Chennai Court January 1938 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.
M. Narayana Singh Vs. K. Batcha Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad741; (1938)1MLJ803
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant attached mortgages of certain immovable properties in execution of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput in O.S. No. 6 of 1919. The first respondent claimed to be the assignee of the mortgages and applied for removal of the attachment. His application was dismissed and he then filed this suit in accordance with the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He asked for a declaration that the assignment of the mortgage in his favour by the second respondent was valid and for the vacation of the order dismissing the application for removal of the attachment. His suit was successful and the declaration asked for were granted. The appellant desires this Court to set aside the decree on two grounds. In the first place he says the suit as framed does not lie inasmuch as consequential relief was not claimed. In the second place he says that the trial Court erred in holding that the assignment of the mortgag...
In Re: Muthammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ310
Pandrang Row, J.1. This second appeal raises two questions, one a question of fact and the other a question of law. On the question of fact, namely, whether Ex. D is a benami transaction, the finding of both the Courts below is to the effect that it is not benami and this concurrent finding is not open to attack in second appeal. The question of law which is the only one that has been argued before me relates to the doctrine of marshalling. The appellants are subsequent mortgagees of what may be described as the first schedule properties; they obtained a decree on the strength of their mortgage and have become the purchasers thereof. The other property included in the suit mortgage, namely, the second schedule property, is no longer subject to that mortgage because it was released by the mortgagee before the suit was instituted for a cash consideration of Rs. 50. The suit was therefore only for recovery of the balance amount from the first schedule property which alone according to the...
Putta Veeranna Vs. Yellapalli Mocharamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad505; (1938)1MLJ406
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The appellant was a defendant in a suit brought under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895). His defence was negatived by the Revenue Courts and a decree was passed against him. He thereupon applied to the High Court for a writ of certiorari, alleging that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the proceedings were liable to be quashed. Pandrang Row, J., refused the writ and in the course of his order observed thus:Whether the land itself or the revenue from the emoluments of a village office like this is obviously within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, and the petitioner has failed in my opinion to show that the Deputy Collector and the Collector of East Godavari had no jurisdiction to decide this controversy.2. The passage quoted above, as has been conceded by the respondent's learned Counsel, proceeds upon a misapprehension. There was no issue in the case as wrongly assumed by Pandrang Row, J., whethe...
Prasada Rao (Deceased) and anr. Vs. Kadiyala Venkataratnam (Deceased) ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ526
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises was one Kadiala Venkataratnam, who is now dead and is represented by his widow, the second respondent, and his younger brother, the third respondent. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to recover from the appellant and his father a sum of Rs. 7,529-9-0 representing moneys which the plaintiff said he had paid to the creditors of the appellant's father. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff's case was that the appellant's father was indebted to two Marwaris, one of the name of Chunnilal Venichand to whom he owed Rs. 2,500 and the other of the name of Sankarlal Rupchand to whom he owed Rs. 2,000. These loans had been advanced on promissory notes, Exs. A and C. The interest due brought the total figure to Rs. 7,529-9-0. It was at the request of the appellant's father that he paid off the Marwaris, and having discharged the debts payment was acknowledged by endorse...
Kalliappa Goundan Vs. Kandaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad498; (1938)1MLJ662
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. In the lower appellate Court the plaintiff, who was the appellant, paid as court-fee on his memorandum of appeal Rs. 100. The District Judge held that the correct fee payable was Rs. 412-7-0. The appellant failed to pay the deficit court-fee and the appeal was dismissed. From the dismissal he filed a second appeal in this Court, which he valued at Rs. 312-7-0, being the difference between Rs. 412-7-0 and Rs. 100. On that valuation he paid a court-fee of Rs. 35-15-0. Madhavan Nair, J., holding that on the second appeal the proper fee payable was Rs. 412-7-0, directed the appellant to bring into Court the balance of Rs. 376-8-0. This order was not complied with and the second appeal was dismissed.2. The question we have to decide is, what was the subject-matter in dispute in the second appeal? A possible argument that the subject-matter is incapable of valuation and that therefore Schedule II, Article 17-B applies, may be at once dismissed. Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar w...
Muna Sona Sundaram Chettiar Vs. Sona theeanna Chockalingam Chettiar Al ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad672; (1938)1MLJ857
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the defendant in the Court below. He had served the respondent as the chief agent of the respondent's money-lending business at Madras. The contract of service commenced on the 19th November, 1925, the appellant having executed what is known as a salary chit. Under the terms of the contract he was to serve the respondent in the capacity of chief agent of his Madras business for a period of three years at a salary of Rs. 7,175. The respondent's business in Madras did not prove as successful as he anticipated, and on the 5th January, 1928, he terminated the appellant's employment and appointed another agent at a lower salary. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent for an account of the appellant's agency. He calculated that there would be due to him on the taking of accounts a sum of Rs. 11,923-6-0. A preliminary decree for accounts was passed in due course, and on consideration of the Commissioner's report...
Kollipara Venkata Manikya Rao and ors. Vs. Chitturu Bhadrachalam and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad507; (1938)1MLJ375
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is an application under Clause 7 of the Letters Patent for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the record of the proceedings in O.P. No. 136 of 1936 on the file of the Election Commissioner (the District Munsiff) of Bezwada, an election petition which dealt with a certain election dispute, and for quashing his order declaring the election void. The main contention put forward in support of the application is that the absence of a finding by the Election Commissioner that the illegal rejection of certain votes by the Election Officer had materially affected the result of the election deprives the Election Commissioner of jurisdiction to decide the dispute. I am unable to accept this contention though it may appear to find some support in the cases relied upon by the petitioner's learned Advocate. The jurisdiction to decide the election dispute in question was undoubtedly with the Election Commissioner, and indeed no other person or tribunal had leg...
Bademian Saheb (Adjudged Insolvent) and anr. Vs. P.M. Jankan Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad438; (1938)1MLJ495
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Dharmapuri for the taking of accounts of a partnership. A preliminary decree was passed on the 9th of October, 1933 and the District Munsiff appointed a Commissioner to take the accounts. The plaint contained no-allegation of irregularity or fraud, but during the taking of the accounts the petitioner wished to urge that certain transactions had been suppressed by the respondent and consequently asked that these matters should be inquired into. On objection being raised to this course the petitioner applied to the Court for an order directing the Commissioner to inquire into the alleged irregularities. By an order dated the 10th of February, 1934, the District Munsiff held that it was beyond the province of the Commissioner or the Court to embark on an inquiry into these allegations. He considered that it was then too late. The petitioner had had an opportunity of inspecting the account...
Chidambaram, Minor Represented by His Maternal Grandfather Natesa Muda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad80; (1939)1MLJ96
ORDERGentle, J.1. In this application the applicants desire that an order may be made for the appointment of a Commissioner for the taking of an inventory of the movable properties at premises No. 15, Kuppumuthu Street, Triplicane, Madras. I am satisfied on the merits that the applicant is entitled to the appointment of such a Commissioner. This application is made after the filing of a petition for leave to sue in forma pauperis and before leave has been granted as prayed for in that petition. The question is whether there is a suit pending inasmuch as the right of the applicant to apply for the appointment of a Commissioner arises under Order 39, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code, in which the following words appear:The Court may on the application of any party to a suit,...make an order.2. If there is no suit, then there can be no parties and if there are no parties to a suit, this Court is unable to make an order appointing a Commissioner. This same matter came on before me in Applicati...
Arumugha Goundan Vs. Rangaswami Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad511; (1938)1MLJ510
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Venkataramana Rao, J., has held that the defendants are entitled to have so much of the branches of the tamarind tree cut off as project over their land. The plaintiff attacks this decision and his counsel has argued the appeal mainly as if the question involved were one of easement. That if the plaintiff's case rested on an easement right, it should fail, there can be no doubt. As the learned Judge rightly points out relying on Lemmon v. Webb (1895) A.C. 1 no right of easement can be acquired in respect of a tree which gradually projects over the neighbour's land insensibly and by slow degrees. It is important in this case to ascertain the facts precisely in order to understand the correct principle applicable. Arguments based on a supposed easement right were advanced before us as before the learned Judge and this has imported considerable confusion into the case. A careful analysis of the facts will show -that totally different considerations apply. We are con...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »