Chennai Court April 1931 Judgments
In Re: Married Women's Property Act Iii of 1874; in Re: Life Insurance ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ111
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to show cause why the Official Trustee of Madras be not directed as Trustee of the petitioner herein to recover on her behalf the amount due under Policy No. 6033 of R. Srinivasa Aiyar, deceased, effected with the United India Life Assurance Company and to pay the same to the petitioner. The petitioner, Abhiramavalli Animal, is the widow of R. Srinivasa Aiyar who was the Headmaster of St. Antony's Secondary School, Negapatam. The petition is opposed by his two brothers. The late Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar insured his life for a sum of Rs. 1,000 with the United India Life Assurance Company, Madras. The policy so far as is material is as follows:This policy...witnesseth that in consideration of the payment already made to the company...as stated in the sub-joined schedule...the company doth hereby agree that, upon proof satisfactory to the directors of the happening of the event or events on which the sum assured is to become payable as described in th...
Tag this Judgment!Vythilinga Pandarasannadhi, Trustee Kattalai, Kamalalayam South Bank V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad193; 136Ind.Cas.771; (1931)61MLJ904
Ramesam, J.1. These are appeals under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam in E.A. Nos. 11 and 84 of 1930 in O.S. No. 125 of 1921 which was a suit filed for the framing of a scheme for the temple of Sri Thiagarajaswami at Tiruvarur in East Tanjore District. The matter came up to the High Court before Spencer, J. and myself and a scheme was framed. Under Clause (8) of the scheme the trustee of each Kattalai was directed to submit a budget to the treasurer of his expected receipts and expenditure and the treasurer was directed to consolidate the budgets of all the Kattalais and place them before the Board for their approval and orders. Under Clause (13) of the scheme the trustees of the respective Kattalais were directed to hand over all the cash proceeds of their property to their treasurer who had to keep them in a safe within the temple premises, enter them in a book to be kept with separate pages for each Kattalai for that...
Tag this Judgment!Abhiramavalli Ammal Vs. the Official Trustee of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad220
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an application to show cause why the Official Trustee of Madras be not directed as Trustee of the petitioner herein to recover on her behalf of the amount due under Policy No. 6033 of R. Srinivasa Aiyar, deceased, effected with the United India Life Assurance Company and to pay the same to the petitioner. The petitioner, Abhiramavalli Ammal, is the widow of R. Srinivasa Aiyar who was the Head Master of Saint Antony's Secondary School, Negapatam. The petition is opposed by his two brothers. The late Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar insured his life for a sum of Rs. 1,000 with the United India Life Assurance Company, Madras. The policy so far as is material is as follows:This policy...witnesseth that in consideration of the payment already made to the company...as stated in the subjoined schedule...the company doth hereby agree that, upon proof satisfactory to the directors of the happening of the event or events on which the sum assured is to become payable as described i...
Tag this Judgment!(Yerramilli) Satyanarainarao and ors. Vs. (Guna) Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad153
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by plaintiffs 2 to 5 as the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. Defendant 1, now also deceased, mortgaged the suit property to defendant 11 who obtained a decree upon it in O.S. No. 484 of 1903. The property was brought to sale and was purchased by defendant 12, who is said to be a clerk of defendant 11 benami for his employer. That sale was confirmed on 4th November 1908 but no attempt was made to secure delivery through the Court. On 21st July 1909 the first plaintiff took a sale deed of the suit property from defendants 11 and 12, and this was attested by defendant 1, the judgment debtor. It is said that on the same occasion cowles were executed to defendant 4 who is a divided brother of defendant 1, and to defendants 9 and 10, sons of a brother of defendant l's wife. There is a promissory note, Ex. E, filed in evidence said to have been executed by these lessees at the same time and place in respect of an advance of...
Tag this Judgment!(Yerramilli) Satyanarayanarao and ors. Vs. (Guna) Venkataswamy and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1931
Reported in: 143Ind.Cas.504
Curgenven, J.1. This second appeal is preferred by plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 as the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. Defendant No. 1, now also deceased, mortgaged the suit property to defendant No. 11 who obtained a decree upon it in O.S. No. 484 of 1903. The property was brought to sale and was purchased by defendant No. 12, who is said to be a clerk of defendant No. 11 benami for his employer. That sale was confirmed on 4th November 1908 but no attempt was made to secure delivery through the court. On 21st July 1909 the first plaintiff took a sale deed of the suit property from defendants Nos. 11 and 12, and this was attested by defendant No. 1, the judgment-debtor. It is said that on the same occasion cowles were executed to defendant No. 4 who is a divided brother of defendant No. 1 and to defendants Nos. 9 and 10, sons of a brother of defendant No. 1's wife. There is a promissory note, Ex. E, filed in evidence said to have been executed by these lessees at the s...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukumara Pillai Vs. Thirunarayana Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad260; 137Ind.Cas.183; (1931)61MLJ307
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This petition raises an interesting and uncommon question. When a suit for money is transferred from the Court where it is instituted to another Court beyond that jurisdiction and a decree is obtained in that Court and then the second Court is abolished and the whole business of that Court is sent by administrative order to a third Court, has that (third) Court jurisdiction to entertain a petition for sending the decree for execution to the first Court or must the petition for execution be presented in the first instance to the first Court?2. The facts are as follows: The suit, O.S. No. 179 of 1922. which was for money on a promissory note, was filed in the Vriddachalam Munsif's Court by two minor plaintiffs represented by their mother as next friend and was transferred for disposal to the Mannargudi Munsif's Court and there numbered as O.S. No. 633 of 1923 and a decree was passed against the petitioner-defendant. Subsequent to the decree the Munsif's Court of M...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Uppalapati Bulli Nagayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ474
ORDERJackson, J.1. The petitioner is first accused in C.C. No. 348 of 1929 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Gudivada. The Appellate Court has sentenced him to three months' rigorous imprisonment. It has also confirmed the order of the Trial Court whereby sums of money amounting to Rs. 1906-9-6 found in the house of accused 1 have been confiscated.2. Apparently the accused was convicted in the alternative under Section 6, Madras Act III of 1889 Madras Towns Nuisances Act (III of 1889) or Section 8, Madras Act III of 1930 Madras Gaming Act (III of 1930). The offence was on 8th November, 1929 and Madras Act (III of 1930) received the assent of the Governor-General on 21st March, 1930.3. The Appellate Court finds that there was nothing wrong in passing sentence under the 1930 Act, because its sections 8 and 9 are identical with sections 6 and 7 of the 1889 Act. There is no reason for presuming that Act III of 1930 is retrospective and its similarity to a previous Act cannot make it so. T...
Tag this Judgment!Chengazhisseri Alias Puthillom Alias Purmaseri Narayana Alias Punnasse ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ862
1. In our view the District Court had no authority under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act to direct a remand and re-hearing of the case. The powers conferred on the Court by that section are only to modify or set aside the decision of the Board and, of course, to dismiss the application. If the section had meant that the Court was an appellate authority with all the normal powers of an Appellate Court, we should expect that to have been stated. The District Court's order is therefore without jurisdiction and we must set it aside and direct that it pass a proper order in accordance with its powers under the section. Each party will bear his own costs....
Tag this Judgment!Gyanammal Vs. Abdul HussaIn Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad813; (1931)61MLJ920
Reilly, J.1. The appellant in this case obtained a preliminary decree for sale on a mortgage, defendant 1 in the suit being the mortgagor and defendant 2 a purchaser of the equity of redemption. Defendant 2 appealed to the District Judge of Chingleput. That appeal was heard ex par be without any appearance having been put in for the plaintiff, and the decree obtained by the plaintiff in the original Court was set aside. Subsequently the plaintiff made an application to the District Judge under Rule 21 of Order 41 of the Code praying that the ex parte decree against her made in the appeal might be set aside. Before the appeal was heard several attempts were made to serve the plaintiff, and, as they were unsuccessful, eventually an order was made for substituted service on her. That substituted service appears to have been held sufficient, as the learned District Judge disposed of the appeal against the mortgage decree. But, when the plaintiff came forward with her application under Rule...
Tag this Judgment!(Wuppuluru) Neelachalam Vs. Narasinga Dass
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad716
Jackson, J.1. Petitioner seeks to revise the judgment of the District Judge, Ganjam, in A.S. No. 283 of 1926.2. He filed O.S. No. 131 of 1926 on 6th January 1925 and he was ordered to pay Rs. 57-15-0 to make up the proper court-fee. Instead of doing so he reduced the claim and returned the plaint with a court fee of Rs. 37 which was then correct. The District Judge held that he had not obeyed the order of the lower Court and therefore the original plaint could not have the same effect, as if the proper Court- fee had been paid at the outset. The point is important because if the amended plaint is to be treated as a fresh and distinct document it will be time barred. The original plaint could be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, if the plaintiff on being required to supply the requisite stamp paper failed to do so. In this case the plaintiff did supply the correct stamp in the sense that he finally produced a correct court-fee, though it was not the fee that the unamended plaint would ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »