Chennai Court September 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.
Samanthan Karakkattitahil Kammaran Nambiyar and anr. Vs. Patappayil Ko ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad562
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Tellicherry dismissing the plaintiff's suit for redemption of three mortgages in favour of defendant 1. The mortgages are described in para. 5 of the plaint as follows: (1) an othi dated 14th February 1863 for a sum of Rs. 3000, (2) a kanom dated 17th April 1871 for a sum of Rs. 350 and (3) a kanom dated 2nd February 1889 for a sum of Rs. 400. The properties secured under these mortgages originally belonged to Etakkalavan tarwad which became divided into two tavazhi tarwads known as Thekkinakoor and Patinhattakoor. This division is admitted by all the parties to the suit. The case of the plaintiff is this. Items 1 to 16 of the plaint schedule, which have been described as certain specific halves of certain hills, fell to the share of Patinhattakoottil tarwad and they were mortgaged on 7th September 1883 by the then karnavan in favour of one Koroth Veettil Krishnan. The said Krishnan filed a s...
K. Venkatesa Sastrigal, Manager of a Joint Hindu Family Consisting of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1937
Reported in: (1937)2MLJ896
Horwill, J.1. In this mortgage suit the first defendant was the mortgagor; the second and third defendants were puisne mortgagees; the fourth defendant was the purchaser of the equity of redemption of the greater number of the items mortgaged; and the seventh defendant was the purchaser of one item. The first defendant filed a written statement denying his liability and then remained ex parte. The other defendants mentioned above supported the written statement of the first defendant. The third defendant made a special claim to priority and the seventh defendant raised a number of pleas in connection with the item of property that he had purchased. In the decree in the suit the lower Court made defendants 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 all personally liable for costs on the ground that defendants 2 to 4 and 7 supported the first defendant in resisting the plaintiff's claim. Defendants 2 to 4 and 7 appeal against the decree for costs.2. It has been argued that in a mortgage suit no person but the mor...
K. Sundaresa Iyer Vs. Sarvajana Sowkiabhi Virdhi Nidhi Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad331
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff was the owner of certain jewels, which he entrusted to one Subba Rao for sale, who committed breach of trust and pledged them with the defendant Bank, Subba Rao was convicted and the property was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who convicted him to be returned to the plaintiff. The High Court in revision held that as the jewels had been taken from the defendant Bank they should be returned in the Bank and ordered the jewels to be given to the Bank. Before the order was passed, the plaintiff had obtained possession of the jewels; and for 10 months after the order of the High Court was passed possession of the jewels was with the plaintiff. On 11th June 1934 the plaintiff handed over the jewels to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and on the same day filed the present suit in the District Munsif's Court for a declaration Jihad he was entitled to the possession of the jewels. At the same time he filed a petition that the Court should order the Sub-Division...
K. Venkateswara Sastrigal and ors. Vs. Krishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad212; 175Ind.Cas.441
Horwill, J.1. In this mortgage suit defendant No. 1 was the mortgagor: defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were puisne mortgagees; defendant No. 4 was the purchaser of the equity of redemption of the greater number of the items mortgaged: and defendant No. 7 was the purchaser of one item. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement denying his liability and then remained ex parte. The other defendants mentioned above supported the written statement of defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 3 made a special claim to priority and defendant No. 7 raised a number of pleas in connection with the item of property that he had purchased. In the decree in tie suit the lower Court made defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 all personally liable for costs on the ground that defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and 7 supported defendant No. 1 in resisting the plaintiff's claim. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and 7 appeal against the decree for costs.2. It has been argued that in a mortgage suit no person but the mortgagor can be made personally ...
Sanapathi Sitharamiah Vs. Nandarapu Ramaswamy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad73
Horwill, J.1. It has been proved to the satisfaction of the Courts below that the contesting defendants 3 to 5 executed a lease deed Ex. A in favour of the plaintiff's father in 1906 for a period of three years. There is also abundant evidence that the defendants have been in possession since then up to the date of suit; and there is no evidence to suggest that the defendants were ever out of possession. There is also no evidence that the defendants ever paid any rent either to the appellant or to the plaintiff's father and his brothers. The trial Court found on these facts that as it must be presumed that defendants 3 to 5 continued in possession as tenants of the plaintiff, the possession remained with the plaintiff, at any rate until 1923, when the plaintiff brought a suit on a lease deed which was found to be not genuine. It therefore decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour. In appeal it was held that the plaintiff had not been in possession within twelve years and that the suit...
Majji Gurunaidu and anr. Vs. Gottemukkala Venkatraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad85
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs in these two suits mortgaged a certain property to defendants 1 and 2; and there is evidence that the latter subsequently leased the property to defendants 4 and 5. The Appellate Court seems to have accepted this evidence; and it must therefore be assumed for the purpose of this appeal that the lease by the mortgagees to defendants 4 and 5 has been proved. While defendants 4 and 5 were in possession, there was a re-survey of the Vizianagaram estate in which these properties are situated; and defendants 4 and 5 were then registered as pattadars. The plaintiffs now bring these suits for the recovery of this property after redemption. The trial Court dismissed the suits; but the Appellate Court held that they were entitled to redeem. Defendants 4 and 5 have therefore filed these second appeals.2. It has first been argued that there was no valid mortgage at all, because although the amount of the mortgage under these documents was leas than Rs. 100, no immadiat...
Muhamed Mohideen Nachiar and ors. Vs. Muhamed Naina Maracair and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ38
Horwill, J.1. The defendants in their written statement in this suit raised various defences and one of them was that the plaintiffs had agreed to submit their case to arbitration. Various issues were framed, one of which was whether the Court had jurisdiction. That issue and another were heard nearly three years later; and on the last day of arguments on these issues the Court drew the attention of the vakil for the defendants to the fact that he should, under paragraph 18 61 the second schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, have put in an application for a stay. The defendant's vakil acted on this and filed a petition; but even then the petition did not contain1 some of the necessary elements and it had to be amended. Orders were then passed granting stay of the suit to permit the parties having recourse to arbitration. In the first instance a stay for six months was granted and later the suit was adjourned sine die. An appeal was filed to the District Court, which upheld the orders o...
Arumugham Chettiar and ors. Vs. Mariappan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad255; (1938)1MLJ184
Horwill, J.1. The defendant sold a piece of land to the plaintiff and in his sale deed failed to disclose some prior encumbrances. The mortgagees, whose debts had not been disclosed, brought suits for sale, with the result that the property that had been sold to the plaintiff and was actually in his possession was brought to sale in execution of one of the decrees, and the plaintiff himself purchased the property through a benamidar, Kaliyanandi Chettiar. Instead of bringing a suit for damages as a result of his having been compelled to pay the decree debt, he falsely pleaded in O.S. No. 521 of 1930 that Kaliyanandi Chettiar had purchased this land and had dispossessed the plaintiff. The District Munsiff found that the plaintiff's statements of fact were false, but he nevertheless gave a decree because a breach of the covenant had occurred and the plaintiff had suffered damages. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge rightly pointed out that the plaintiff's case, as it stood, was a false one...
Balammal Vs. Palandi Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad164; (1938)2MLJ340
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of Chingleput dismissing an action for damages for defamation instituted by the first and second plaintiffs. The defamatory matter complained of was a communication made by the first and second defendants to one Mr. G. Krishnamachari, a Vakil at Chingleput and repeated by the said Vakil in a letter dated 9th May, 1927, addressed to the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and the wife of the second defendant. The first defendant is the father of the second defendant. The matter, complained of was concerning the second plaintiff in the letter addressed as aforesaid to the first plaintiff by the said Krithnamachari to the following effect:On or about 7th January, 1927, jour daughter Balammal ran away with one Manicka Asari from her husband clandestinely and was staying with him at Kadambathur for two days.2. The second plaintiff was married to the second defenda...
Adiraju Mallikarjana Rao Vs. Somavaram Co-operative Society No. H-774, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad69; 175Ind.Cas.913; (1937)2MLJ858
ORDERNewsam, J.1. This is an application for a writ of certiorari directed to the Somavaram Co-operative Societies and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. I am invited to quash the award of the Deputy Registrar to whom a dispute between petitioner (ex-president of the Society) and the Cooperative Society had been referred on the ground that the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction under Section 51 of the Cooperative Societies Act to decide such a dispute.2. The facts are briefly as follows:--The petitioner as president of the Society had made loans to four persons, which were irrecoverable. Petitioner ceased to be President on 17th July, 1931. Over two years later (namely, on 25th November, 1933), the Co-operative Society resolved to refer the matter to the arbitration of the Registrar and claim No. 2 of 1934 was filed very early in 1934 against petitioner. For a year this claim was pending before the Deputy Registrar, being eventually decided only on 13th March, 1935, in a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »