Chennai Court May 1937 Judgments
In Re: Subbia Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad840
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. The question involved in this reference relates to the amount of court. fee payable on the memorandum of appeal. The appellant is defendant 11 in a suit to enforce a mortgage executed on 7th August 1920 in favour of the plaintiff's assignor by defendant 1. Defendant 11 was impleaded as a party to the suit on the ground that he is in possession of the suit property as an assignee from a purchaser at a sale in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Nagappa Chetty in respect of a mortgage dated 7th August 1915 executed by defendant 3 in favour of Nagappa Chetti's father Venkatachalam Chetti. One of the defences urged by defendant 11 was that he is entitled to set up the mortgage of 1915 as a shield being a mortgage prior in date to the mortgage sued on and that the priority claimed by him should be recognized. One of the issues raised in the case was 'whether defendant 11 is entitled to the priority claimed and is plaintiff obliged to redeem him'. Ther...
Tag this Judgment!Official Receiver Vs. N.S. Kuppuswami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad930
1. The Official Receiver, Madura, filed a petition ostensibly under Sections 4 and 53, Provincial Insolvency Act, to set aside two mortgages by the insolvents in favour of the respondents to this appeal. The value of the property in question exceeded Rs. 10,000. There were two mortgages concerned, evidenced by Exs. I and II. Ex. I was of the value of Rs. 12,000 and Ex. II of the value of Rs. 1,000. The Subordinate Judge of Dindigul set aside the alienation under Ex. II on the ground that it was a sham transaction but refused to set aside Ex. I holding that it was genuine. A Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 54 of 1935 was filed Under Section 75, Provincial Insolvency Act, before the District Judge of Madura against the order of the Subordinate Judge in respect of Ex. I, the Rs. 12,000 mortgage. The learned Judge allowed the appeal holding that the mortgage was without consideration and not in good faith. The respondents here filed a petition before the District Judge seeking leave to appe...
Tag this Judgment!Dandamudi Ramarayudu Vs. Dandamudi Sitalakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad915
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance. The plaintiff is the widowed daughter-in-law of defendant 1. Her husband, who was the only son of defendant 1, died in 1920, a few months after his marriage, leaving the plaintiff a minor then aged 11 or 12. Though the written statement alleges that even after her husband's death the plaintiff used to be living with defendant 1, only occasionally visiting her parent's house, no serious attempt has been made to prove it and the case has proceeded on the footing that, but for other objections, the plaintiff would be entitled to separate maintenance including arrears. As regards the claim for arrears, some objection on the score of limitation was raised but there is no substance in it and it was rightly not pressed before us. Nor is there much force in the objection that there was no demand. It is well settled law that even the absence of a demand will not deprive a widow of her right to arrears, though that circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Peer Ammal and anr. Vs. Nalluswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad922; (1937)2MLJ666
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the sale on foot of a mortgage deed, Ex. A, executed in 1911 by one Peer Muhammad in favour of Alia Pichai Rowther who was the mortgagor's brother-in-law as well as his son-in-law. The mortgagee died in 1913 leaving a number of heirs some of whom are also interested in the equity of redemption by reason of their relationship to Peer Muhammad. It is clear from the plaint itself that no payment either towards any portion of the principal or towards interest was made in respect of this mortgage between 1911 and the date of the suit. In August, 1926, Allapichai Rowther's widow, that is, the seventh defendant and two of her daughters assigned their interest in the mortgage bond to the plaintiff under Ex. B, and this suit was filed in September, 1926. Besides the persons who are also the heirs of the mortgagor the only other co-heir to the mortgagee's estate, so far as we have been able together, is one Nagur Kanni Rowther who was...
Tag this Judgment!United Motor Finance Co. Vs. Romer Dan and Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad897
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Wadsworth, J. dismissing the action brought by the plaintiffs. The nature of their business was to finance motor hire purchase transactions introduced to them by motor dealers. They complain in the suit that on certain false representations made by the defendants as such dealers, they were Induced to enter into the three contracts described in the plaint. Each of them consists of two parts: first, the plaintiffs buying from the defendants a motor vehicle, secondly, they letting it on hire to the customer introduced by the defendants. Various kinds of fraud are set out in the plaint, but the defendants' learned counsel Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Ayyangar says (and Wadsworth, J's. judgment lends support to this statement) that the learned Judge was invited to address his mind to one ground of fraud only, namely that relating to what is known as the initial one-third deposit. I have no doubt that the plaintiffs' counsel referred at the...
Tag this Judgment!Dimala Narasu Vs. Ingili Baitharu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad13
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the two daughters of one Lingaraju Bytharu, a resident of Pandyajholi village, Berhampore taluk, Ganjam district, for a declaration that the compromise decree suffered by their grandmother Dimmala Mutyalu in Order. 8. No. 178 of 1921 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Berhampore is null and void and not binding on them. The ground alleged was that the properties, which were dealt with by the compromise decree, belonged to their father in his sole and absolute right, that they were devised by him before his death in favour of his daughters, the plaintiffs in this suit and another daughter since deceased, on certain terms mentioned in his last will and testament dated 12th August 1920, and that by reason of the gross negligence of their grandmother she was induced to enter into a compromise by Somanatha Bythari, the father of the defendants, and the paternal uncle of their father by reason whereof ...
Tag this Judgment!V.N. Subramania Iyer Vs. K.M.S.R.M. Kannappa Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad38
1. This appeal arises out of a suit between a principal and his agent. The plaintiff had a cloth shop in Kumbakonam and he was also doing some money lending business there. The defendant became his agent at Kumbakonam under a salary chit (Ex. A) dated 28th April 1919. As usual it was for a period of three years and provided that the defendant should receive a salary of Rs. 50 per mensem. On 18th of May however, the plaintiff gave a letter (Ex. 1) to the defendant which records a previous under, standing to the effect that in addition to salary, the defendant was to be paid 5 per cent, of the profits after deducting 'interest charges' and other charges. To facilitate the conduct of business, a power of attorney (Ex. B) was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 12th November 1920; this was not in terms limited to any specified period. When approaching the expiry of the three years term under Ex. A, the defendant was apparently pressing the principal for increased remune...
Tag this Judgment!Kullappa Reddiar and ors. Vs. Al. Vr. St. Veerappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad285
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. These four revision petitions arise out of connected applications made by a creditor, Veerappa Chettiar, in I.P. No. 21 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Coimbatore seeking to annul certain alienations made by the insolvent in October 1926. There were five alienations in, all executed in October 1926 and there were five applications for annulling them. The insolvent was adjudicated as such on petitions filed on 10th and 11th January 1927. In one case the alienation was sought to be set aside Under Section 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, as well as Under Section 53, the other four being only applications Under Section 53, The trial Court found that one of the alienations (Ex. 2) was valid and dismissed the application relating thereto, and the other four alienations were set aside. On appeal, the appeals by the unsuccessful alienees were dismissed by the Appellate Court and the appeal by the creditor in the single case in which the alienation...
Tag this Judgment!Revenue Divisional Officer Vs. Sri Rajah Vyricherla Narayana Gajapathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad902
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is from the order on a Reference by the Land Acquisition Officer Under Section 18, Land Acquisition Act. The acquisition covered land of the total extent of 108.90 acres situated to the south of the Vizagapatam harbour and required for harbour purposes. The appellant is the acquiring authority. There is a memorandum of cross-objections by the first claimant, the proprietor of the Anakapalli Estate, otherwise known as the Zamindar of Chemudu. We are no longer concerned with the rival claimants to the land, whose claims were overruled by the Subordinate Judge. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded in all a sum of Rs. 17,745-1-3 as compensation, including Rs. 5,000 for damage to the unacquired property of the respondent by reason of the diversion of a spring situated in the acquired land which helps to irrigate the respondent's Lova Garden, the cultivated land of which has not been acquired. The respondent claimed compensation, amounting in all to Rs. 3,96,730, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›