Chennai Court November 1939 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.
Nanjappa Goundan Vs. Rangaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad410; (1940)1MLJ200
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The main question for determination in this second appeal is a short one and it arises on the following facts. The property in suit originally belonged to the respondent and his brother. It was sold to one Ramaswami Goundan subject to a charge for Rs. 100 per annum for the maintenance of one Minakshi, the widow of a deceased coparcener of the family. Ramaswami subsequently leased the property for an annual rent of Rs. 125 to the respondent for a term of five years commencing from 13th May, 1926, Ramaswami himself undertaking to pay the maintenance due to Minakshi. On 4th August, 1928, the respondent sub-leased the property to the appellant herein under Ex. A for the remainder of the term. Ramaswami was adjudicated insolvent sometime in 1928 and his interest in the property having been brought to sale by the Official Receiver in public auction, it was knocked down to the appellant as the highest bidder on 1st March, 1930, but the sale was completed by the Official...
Paladugu Veera Ramachandra Rao Vs. Paladugu Parasuramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad127; (1940)1MLJ235
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation. On the 9th March, 1922, the first respondent obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada a money decree against the appellant, the appellant's uncle and a cousin, who were the members of an undivided family. The amount for which judgment was obtained was Rs. 3,735, but a mistake was made in drawing up the decree and the figure inserted was Rs.200. It was not until the 16th July, 1928, that the mistake was corrected under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 6th December, 1933, the respondent caused the decree to be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur for execution and on the 5th March, 1934, he applied for attachment of certain immovable property. The appellant objected to the attachment on the ground that the property was his personal property and the decree had only made him liable to the extent of his interest in the family property. Th...
Chilukuri Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Srupada Krishnamurthy Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad953
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The order of the Sessions Judge directing the destruction of the books cannot be sustained but the passages specified in the list appended are objectionable and the pages containing those passages will be destroyed. But the petitioner may if she desires reprint the unobjectionable portion of those pages and insert them in the book....
T.S.P.L.S. Tinnappa Chettiar, by His Authorised Agent, A.S. Arunachala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ726
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The relevant facts are few and not in dispute. One Jaya Rao since deceased executed a deed of mortgage to one Sundaram Aiyar on 18th June, 1919. In execution of a decree against the said Sundaram Aiyar the plaintiff on 10th April, 1935, purchased the rights under the said mortgage-deed. After giving credit to certain payments received towards interest and principal, the plaintiff sues for recovery of the balance due thereunder. The amount due on the date of the plaint was Rs. 9,432. The plaintiff waived Rs. 432 and claimed only Rs. 9,000. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of the mortgagor Jaya Rao; the fourth defendant is a divided brother of Jaya Rao and defendants 5 to 8 are alienees from Jaya Rao of some of the properties claiming under alienations subsequent to the date of the mortgage. The main defence was one of limitation. To save limitation the plaintiff relied...
T.S.P.L.S. Thinnappa Chettiar by Agent A.S. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad6
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The relevant facts are few and not in dispute. One Jaya Rao since deceased executed a deed of mortgage to one Sundaram Aiyer on 18th June 1919. In execution of a decree against the said Sundaram Aiyer the plaintiff on 10th April 1935 purchased the rights under the said mortgage deed. After giving credit to certain payments received towards interest and principal, the plaintiff sues for recovery of the balance due thereunder. The amount due on the date of the plaint was Rs. 9432. The plaintiff waived Rs. 432 and claimed only Rs. 9000. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of the mortgagor Jaya Rao; defendant 4 is a divided brother of Jaya Rao and defendants 5 to 8 are alienees from Jaya Rao of some of the properties claiming under alienations subsequent to the date of the mortgage. The main defence was one of limitation. To save limitation the plaintiff relied on the five f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›