Chennai Court February 1939 Judgments
P.L.S.S. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. K.M.V.V. Kumarappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad650
Abdur Rahman, J.1. These appeals arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga on two applications, one made on behalf of the plaintiff and the other on behalf of the defendants under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C. with the allegations that the parties had referred the matter in suit, which was one for dissolution of partnership and accounts, to two arbitrations which resulted in two awards. The earlier which held the plaintiff to be entitled to recover Rs. 30,000 was pleaded on behalf of the defendants and the later under which the defendants were found to be liable to the extent of Rs. 52,000 was pleaded by the plaintiff. Since it has been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Subbaraju v. Venkataramaraju A.I.R. (1928) Mad. 1025 that where in a suit parties have referred their difference to arbitration without an order of the Court and an award is made, a decree in terms of the award can be passed by the Court under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P.C. the only question...
Tag this Judgment!K.P. Madhavi Ammal and ors. Vs. M. Subramanian Nambudripad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad584; (1939)1MLJ487
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate judge of Ottapalam dated the 23rd August, 1935, which dismissed the suit originally instituted by one Bhavatharathan Nambudripad for partition of his share in the property of his illom. He instituted the suit on 20th February, 1934. He executed a registered will seven days later leaving all his property including his share in his illom property to his Nair wife and children. He died on 2nd July, 1935. The Nair wife and children applied to be brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, claiming to come in as such under the registered will and also as the heirs of the deceased plaintiff under the Marumakkathayam law. That application was dismissed, the Subordinate Judge holding that the right to sue did not survive as there was no severance of status by the mere filing of the suit and that as there was no severance of status, there was nothing to which the legal representatives could lay...
Tag this Judgment!HussaIn Batcha Sahib Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad570; (1939)1MLJ476
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question of limitation under Article 131 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he is the duly appointed Mutavalli, Yeomiadhar and Katheeb of a mosque and that as he has been discharging the duties, he or his successors alone are solely entitled to receive the yeomiah allowance of Rs. 88-8-0 per annum from the first defendant who is the Secretary of State, for an order directing the first defendant to register the plaintiff as the Yeomiadhar entitled to receive the yeomiah allowance and pay the plaintiff such allowance and for an order restraining the first defendant by an injunction from paying the allowance to anyone else other than the plaintiff or his successors. The office by virtue of which the plaintiff claims the yeomiah allowance was held by the plaintiff's maternal uncle who died in 1918. In 1919 the second defendant, widow of the last holder was registered in the Revenue Department's records. In 1921 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kamakshi Aiyar Alias W.V.A.S. Kameswara Aiyar (Dead) and anr. Vs. Namb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad506; (1939)1MLJ531
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In O.S. No. 409 of 1905 of the Court of the District Munsif of Srivilliputhur the appellant obtained a mortgage decree in respect of the western portion of a house and at the subsequent sale in execution became the purchaser thereof. The respondent in the appeal held a second mortgage over the whole house. On the 8th March, 1924, the appellant obtained symbolical possession of the western half. In 1914, the respondent obtained a mortgage decree in respect of the whole house, and in execution thereof caused it to be sold. He was himself the purchaser, but his purchase was, of course, subject to the appellant's right and therefore was only effective with regard to the eastern half. The respondent was in physical possession of the whole of the property throughout and in spite of the fact that the appellant had been put in symbolical possession of his half of the property refused to allow him to enter into physical possession of his portion. The resul...
Tag this Judgment!Puligoru Subbarama Reddi (Dead) and anr. Vs. Palamkota Krishniah Chett ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad718; (1939)2MLJ16
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to erfforce a mortgage dated 10th January, 1924, executed by one Ganji Guruva Reddi in favour of one Dhupam Gangakka. The said mortgage has now become vested in the plaintiff by two successive transfers. The interest of the mortgagor is vested in defendants 1 and 2 by purchase. The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the first defendant is entitled to have priority over the mortgage sued on in respect of two prior mortgage debts discharged by him, namely, one in favour of Kathi Chandra Reddi and another in favour of Dhupam Narayana Reddi. The learned District Munsif decided the question in favour of the first defendant, but the learned Subordinate Judge reversed his decision. It is against this decision that the first defendant has preferred this appeal.2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. The owner of the suit property which formed the subject-matter of the several mortgages in question was one Ganji...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›