Chennai Court August 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.
Thirugnanavalli Ammal Vs. P. Venugopala Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad29; (1939)2MLJ751
ORDER1. This is an application by a decree-holder for the amendment of a decree passed by this Court on the 30th August, 1932, on the ground that there has been an accidental omission. The petitioner obtained a decree in the Court of the District Judge of South Arcot for the payment of two sums, Rs. 10,817 and Rs. 11,183, with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. On the first amount interest was to be calculated from the 16th March, 1925, and on the second amount from the 16th March, 1926, 'till this date', that is, the date of the decree, the 21st December, 1928. There was no reference to further interest in the judgment and the decree was drawn up in accordance with the judgment which was signed by the District Judge who delivered it. On appeal this Court held that the petitioner wag entitled to Rs. 10,276 and Rs. 10,623 with interest on these amounts at six per cent, per annum from 16th March, 1925 and 16th March, 1926, respectively to the date of the decree. Again there was nothing s...
P.V. Karuppanan Ambalam Vs. Pandari Sundara Raja Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad71; (1939)2MLJ645
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his enjoyment of the suit property and, in case it was found that the respondent was not in possession, for delivery of possession free from the obstruction of the appellant. The respondent claimed title under an Inam grant alleged to have been made to his predecessors-in-title by the Carnatic rulers for the supply of Tulasi to the Kallalagar Devasthanam in the Madura District. The respondent also alleged that in or about the year 1918 the trustees of Ramalingaswami Mutt falsely set up title to the suit properties and it the instance of some mediators, the dispute with them was settled by the trustees giving what is described as a release sale deed relinquishing all their interest in the suit properties, and recognising the respondent's title thereto. Since then, the respondent claimed to have been in possession and enjoyment of th...
Kesavamattam Koda Nayakamma Vs. Edara Venkayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ664
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the learned District Judge of West Godavari in a suit instituted on a mortgage executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant. The property mortgaged is a house in Ellore. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property solely belongs to the first defendant. It is the case of the first defendant that the property belonged to her husband. It is not necessary to determine that question. The second defendant admitted the claim. The main defence of the first defendant was that the mortgage was not executed by her, that she was an ignorant and illiterate woman and the second defendant was in a position to dominate her and the suit document was vitiated by fraud and undue influence. The learned Judge on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the first defendant had not made out the case of fraud and undue influence. He found in favour o...
Ahmad Bux Alla Jovaya Vs. Fazal Karim
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad49; (1940)1MLJ676
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The, question raised in this appeal is whether a cause of action arose in part within the original civil jurisdiction of this Court. The appellants are a firm of hide merchants carrying on business in Hyderabad, Sind. On the 21st April, 1937, the appellants telegraphed to the respondent, who is a merchant carrying on business at Madras and at Madhavaram, offering to sell him 5,000 sheep hides of a certain quality at the price of Rs. 128 per 100 skins, delivery to be given at the railway station in Hyderabad. The respondent by a telegram of the same date made a counter-offer. He informed the appellants that he was prepared to accept the hides at the price of Rs. 125 per 100 skins. This counter-offer was accepted by the appellants by telegram the next day. On the 4th May, 1937, the appellants made an offer to the respondent in respect of another parcel of hides but of a different quality at the price of Rs. 80 per 100 skins. Here again, the respondent ma...
Sistla Saraswatamma Vs. Paruvada Maki Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad881; (1940)2MLJ305
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of remand in a matter arising out of a claim in execution of a personal decree passed in a mortgage suit. The appellant is a mortgage decree-holder; the respondent is the eighth defendant impleaded in the mortgage suit as a subsequent purchaser of one of the items mortgaged. After the sale of the hypotheca had not realised the full amount of the mortgage decree, an application was made for a personal decree against the mortgagors and to this application the present respondent (eighth defendant) was not made a party. When the decree-holder came to attach part of the personal property of the mortgagors, there was a claim preferred by the present respondent on the ground; that the property attached was his property by virtue of a sale executed after the passing of the personal decree. Now, the claim preferred by the respondent was drafted as a claim by a stranger to the decree under Order 21, Rule 58 and it was investigated on that basis ...
Rm. Pl. S. Sivaswami Chettiar Vs. Marudaiya Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad16; (1939)2MLJ759
Wadsworth, J.1. I see no reason why the appellant should not with reference to the terms of Section 146, Civil Procedure Code, be allowed to file an appeal against the dismissal of the suit instituted by his benamidar, the latter having released his right in the property claimed in the suit by a deed which recites that the appellant was the real purchaser of the property. Whatever may be said regarding the superfluous deed of assignment subsequently executed, it cannot be contended that the release deed offends against Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. And though Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, does not in terra apply, the Court has ample powers under Section 146, Civil Procedure Code, to permit the person in whose favour the plaintiff has released his rights in the property to file the appeal, The appeal is therefore allowed with costs and there will be a direction to the learned District Judge to permit the appellant to file the appeal as a person claiming under ...
Sankamma Hengsu Vs. H. Anantha Kamath and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad882; (1940)2MLJ309
Pandrang Row, J.1. These connected Revision Petitions arise out of two connected Small Cause Suits instituted by two different persons claiming to be assignees or indorsees of two different promissory notes under indorsements purporting to have been made by Rao Saheb P.U. Narayana Aiyar and P. Ramayya Alva as joint holders of a power-of-attorney granted to them by the liquidators of the National Livestock Registration Bank, Ltd., Madras. The suits were dismissed mainly on the ground that the indorsements were not valid and conveyed no interest to the assignees. In one of these revision petitions, namely, C.R.P. No. 1041 of 1936, the only question that arises is whether the indorsement by the agents of the Liquidators is valid in law. This very point arose in connection with a similar case in C.R.P. No. 22 of 1934 in which it was held by Sir Owen Beasley, C.J., that the liquidators had no power whatever to delegate their powers to any one else. The power of the liquidators themselves is...
Ramayya Goundan Vs. Kolanda Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad911
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for partition which was tried and decided by the Subordinate Judge of Salem. The appellant is one of four brothers and was admittedly entitled to a fourth share of the joint family properties. The only question in appeal is, what are the common properties movable and immovable which belonged to the joint family and liable to be divided between the appellant and his three brothers who are respondents 1 to 3 in the appeal? A decree for partition has been passed by the Subordinate Judge in respect of such only of the immovable properties as according to his finding formed the ancestral estate. The plaintiff's claim, however, extended further and covered items of properties standing in the names of the individual defendants as also monies outstanding in their names. As regards these items of properties and outstandings the learned Subordinate Judge held against the appellant and to that extent negatived his claim. Bef...
C.V. Ramasesha Aiyangar Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ728
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. One Kandaswami Pillai died in 1923 leaving a considerable amount of property, but large debts. He was survived by two widows and seven sons, of whom only two were majors. The eldest son was Sivagurunatha. On the 16th January, 1924, the second son, Chidambaram, and the widows purporting to act as the guardians of their respective sons, granted a power-of-attorney to Sivagurunatha to administer the estate of the deceased. Why it was necessary to execute this power-of-attorney is not apparent. Sivagurunatha was under Hindu law the manager of the family and lawful guardian of the minors. On the 18th January, 1924, Sivagurunatha sold certain immovable property belonging to the estate and five days later sold other estate property. On the 22nd February, 1924, a creditor applied for his adjudication in insolvency on the ground that the two transfers which he had effected in the previous month constituted fraudulent preferences under the insolvency law. The ap...
K.A. Mahammad Sheriff Sahib Vs. HussaIn Ghouse
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad933; (1939)2MLJ816
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question how a surety bond given by a third party for the appearance of the defendant, is affected by the return of the plaint for presentation in cause suit and applied for the arrest of the defendant before judgment. The respondent gave a bond in order to secure the release of the defendant. The essential terms of this bond are that the respondent undertakes that the defendant will appear at every hearing till the case is finished, that if there is a decree in this case against the defendant the respondent undertakes that the defendant will appear whenever required until the decree is settled, that if he fails to appear the respondent will produce him under the orders of the Court and that if he fails to produce him, he will be liable for any decree which may be passed. Both the Courts below have agreed that no special significance is to be attached to the use of the word (number) in the bond and that it does not mean anything more than 'case' a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »