Chennai Court August 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.
A.L.A.R.R.M.V. Vellayan Chettiar Vs. Mahalinga Pathan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad30; 173Ind.Cas.781; (1938)1MLJ171
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this second appeal is when a sub-mortgagee sues, for sale of the properties mortgaged to his mortgagor, that is, the original mortgagee, impleading the original mortgagor, should he pay court-fee on the amount due under the original mortgage or on the amount due under the sub-mortgage? Ordinarily a sub-mortgagee's right just like any other mortgagee is to enforce his mortgage and bring to sale the property mortgaged to him, that is, the interest of the mortgagee in the property mortgaged to the latter. But the law permits him to enforce sale of his said property under circumstances and conditions which would entitle the original mortgagee to bring the properties to sale. To such a suit the original mortgagor should be made a party. The principle on which this is allowed is that a sub-mortgagee's claim is by a derivative title from the mortgagee and he is in fact an assignee of the mortgagee. When the mortgagee effects a mortgage of his mortgage i...
Abdul Hafiz Saheb Vs. Abdul Sukkur Saheb and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad27; (1937)2MLJ602
Vradachariar, J.1. The only question arising for determination in this Revision Petition is whether the execution petition which has been ordered by the lower Court was in time. This in turn will depend upon whether an earlier execution petition dated 7th August, 1933, which was presented to the District Munsiff's Court, Trichinopoly, was an application in accordance with law and presented to the ' proper Court '.2. The decree under execution is one passed by the Court of Small Causes at Trichinopoly. As one of the defendants had immovable property within the Munsiff's jurisdiction, the decree seems to have been transferred to the District Munsiff's Court and as a result of proceedings taken there, some of the immovable properties were sold and part of the decree amount realised during the year 1930. On 7th August, 1933, an application was made to the District Munsiff's Court for an order to arrest the second defendant in the suit. It is now common ground that by that date no report ha...
S.M. Chinnaswami Aiyangar Vs. Kanniah Naidu (Deceased) His L.R. and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad132; (1937)2MLJ920
Varadachariar, J.1. The order of the lower Court is obviously unsustainable. The plaintiff sued for money due on a hypothecation bond but he limited his claim to a money decree on the personal covenant, stating that as the mortgaged properties had been sold away hra revenue sale by reason of the mortgagors' default, he did not wish to take proceedings to enforce the SP ity and was content with a money decree. The lower Court found that only one of the items had been sold but not the other item; in this view it held that the proper course for the plaintiff was to file a suit to enforce the mortgage as against the other item. This view seems to me to have been proceeded on a misapprehension of the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.2. If the case is viewed as one falling under Clause (c) of:Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff will have an unconditional right to sue for money but even taking it that the case falls either under Clause (a) or Clause (b...
Adam Haji Peer Muhammad Issac Sait Vs. Pattakkarantavita Kunkan and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad242
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this second appeal is what is the nature and extent of interest possessed by defendant 2 in certain properties, one of which is a boat, the subject matter of this appeal, left by one Kunhikutti. The plaintiff, defendant 2, and the deceased Kunhikutti formed members of a tavazhi following the Marumak-kathayam law. Before his death, the said Kunhikutti disposed of his properties by a registered will dated 27th December 1923. His object was to benefit the members of his tavazhi. This is clear from the following preamble to the will:I should make certain settlements regarding the claimants who are to enjoy the ownership right of my self-acquired properties alter my death.2. After stating that the property possessed by him was his self-acquired property and that it should be enjoyed by him till his death, he specifies the persons to whom it should go after his death thus:And after my death, my brother (1) Amabadi, (2) younger brother Chandu, (3) nephe...
Katamberi Chuzhali Bhagavati Amma's owner, Uralan and Manager Samantha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad257; (1938)1MLJ193
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the present suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decree in O.S. No. 846 of 1923. The bar that is pleaded is not confined to any particular matter in issue but extends to the entire claim. The suit has been brought by one Rayarappan Nambiyar, who fills the dual position of (1) the karnavan of Karakath Idam and (2) the Uralan of Kadamberi Devaswom where the presiding deity is Bhagavathi; in other words, the plaintiff's right to hold the trusteeship of the temple arises from his being the manager of his tarwad. Several reliefs are claimed in the plaint over, what is alleged to be a subsidiary shrine known as Muttapan Devasthanam, under the control of one Valia Ramunni, the karnavan of a Thiya tarwad, and as such, the 'Matayan' or the head of the shrine in question. 1 he plaintiff s case shortly is that the defendant shrine is a subsidiary temple owing allegiance to its suzerain - the Kadamberi Devaswom - and b...
S. Meera Sahib and Brothers Vs. Hajee M. Abdul Azeez Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad1; (1938)2MLJ651
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal and Appeal No. 29 of 1937 arise out of a suit which was filed on the Original Side of this Court for an injunction in a passing off action and as they have been heard together they will be dealt with in one judgment. The appellant in this appeal was the defendant in the suit, and the appellant in Appeal No. 29 was the first plaintiff. The respondent in this appeal was the second plaintiff. It will be convenient to refer to them as the first plaintiff, the second plaintiff and the defendant, respectively.2. The second plaintiff is a piece goods merchant carrying on business in Madras. For twelve years before the suit he had been in the habit of buying white twill from the first plaintiff, a company carrying on business in London. For the purposes of the case the first plaintiff has been treated as the manufacturer of the goods, although he in fact did not make them. Having bought the twill from the first plaintiff and imported it into Madras...
Sheik Muhammad Rowther and anr. Vs. Ayeesha Beevi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ779
ORDERBurn, J.1. The facts are all set forth in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of perusing. Since I agree with his conclusions, it is not necessary for me to say more than a few words upon the subject for decision in this appeal.2. The point upon which our learned brother Venkataramana Rao, J., felt some doubt was whether the Full Bench in disposing of the case in Masthan Sahib v. Assan Bivi Ammali : (1900)10MLJ123 intended to lay down the law for all Muhammadans, whether Shias or Sunnis. If it did, there is no question about the binding nature of the decision so far as we are concerned, and since the decision is now 37 years old, I should be very reluctant to suggest that it requires reconsideration whatever the nature of the decisions in other provinces might be.3. I do not think there is any room for doubt upon this matter. The order of reference to a Full Bench, which gave occasion for the decision reported in Masthan Sahib v. Assan Bivi Ammali : (...
The Champion Automobiles Ltd. Vs. the Travancore National Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad77; (1937)2MLJ817
Alfred Henry Ltonel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit filed in the City Civil Court for the recovery of damages for the dishonouring of a cheque. The respondent is a bank carrying on business in Mount Road, Madras. In September, 1932, the appellant opened an account with the bank. The bank had rules regarding the keeping of accounts and one of the rules reads as follows:The bank reserves to itself the right to close any account without reference to the depositor if in the opinion of the bank it is not desirable to keep such account for any reason whatsoever.2. This was one of the conditions on which the plaintiff's account was opened and it formed part of the contract between him and the bank with reference to his account. There was a further rule to the effect that a depositor should always have a minimum credit balance of Rs. 100.3. On the 1st August, 1934, when his account was standing in credit to the extent of Rs. 15-4-7, the appellant drew a cheque in favour...
In Re: Malai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad944; (1937)2MLJ725
ORDERKing, J.1. This reference is made on the assumption that the facts are governed by a decision of my own reported in Rajaratnam Pillai, In re : (1936)70MLJ340 . The facts are obviously distinguishable. In Rajaratnam Pillai, In re : (1936)70MLJ340 , I had to deal with a case in which the Magistrate had not only taken cognisance of an offence triable only under Chapter XX of the Code but had actually applied Sections 242 and 244 and taken evidence. In the present case though the Magistrate had issued summons to the accused for an offence under Section 426 only he did not apply Section 242 when the accused was brought before him, but informed him then and there that on reconsideration he held that other offences also were disclosed by the complaint, and proceeded from that moment to apply Section 252.2. It is no doubt stated with some lack of precision in Rajaratnam Pillai, In re : (1936)70MLJ340 that when once a Magistrate has 'taken cognisance of 'an offence which is triable only ac...
Oonamalai Ammal and anr. Vs. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad161
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of money. The plaint also claimed that the amount should be recovered by sale of the suit property on the footing of a charge on the property. Defendant 1, who was admittedly the owner of the property at one time, is the mother of defendants 2 and 3. It is common ground that in 1924: this property had been given as security to one Kuppu Rao. In 1926 a suit was instituted by Kuppu Rao for the recovery of the amount due to him. He died pending that suit and the Administrator-General who took charge of his estate continued the suit and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree, the property was advertised for sale on 25th January 1928. The documentary evidence in the case, read in the light of the oral evidence, establishes that some days before the sale, attempts were made by defendants 1 and 2 to raise money to pay off the mortgage decree and prevent the sale of the pro-party. It is the plaintiff's case ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »