Chennai Court August 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.
Majeti Venkata Nagabhushanam Rao and anr. Vs. Majeti Venkata Lakshmina ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad42; (1938)2MLJ1054
Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J. 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They are the sons of one Subba Rao, brother of the first defendant: Defendant's 2 to 7 and 10 are the sons and grandsons of the first defendant, arid they form members of a joint Hindu family. Eighth defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant. Ninth defendant is the trustee appointed under the trust deed Ex. B dated 6th January, 1926, which will be referred to presently, executed by defendants 1 to 8 in favour of the ninth defendant. 2. The plaintiffs' father and the first defendant effected a partition in 1903. Some properties were divided and some were kept joint. The joint properties were in the possession of the first defendant. The plaintiffs' father died in 1912. After his death, the plaintiffs and the first defendant referred to arbitration various matters in dispute between them regarding the joint properties and mesne profits. Generally stated, the arbitrator was asked (see Ex. A) to divide the undiv...
A.R.L.S.V.L. Sevugan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Raja Srimathu Muthu Vijaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad273
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Zamindar of Sivaganga for obtaining a modification of the boundary line marked by the survey authorities between two villages in the zamindary, namely, Kallvayal and Iluppakudi. The plaint also contained a prayer for possession to the extent to which the defendants might be found to be in possession of portions of the plot marked 'I' in the sketch attached to the plaint.2. Kalluvayal is to the south-east of Iluppakudi and continues to be an Ayan village of the zamindary. Iluppakudi had long ago been granted in inam to a temple and the defendants are the trustees of that temple for the time being. The Sivaganga estate was in the possession of certain European lessees for a period of nearly 30 years up to 1918 and during that period, it appears from Exs. B and C, that the Ayan village of Kalluvayal had been leased by the European lessees to one C.V. Section T. Narayanan Chetti for a period of 19 years (Paslis 1299 to ...
Sinnachami Chettiar Vs. Ramasami Chettiar (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad858; (1939)2MLJ501
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul dated 11th March, 1936, setting aside the decree of the District Munsif of Periakulam dated 28th February, 1935, in O.S. No. 70 of 1934 and remanding the suit for fresh disposal after deciding certain issues framed by the Subordinate Judge.2. The suit was by an indorsee of a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of one Subbayyan Chettiar, the endorser. The issues framed by the District Munsif were:(1) Is the full discharge pleaded true?(2) Is the plaintiff not a bona fide holder in due course?(3) Is the defendant entitled to raise the plea of discharge as contended in his written statement?3. In substance, the defence was that the promissory note had been executed in favour of Subbayyan Chettiar as a benamidar, the beneficiary and the person who lent the money under the promissory note being Ramalingam Chettiar, the brother-in-law of Subbayyan Chettiar. The plaintiff and his brother R...
Ayancheri Kovilakath Sankara Varma Raja and Manager of Ayancheri Kovil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad902; (1939)2MLJ506
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a petition for revision against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry granting leave to the petitioner to sue as a junior member of a Malabar tarwad for the removal of a karnavan from his office and for certain other incidental reliefs in forma pauperis. It has not been contended before me that the petitioner, who is a student in the Zamorin's College at Calicut, is in a position to pay the requisite court-fee. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has confined his attack mainly on the grounds that the petition discloses no cause of action and even if it did, the petition should be held not to have been presented in good faith, as the object of the petition is to help defendant 3 to become a karnavan and not for securing any benefit to the petitioner for himself. In other words, the petitioner is alleged to have been instigated by defendant 3 to fight his cause and it has been contended that it would be wholly against public policy to permit h...
H.M. Ebrahim Sait Vs. the South India Industrials Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad962; (1938)2MLJ568
Madhavan Nair, Officiating, C.J.1. This is an appeal against the order of Gentle, J., confirming the order of the Master giving the appellant (defendant in C.S. No. 167 of 1937) leave to defend on his furnishing security for a sum of Rs. 25,000 within a period of two months from the date of his order. The security has not been furnished. The appellant contends that leave to defend the suit should have been given to him unconditionally.2. The circumstances are these. The respondent (plaintiff) is the South India Industrials, Ltd. The suit has been filed by; its Managing Director. The appellant is another Managing Director. The claim against the appellant is for a sum of Rs. 2,83,878-6-11 - the amount overdrawn by him from the company previous to the year 1928. There is no contest regarding this amount owing by the appellant to the company. In defence, the appellant raised various contentions, the most important of which is that the suit has not been filed with proper authority, inasmuch...
Bhattiprole Hanumantha Rao Vs. Kodrakota Sitharamayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad106; (1939)2MLJ195
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit by the appellant to set aside a number of sale deeds executed by him during his minority and to recover the properties sold together with mesne profits. The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 were the purchasers under different sale deeds, all of which have been set aside by the trial Court. But the decree for possession has been made conditional on the appellant refunding to the several purchasers the amounts of the consideration received from them. The first defendant died after the institution of the suit and his legal representatives are defendants 10 and 11. The main object of the appeal is to get rid of the condition imposed on the appellant to repay the purchase moneys.2. The Subordinate Judge has found that the appellant was a minor when he executed the several deeds of sale, that he did not make any misrepresentation as to his age. He has not found that any of the purchasers except the fourth defendant had knowledge that the ...
In Re: M.R.V. Venkatachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad227
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The evidence justifies the conviction of petitioners 1 to 3 and their sentences are not excessive. But the evidence is that petitioners 4 to 11 were the servants of petitioner 1, the keeper of the common gaming house, and it is not suggested that they were gambling. They cannot therefore be convicted under Section 9, Madras Gaming Act, and their conviction is set aside. Their fines if levied will be refunded and otherwise the petition is dismissed....
Public Prosecutor Vs. Moturu Appalanarasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad268
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the Stationary-Magistrate that there was no proper com-plaint in this case is opposed to the decision in Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty A.I.R. (1926) Mad. 865, and on the evidence the respondent would unquestionably be guilty under Section 122, Clause (1), Railways Act. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the respondent is convicted under Section 122, Clause (1), Railways Act. The offence is technical and the respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of one rupee with simple imprisonment for one day in default....
Vadrevu Sankaramurthi and anr. Vs. Vadrevu Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad914; (1939)1MLJ301
1. This appeal raises an important question, regarding the right of maintenance. The respondent is the widow of one of the sons of one Surayya. Her husband died in 1920. In 1923 Surayya became a Sanyasi after executing and registering a document described as a will (Ex. IV-C). In that will he bequeathed his self-acquired properties to his grandsons (defendants 3 and 4 in the suit) who are respectively the sons of Surayya's two other sons (defendant 1 and defendant 2). Surayya handed over his properties to his grandsons, and thereafter disappeared out of their lives. In 1926 the respondent sued the four defendants for maintenance and in both of the Courts below she has obtained a decree for maintenance against defendants 3 and 4, which is also charged upon the property acquired by them under Ex. IV-C. Defendants 3 and 4 have now filed this second appeal, and in our opinion the appeal must succeed.2. The construction of Ex. IV-A need not delay us long. Though it appears to have been trea...
S.A. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. P.P. Palaniappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad697; (1939)2MLJ40
Madhavan Nair, Officiating C.J.1. These are applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the order of remand made by this Court in Appeals Nos. 57 and 235 of 1933. The applications, have been made under Section 109, Clause (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the question which we are called upon to decide is whether in passing the remand order we passed a final order within the meaning of the term 'final order' as used in Clause (a) of the section.2. The above appeals arose out of a suit for accounts. The lower Court's decree was reversed and the suit was remanded for further enquiry. The suit was upon a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 60,000 in which the plaintiff and the defendants were interested in the proportion of 5/17 : 2/17. The promissory note was in the possession of the defendants and they had the obligation to collect the amount due under it. One of the questions which arose in the case was, what was the rate of interest due under the note and how it sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »