Chennai Court December 1931 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.
Fatma Bi by Her Duly Authorised Agent Mr. Jainulabdeen Sahib Vs. Nagoo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ256
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Waller, J., sitting in insolvency. The Official Assignee allowed the claim of the appellant here which was in respect of a debt alleged to be due to her on a promissory note by the insolvent. A creditor preferred an appeal from the order of the Official Assignee to Waller, J. and he allowed the appeal.2. The facts can be briefly stated. The insolvent owed the appellant money on a promissory note. The last payment was a payment of interest on the 20th of October, 1925. No further payment was made by the insolvent and the debt would have become and did become barred by limitation on the 20th October, 1928. Up to that time the appellant had taken no steps to enforce her claim against the insolvent on the promissory note. The 20th of October, which was a Saturday, was a public holiday and the High Court was closed. The next day, the 21st, was a Sunday and the Court was closed that day also. On the 22nd October th...
Fatma Bi Vs. Nagoorkhan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad287
Beasley, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Waller, J., sitting in insolvency. The Official Assignee allowed the claim of the appellant here which was in respect of a debt alleged to be due to her on a promissory note by the insolvent. A creditor preferred an appeal from the order of the Official Assignee to Waller, J., and he allowed the appeal.2. The facts can be briefly stated: The insolvent owed the appellant money on a promissory note. The last payment was a payment of interest on 20th October 1925. No further payment was made by the insolvent and the debt would have become and did become barred by limitation on 20th October 1928. Up to that time the appellant had taken no steps to enforce her claim against the insolvent on the promissory note. The 20th October which was a Saturday, was a public holiday and the High Court was closed. The next day, the 21st, was a Sunday and the Court was closed that day also. On 22nd October the appellant could have filed a suit against t...
P. Seenappa Chetty Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad320
ORDERWallace, J.1. There can be no doubt that, under the amendments to Rules 3 and 10 under the Explosives Act even throw downs' and Chinese crackers are explosives.' The previous rulings of this Court to the contrary were based on an oversight of the amendments, and cannot be regarded as now applicable.2. Technically then, the petitioner is guilty of the offence. But in the circumstances petitioner may be forgiven for not possessing more knowledge on the point than learned Judges of the High Court. It would have been sufficient if he had been warned not to repeat the offence. That I cannot do now, as he is absent. The fine is reduced to rupee one. The balance if paid will be refunded....
Mariyayee Ammal Vs. Ponnusami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad336; 137Ind.Cas.369; (1932)62MLJ439
Reilly, J.1. This petition relates to Small Cause Suit No. 1912 of 1926 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Madura. That suit was tried by the Subordinate Judge with another Small Cause suit between the same parties, No. 1530 of 1926. The plaintiff in each case was the brother of the defendant, a Hindu widow, who, it appears, was engaged in litigation with the representatives of a deceased co-widow about the property of her late husband. In Small Cause Suit No. 1530 of 1926, the plaintiff sued for the value of certain moveables, which his sister, the defendant, had recovered in a suit against her co-widow's representatives on the strength of an alleged agreement, under which according to him, as he had given security for her in that suit, he was entitled to have possession of the moveable property which she recovered or its value, if she recovered its value in money. In Small Cause Suit No. 1912 of 1926, he sued for arrears of salary claimed by him under a clause of the same agreem...
L.S.M. Govindaswami Pillai Vs. Ramalingaswami Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad321; 137Ind.Cas.868; (1932)62MLJ644
ORDER1. This is an application for issue of a writ of certiorari to the Election Officer, Tanjore Municipality. The petitioner was a candidate for election as Councillor to one of the wards of the Tanjore Municipality. Under Section 49 of the District Municipalities Act, any person who is interested in a subsisting contract made with, or any work being done for, the Municipal Council except as a shareholder in a company is disqualified for election as a Municipal Councillor. Under the rules made under the Act, the Officer who has to deal with the nomination papers of the candidates is the Election Officer. His duty is to receive nomination papers and under Rule 7(2) to examine them and decide all objections which may be made at the time to any nomination and, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the grounds mentioned therein. One ground given is that a candidate is ineligible for elect...
Jayanti Bhagavanula Narasimham Vs. Jayanti Venkatasubbamma (Dead) and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ433
Waller, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent in this second appeal, is the widow of one Narasimham. He died about thirty years before the suit and she adopted the 2nd respondent, one of the sons of her husband's brother Kakulayya. In 1919 a suit for partition was brought and the family property was divided. The 2nd respondent and his sons got a share, the other three branches, now represented by the appellant and by various respondents, being allotted the remaining 5/8. In 1924 the first respondent filed a suit for maintenance, impleading all the former co-parceners as defendants. The suit was defended only by the 2nd respondent and his sons (the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants). The 5th, 7th and 9th to 11th defendants appeared by a pleader, but filed no written statements and the rest of the defendants did not appear at all. In the result, the 1st respondent was given a decree for certain sums of money, 3/8 of which were to be paid by the 2nd respondent and his sons and the oth...
Jayanti Bhagvanula Narasimham Vs. Jayanti Venkatasubbamma (Dead) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad351; 137Ind.Cas.749
1. The plaintiff who is respondent No. 1 in this second appeal, is the widow of one Narasimham. He died about 30 years before the suit and she adopted respondent No. 2, one of the sons of her husband's brother Kakulayya. In 1919 a suit for partition was brought and the family property was divided. Respondent No. 2 and his sons got a three-eighths share, the other three branches, now represented by the appellant and by various respondents, being allotted the remaining five-eighths. In 1924 respondent No. 1 filed a suit for maintenance, impleading all the former co-parceners as defendants. The suit was defended only by respondent No. 2 and his sons (defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3). Defendants Nos 5, 7, 9, and 11 appeared by a Pleader, but filed no written statements and the rest of the defendants did not appear at all. In the result respondent No. 1, was given a decree for certain sums of money, three-eighths of which were to be paid by respondent No. 2, and his eons and the other five-eight...
K.S. Venkatarama Aiyar Vs. the Collector of Tanjore and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad692; (1932)62MLJ403
Waller, J.1. The appellant in these two appeals is the plaintiff. He is an occupancy ryot under an inamdar and his crops have been distrained by the Collector for arrears of quit-rent due by the land-holder. He contends that the crops are not liable to be distrained under the Revenue Recovery Act, for the reason that they are not crops of land 'belonging to a defaulter' within the meaning of Section 11. His argument is thai the Inamdar is grantee only of the land revenue, that the land consequently does not belong to him and that he himself is not a tenant properly so-called. He proceeds to the length of asserting that ,the Kudivaramdar is the owner of the land, which most certainly is not the case. If his reasoning were sound, it would follow that, where the land-holder is grantee only of the land-revenue, no one owns the land and the Government could not attach the crops on it or sell it under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of quit-rent. No doubt, in a Madras case in 1902, the ...
Pazhancheri Panangat Blahayil Karnavan and Manager Kunjunni Nair (dead ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ629
Waller, J.1. Two questions have been raised in this Second Appeal. The first is at what rate the tenants have to be compensated for their improvements. The suit was brought on a kanom of 1900, which has been given in renewal of a kanom of 1884. One of the terms of the earlier contract, which was repeated in the later, was that compensation for improvements was to be at half their value. Under Section 19 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act contracts entered into before 1st of January, 1886, are not affected by the provisions of the Act. The rate fixed by the contract of 1884 would, therefore, hold good till 1900. The contention of the appellant is that, by force of the renewal in that year, it would continue to be effective under the fresh contract. The District Munsif held that the half rate was payable only up till 1st January, 1886, when the Act came into force. The Subordinate Judge in appeal thought that the case was governed by the Full Bench ruling in Rayara...
(Unithali) Ramutti and anr. Vs. (Kuttala) Padmanabha Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad301
Reilly, J.1. I see no reason to hold that an executor appointed by a will for which probate need not be obtained and has not been obtained, is exempted from the requirement of Section 214, Succession Act to produce a succession certificate before he can get a decree for a debt due to the testator's estate. The words of the section appear to me clearly to include such an executor. It is contended by Mr. Govinda Menon that such an executor does not claim on succession' within the meaning of the section. But not only would these words in their ordinary meaning include such a testator: Clause b(1) of the section includes among persons 'so claiming,' i.e. on succession, executors who have obtained probate. The opinion of the Full Bench in Ramiah v. Venkatasubbamma A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 434, regarding the vesting of the testator's property in an executor by a will for which prebate is unnecessary, does not affect this question; and it may be noticed that in that case the opinion of Wallis, C.J., ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »