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.
Amirthavalli Ammal (Minor) by Her Next Friend T.A. Arumugham Pillai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1938
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ422
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. I his appeal arises out of an application filed under the Guardian and Wards Act by the first respondent on the Original Side of this Court. The first respondent is the mother of the first appellant who was born on the 30th October, 1922. The first appellant's father was one C. Manicka Mudaliar. He died on the 19th January, 1936, having left a will dated the 22nd January, 1935, under which he appointed the second and third appellants guardians of the first appellant. The second respondent in the appeal is the senior widow of the testator. The testator, his wives and his children all lived together in the family house, 2/9, Acharappan Street, George Town, Madras. The second and third appellants who are his nephews also lived in the same house with their families. After the death of the testator it would appear that the two widows did not get on well together and the first respondent left the family house in August, 1936. She filed the petition out of wh...
Ramasami Mestriar Vs. Velayuthan Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad496; (1938)1MLJ450
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of remand' passed by the lower appellate Court in a suit to enforce a mortgage. The only question arising for decision at this stage is the point of limitation raised by the third issue in the case. The District Munsiff held in limine that the suit was barred by~ limitation, but the learned Subordinate Judge held otherwise and remanded the suit for disposal on the merits.2. The plaintiff seeks to enforce a mortgage dated 15th November, 1913, and the question for decision is whether the reference to it in Ex. A, a sale deed dated 11th November, 1921, amounts to an acknowledgment of liability at least to the extent of Rs. 850 in respect of the mortgage of 15th November, 1913. The substance of the statements in Ex. A is that on 11th November, 1921, a sum exceeding Rs. 850 was due from the debtor to the creditor on settlement of accounts, that the debtor was attempting to discharge the debt to the extent of Rs. 850 by the sale of cert...
B. Venkatachala Mudaliar Vs. the Coimbatore Municipality by Its Chairm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad880; (1938)2MLJ353
Stodart, J.1. Without seeing the order of the Council (assuming that there was such an order) it is impossible to say on what ground the Council justified the levy of profession tax on the petitioner, and without knowing that, it is impossible to say that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. If they have been complied with the decision of the Council is final and no suit lies. See Section 354 of the Act. The lower Court should have 1 think satisfied itself on this point.2. However that may be, I agree with the lower court's finding on the merits.3. Petitioner has a house in Coimbatore where he ordinarily lives and he actually lived in the Municipality from 1st to 7th April and from 9th to 30th September. Between 7th April and 9th September he was absent at Coonoor. That has been so found by the learned District Munsiff. Before going to Coonoor he informed the Municipal Commissioner that he intended to be absent from the 7th April till about the end of August. Under Se...
Arulayi and ors. Vs. Rakka Kudumban
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad501
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. We wish to state at the outset, with a view to avoid any further confusion, that the suit out of which this appeal arises, is concerned only with the central plot marked C-1, C-3, C-4 in the Commissioner's plan Ex. D-l of the extent of 74 cents, out of the larger parcel of 23 cents, which consists of three parts: the western, the central and the eastern parts. The point at issue, stated simply, which the first Court had to try, was did the suit plot belong to the plaintiff Rakka Kudumban or to defendant 2 Mada Kudumban? If it belonged to defendant 2, it is admitted that he having sold it to defendant 1, the latter was the owner on the date of the suit. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiff was the owner and defendant 2 was not. This finding necessarily negatived defendant 1's right. The District Munsif, giving effect to this view, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. An appeal was filed before the Subordinate Judge by defendant 1. The plainti...
Pakkiri Muhammad Rowther Vs. L. Swaminatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad573; (1938)1MLJ796
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Pandrang Row, J., dismissed the second appeal, giving effect to an objection, in limine, that the decree from which it was filed, was superseded by a fresh decree that was passed subsequent to the filing of the appeal. The question to decide is whether there was in law a new decree passed, which had the effect of discharging the original decree. We regret to say we are constrained to differ from the learned Judge's view. If the course of the proceedings be carefully followed, it will be seen that nothing was done, which could be said to have had the legal effect of vacating the decree, from which the second appeal was filed.2. The facts relevant to the question at issue may be briefly stated. The plaintiff, alleging that he became the purchaser of the suit property, sued the defendants for possession. Their defence was that some amount was due to them, and the trial Court after over-ruling the plea, gave judgment for the plaintiff. It must be mentioned that the p...
The Villupuram Urban Co-operative Bank by Its Secretary Mr. Kuppuswamy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad809; (1938)2MLJ186
Horwill, J.1. In a dispute between the Secretary of the Villupuram Urban Co-operative Bank and member No. 719 of that Company an award was passed by the Arbitrator under Rule 14 of the Rules framed under Section 43 of the Co-operative Societies Act, in which one Vaithilinga Mudaliar and two undivided minors of his family were ordered to pay Rs. 281-6-9 to the Society with interest and costs and upon failure to do so the property was ordered to be brought to sale. This award was sent to the District Munsiff of Villupuram for execution ; and he held after enquiry that the third defendant had not been served in the Proceedings before the Arbitrator; and he therefore refused to execute the decree against the share of the third defendant in the family property. In appeal the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore confirmed this decision, not only on the ground that the third defendant was not served; but also on the ground that the third defendant, because he was a minor, could not be a ...
N. Kayambu Pillai Vs. Lakshmi Ammani Ammal by Guardian Ad Litem the Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad491; (1938)2MLJ137
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Horwill, J., made an order dis-paupering the appellant and its correctness is questioned in this Letters Patent Appeal.2. The suit was filed by one Duraiswami in 1928 against the Court of Wards for the recovery of Marungapuri estate. He was allowed to institute the suit in forma pauperis, and died in 1929, and was succeeded by his son Ponnuswami, who brought himself on the record and continued the action. The suit was dismissed in 1930. Ponnuswami was allowed to file the appeal as a pauper and died in 1935 during its pendency. The present appellant Kayambu Pillai, being the executor under Ponnuswami's will was then brought on the record as his legal representative. The petition in question was filed by the Court of Wards to dispauper the appellant on the ground that his predecessors in interest, i.e., Duraiswami and Ponnuswami had entered into certain agreements of the kind contemplated1 by Clause (e) of Order 33, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code.3. The first questio...
Sri Rajah Rai Sri Venkatraya Krishna Rangarao Bahadur Zamindar, Minor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad504; (1938)1MLJ384
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The respondents are not represented and Mr. D. Narasaraju has at our request appeared as amicus curiae.2. The suit was filed by the Zamindar of Kirlarhpudi and the defendant was one of his ryots. The Subordinate Judge, finding that the lands were situated in an estate, held that he had no jurisdiction to hear it and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. His order has been confirmed by Pandrang Row, J. and this Letters Patent Appeal is directed against his judgment.3. In view of a decision given by a Bench of this Court, the plaintiff's counsel has had to concede that the suit lands are in an estate, but he contends that the ryot is precluded from relying upon that ground, by reason of the arrangement to be presently referred to. In a certain litigation between the Maharajah of Pithapuram and his tenants, the question was raised whether the lands involved there were in an estate or not. The decision in that litigation would be dec...
The Secretary of State for India in Council, Represented by the Collec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad509; (1938)2MLJ355
Pandrang Row, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Muniappa Chettiar, who died during the pendency of the suit and who is now represented by his legal representatives, the respondents in the second appeal. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to irrigate his registered wet fields with water flowing from what may be briefly described as Sluice No. 3 and for refund of the penal water rate with interest that was collected from him by the revenue authorities for fasli 1339. The source of irrigation assigned to the wet fields in question was Sluice No. 2 and the plaintiff's case was that it was impossible to irrigate his wet fields in this manner, namely, from Sluice No. 2, for the simple but sufficient reason that the level of the sluice as well as the channel taking from it was lower than the level of the wet fields. The plaintiff's case also was that he had been irrigating his wet fields for many years past according to custom, that the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›