else and the sale proceeds were being deposited in the treasury. On account of acts of violence committed by the...
Official Receiver Vs. Muhammad Meera Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1937
Reported in: 175Ind.Cas.749
ORDERVardachariar, J.1. In this case I am asked, under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act, to set aside the decision of the Courts below which upheld a mortgage (Ex. 1) in favour of respondent No. 2. The circumstances of the case clearly invite scrutiny; but, after an investigation, both the Courts have held that the transaction was not the result of a desire or intention on the part of the insolvent to prefer respondent No. 2 but the result of pressure from the cerditor and also of a desire on the part of the insolvent to secure a certain benefit to himself. I do not find myself in a position to say that this concurrent finding is vitiated by any underlying error of law or misdirection.2. Exhibit 1 was put through in a form, not always adopted, in that it was executed not directly by the insolvent but by respondent No. 1 to whom the insolvent by a document of even date purported to sell the last part of his property, making it part of the consideration for the sale that the transfe...
Chudvvalathur Devaswom Uralara M. Narayanan Nambudri and ors. Vs. the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ429
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam declining; to order payment of two sums of money being the compensation money in respect of certain lands belonging to Chudvvalathur Devaswom acquired by the Government and lodged into Court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners, who are the trustees, desired to purchase certain immovable properties on the ground that the present investment of the said money in the Government securities did not yield sufficient income. On application made by the trustees under Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam appointed a Commissioner to examine the properties and seems to have given a favourable report in regard to the purchase. Subsequently, the Court called for a report from the Collector and the Collector seems to have stated that the properties were insufficient for the amount. Thereupon the Court refused to mak...
Narayanaswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Ratnasabapatby Mudali and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad136; (1937)2MLJ906
ORDER14. The result is that the decree of the lower Court cannot be sustained in the form in which it has been passed. Likewise, the claim for partition of all the properties left by the deceased Subbaraya is not maintainable. As Subbaraya's will comprises joint family properties as well as properties which we have held to be self-acquired and as the plaintiffs have under that will been given certain benefits which they may not be entitled to retain if they prefer to repudiate the will, they must elect either to stand by the will or to repudiate it. We allowed the matter to stand over for sometime to see if the plaintiffs' next friend is able to do anything in the matter. But their learned Counsel represents that as the next friend is a woman, it will be better if following the English practice the Court itself holds an enquiry as to what is most beneficial to the minors in the circumstances and decides accordingly. See Brown v. Brown (1866) L.R. 2Eq. 481 and also the passage in Mullah...
Chuduvalathur Devaswom, Uralars Narayana Nambudri and ors. Vs. Sub-col ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad948; 173Ind.Cas.502
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. These two revision petitions arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam declining to order payment of two sums of money being the compensation money in respect of certain lands belonging to Chuduvalathur Devaswom acquired by the Government and lodged into Court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners, who are the trustees, desired to purchase certain immovable properties on the ground that the present investment of the said money in the Government securities did not yield sufficient income. On application made by the trustees under Section 32, Land Acquisition Act, the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam appointed a Commissioner to examine the properties and he seems to have given a favourable report in regard to the purchase. Subsequently the Court called for a report from the Collector and the Collector seems to have stated that the properties were insufficient for the amount. Thereupon the Court refused to mak...
In Re: a First Grade Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ160
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. These proceedings relate to a sum of Beasley-CJ. Rs. 70-10-0 which belonged to one Aletti Mallikarjunudu, a client of the respondent and which sum the respondent by a letter of the 4th February, 1934 (Ex. A-3) admitted that he had in his possession. The respondent did not return that money to his client in spite of the repeated requests in writing to do so and eventually the client sent a registered letter of demand on 24th December, 1934, which the postal acknowledgment shows was received on 2nd January, 1935, by the respondent. This registered letter, however, did not produce any reply. A further registered letter was sent to the respondent on 14th March, 1935, demanding the return of Rs. 65 within four days and telling him to hand over the papers in the suit to another Advocate at Vizagapatam and that he was to take no further steps with regard to this suit. This letter is shown by the postal acknowledgment to have been received by the respon...
Thayarammal Vs. Pitty Kuppuswamy Naidu, M. Krishnammal by Her Power Ag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ552
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt.,C.J.1. This matter has been referred to us by Gentle, J.2. The following questions have been raised, namely:(1) Whether an agent with a power-of-attorney to appear and conduct judicial proceedings has the right of audience in Court;(2) Whether the agent is entitled to notice if his principal wants to appear and conduct the proceedings himself in person or appoints an advocate to appear for him; and(3) Whether the power-of-attorney agent can carry on business as a solicitor or attorney, drafting, engrossing and filing plaint, judge's summons, affidavits and generally issuing legal process and charge fees to the principal.3. That all three questions stand to be answered in the negative seems to us to be clear; but as the respondent has definitely asserted a right to the notice specified in Question No. 2 and certainly by strong implication if not by his conduct to the right of audience stated in Question No. 1 and the matters in Question No. 3 also arise ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »