Chennai Court July 1937 Judgments
Kodoth Ambu Nair and ors. Vs. Utha Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad202
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. We think it unnecessary to restate the facts of this case in any detail, as they have bean fully set out in the judgment under appeal. The suit has been filed by the karnavan of the Kodoth tarwad, said to be a well-known and wealthy tarwad in South Kanara District. The object of the suit was to have it declared that the acquisitions made by four individuals, Kunhi Kanna Nair, Kunhi Kora Nair, Pathali Kanna Nair and Ukkoman Nair belonged to the entire tarwad, of which the plaintiff is the kurnavan. This tarwad consisted of three tavazhies and the four parsons named above belonged to the tavazhi known as Pattinhara Veddu. The lower Court has held that it is unnecessary to decide whether the ownership of the properties claimed originally vested in the four individuals or in their tavazhi, for, according to the learned Judge, granting that at their inceptions the acquisitions had been made for the benefit of the four members, their interest was subsequently validly c...
Tag this Judgment!Gudivada Rama Rao Vs. Pottiswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad299
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in O.S. No. 61 of 1927, a suit for recovery of possession of a certain house in Bezwada together with damages for use and occupation, the suit being brought by the plaintiff on behalf of a certain charitable institution for which this house along with other property was purchased by the then Secretary of the institution from the Official Receiver of Guntur District in whom the estate in the insolvent in I.P. No. 42 of 1922 on the file of the District Court of Guntur had been vested. Defendant 2 in this suit, who is the appellant in this appeal, was a minor son of the insolvent at the time, and iii is conceded on his behalf that at the time of the sale by the Official Receiver the latter had the power to sell the son's share as such power was vested in the insolvent father. The real question for decision in the appeal is whether this power to sell the son's share was actually exercised by ...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Gokuldas and anr. Vs. John Kantaraj
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad895; (1937)2MLJ590
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants, who are father and Leach, CJ. daughter, were the plaintiffs in the Court below. They sued for a declaration that the marriage of the second appellant to the respondent solemnized before the Registrar of Marriages at St. Thomas Mount on the 17th July, 1934, is a nullity. The parties are all Indian Christians. At the time of the marriage the second appellant was 18j years of age, and was a student at the Women's Christian College, Madras. Both she artd the respondent who had attained his majority at the time were resident in Madras. The respondent gave notice of the marriage to the Registrar at St. Thomas Mount and falsely declared before him that the second appellant was of age. There being no impediment to the marriage it was duly solemnized on the date mentioned. The learned Judge declared for the validity of the marriage. The appellants challenge this decision on the ground that it conflicts with the express provisions of the Indian C...
Tag this Judgment!Adavikolanu Seshagiri Rao Vs. Sri Rajah Venkataramayya Appa Rao Bahadu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad295
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of possession of l/36th share in a mokhasa known as Thimmaraogundem situated within the geographical limits of Baharjalli Pargana in Nidadavolu zamindari. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Defendants 1 and 2 and their predecessors-in-title, the zamindars, got Into possession of the said mokhasa nearly a century ago and from 1856, at any rate for nearly 70 years, they have been in open, continuous and undisturbed possession of the same and enjoying the property in their own right. It was alleged that their original entry into the land was as trustees; they were never divested of their possession as such trustees and no question of limitation arises. To appreciate the points' in controversy between the parties, it is necessary to set out a few relevant facts.2. The village of Thimmaraogundem was admittedly a pre-settlement mokhasa (vide Ex. A) and subject to a kattubadi of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M.S. Ponnuswamy Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad825; (1937)2MLJ383
ORDERKing, J.1. The petitioner here is the accused in C.C. No. 406 of 1936 on the file of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate, Shiyali, and the offence which in the complaint he is said to have committed is one under Section 337, Indian Penal Code, which falls under Section 345(2), Criminal Procedure Code, as one compoundable with the permission of the Court. During the trial he produced a receipt said to have been given by the father of the complainant for the sum of Rs. 50, and alleged that the latter had agreed not to prosecute him. It was denied for the prosecution that any such payment was made. The Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate refused to take evidence on this question of fact on the ground that whether it were proved or not, the offence could not be compounded under Section 345(2). In so deciding he followed Naurang Rai v. Kidar Nath I.L.R. (1928) Lah. 400.2. On revision the learned Sessions Judge of East Tanjore held that this view was wrong, and that in normal circumstances ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Amaldoss Vs. Kamala Amaldoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad794; (1937)2MLJ488
King, J.1. This Revision Petition is not opposed. The wife's claim to maintenance is not a very strong one. She has waited three years to claim it. The petitioner now offers to take her back. She refuses to go unless he will give up his mistress. Petitioner's case is that Sundari is not his mistress, but the learned Magistrate believes that she is and that he will not desert her. The main point however seems to be that petitioner has never so far insulted his wife as to compel her to live in the same house as his mistress nor does it seem likely that petitioner will now adopt this course of conduct. If he does respondent may justifiably leave him and again claim maintenance. But I am not in agreement with the learned Magistrate that the respondent can exact a promise of sexual fidelity before she returns to live with the petitioner. In Arunachala Asari v. Anandayammal : AIR1933Mad688 my learned brother Burn, J., has held that Section 488, Code of Criminal Procedure, has nothing to do w...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Jagannadha Rajamoni Raj Deo (Mionor) by Guardian, the Sub-collecto ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ540
Burn, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the Court of Wards from the order of the learned Subordinate Judgeof Chicacole passed in Execution Petition No. 29 of 1936 in O.S. No. 57 of 1931. The respondent holds a decree against the son and the adopted son of the late Zamindar of Mandasa directing them to pay the plaintiff from out of the properties of the Mandasa estate in their hands Rs. 7,966-10-9 with interest thereon at six per cent, per annum from the 7th November, 1931, till payment. The decree-holder prays for attachment of the amount of Rs. 15,000 belonging to the Mandasa estate in the possession of the Sub-treasury of Ichchapur under Order 21, Rule 52. The Sub-Collector of Chicacole who has taken over the management of the estate takes exception on theground that under Section 45 of the Madras Court of Wards Act the local Government has declared that:The execution of decrees passed by the Civil Court which are capable of execution by sale of any immovable property of the said ward...
Tag this Judgment!Perumal Ayyar Vs. Ramasubramanian Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad265
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit upon a promissory note executed in favour of one Nagaswami Ayyar, the assignor of the plaintiff by A.T.R.S. Paramasivam Chetti. It is found on the evidence that A.T.R.S. is the vilasam of a firm carried on behalf of defendant 2 Ramasubramania Chettiar. The father of Ramasubramania Chettiar was carrying on this business and before his death he left a will dated 30th October 1920 in and by which he appointed Paramasivam Chettiar as the guardian of his minor son Ramasubramania Chettiar and directed him to continue the business and conduct it so as not to cause loss to the minor. In pursuance of the same, the said business was conducted in the name and vilasam of the A.T.R.S. The debt sued on was admittedly incurred in the course of the said business and the binding character of the debt was not disputed by defendant 2 at the hearing of the appeal before the lower Court. The first Court exonerated defendant 1 and gave a decree...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kotha Achayya Setti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad808; (1937)2MLJ435
King, J.1. The petitioner in this case sent a petition to the District Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, in January, 1936, alleging that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty, had obtained certain jewels from him in the preceding June, and had refused to return them when requested to do so. He accordingly asked that the District Superintendent of Police should give orders that the jewels should be soon returned to him. It is the case for the prosecution that this petition contained allegations which were false and that the jewels had been returned before the petition was sent and the petitioner was convicted under Section 47 of the Madras District Police Act. He of course denied at the trial that the statements in his petition were false but it was found both by the trial Court and by the appellate Court that those statements were false and this finding of fact cannot now be further challenged.2. It is however argued before me that Section 47 does not apply to the petitioner's action. ...
Tag this Judgment!S.P. Abhirami Ammal Vs. N. Chellammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad287
Leach, C.J.1. The parties to this appeal1 are Indian Christians. The appellant is the eldest sister of the two respondents. Their father died in 1895 and their mother in 1906 and they were left two houses one of which was subsequently let out to tenants. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by respondent 1 in the City Civil Court for partition of the estate and she obtained a decree. Her brother, respondent 2, took no part in it and ha& taken no part in the appeal. The contest has been throughout between respondent 1 and the appellant. The appellant challenges the decision of the trial Court on grounds to which we shall shortly refer. Respondent 1's case was that in 1920 an agreement took place between the parties under which they were to enjoy the rents and profits of these houses in common. This followed a suit by the appellant in the City Civil Court for a partition of the estate. She obtained a decree awarding her a one-third share in the property and directing that i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »