Chennai Court April 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.
Kali Matathil Veeran Kutty's son Avaru Vs. Asi Bai and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ462
1. The 1st defendant is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit property after the removal of the house standing on it. The appellant obtained the property, which was a vacant site, on lease for erecting a house for residential purposes. Under the lease deed (Ex. H) he agreed to remove the house at his own expense whenever required by the owner. He now claims that before he is ejected he is entitled to be paid the value of the house under the Malabar Tenants' Improvements Act (I of 1900). It is conceded the 'house' falls within the meaning of the term 'improvement' as defined in the Act and, that if the Act applies, the undertaking to remove it cannot be enforced as it offends against the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The learned District Judge disallowed the compensation for the house on the ground that the lease, being not an agricultural one, is governed by the Transfer of Property Act and not by the...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. F. Byramshaw and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ512
Stone, J.1. This summons raises a point which is of importance, and, so far as India is concerned, is a point of first impression, there being, so far as I am aware, no reported case dealing with the matter in question, although Thanmul Sowcar v. Ramadoss Reddiar I.L.R. (1927) 51 M. 648 : 55 M.L.J. 358 is a case which glances at it. Having had the advantage of the argument by the Advocate-General assisted by Mr. Duraiswami Aiyar, I assume that there are no cases in India as I am sure, had there been, they would have brought such cases to my attention.2. The points raised are two, firstly, does the doctrine of rateable apportionment apply in India in virtue of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or otherwise, and secondly, if it does apply, can it be applied in the circumstances of this case? This is one of those cases where the same mortgagor mortgages two properties (in this case 'Bonaly' and 'Maid-stone,' which can be related to A and B which I shall hereafter mention) bot...
Kalagara Purnayya Vs. Cherukuri Basava Kottkyya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Mad788; (1931)61MLJ518
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The question in this petition is whether the son of a Hindu father who died after incurring debts on promissory notes can be adjudged insolvent on account of his liability as a member of the family to pay these debts out of the family properties. The Subordinate Judge held that he could be, but the learned District Judge held that he could not be so adjudged.2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner (creditor) argues that the District Judge's decision is not correct and relies upon the decision in Muthu Veerappa Chettiar v. Sivagurunatha Pillai I.L.R. (1925) 49 M. 217 : 49 M.L.J. 697; which followed an unreported decision in C.M.A. No. 47 of 1916. The unreported decision goes to the full length of holding that members of joint families liable as such for a family debt but not otherwise are debtors within the meaning of the insolvency Act and therefore can be adjudged insolvent on those debts. The decision in Muthu Veerappa Chettiar v. Sivagurunatha Pillai did n...
Avaru Vs. Asi Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad8
1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit property after the removal of the house standing on it. The appellant obtained the property, which was a vacant site, on lease for erecting a house for residential purposes. Under the lease-deed (Ex. H) her agreed to remove the house at his own expense whenever required by trie owner He now claims that before he is ejected he is entitled to be paid the value of the house under the Malabar Tenants' Improvements Act (Act 1 of 1900). It is conceded the 'house'falls within the meaning of the term 'improvement'as defined in the Act and that if the Act applies, the undertaking to remove it cannot be enforced as it offends against the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The learned District Judge disallowed the Compensation for the house on the ground that the lease, being not an agricultural one, is governed by the Transfer of Property Act and not by the Mal...
(Kilaru) Gangaiya and anr. Vs. (Kilaru) China Lingaiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad162; 145Ind.Cas.529
Pandalai, J.1. The partition list is not an instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2(15), Stamp Act, because it did not itself effect any division as the agreement for a subsequent stamped and registered instrument shows, but was an agreement for effecting a future partition on the terms agreed. The document is liable to stamp duty and penalty as an agreement under Article 4, Schedule 1(a), Madras Act 6 of 1922. The order of the District Munsif is varied accordingly. No costs....
M.R. Srinivasa Ayyangar Vs. Venkatarama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad215; 145Ind.Cas.767
Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.1. These are two revision petitions filed by the decree-holder (Srinivasa Ayyangar) in S.G.S. No. 883 of 1926 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of West Tanjore. He obtained a decree for Rs. 216 against one Manicka Thevar. Manicka Thevar however obtained a decree against the petitioner Srinivasa Ayyangar in the same Court in S.C.S. No. 1101 of 1926 for Rs. 66. The decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 883 of 1926 applied for satisfaction being entered in respect of the amount of Rs. 66 odd due by him under the decree in S.C.S. No. 1101 of 1926. The lower Court refused to grant that request and accordingly the decree-holder in Suit No. 883 of 1926 hud preferred one of the two revision petitions. The decree-holder in S.C.S. No. 1101 of 1926 assigned his rights under the decree to one Venkataramaier. Venkataramaier applied to the Court which passed the decree, namely, the Subordinate Judge's Court of West Tanjore, under Order 21, Rule 16, for recognizing him as assi...
In Re: Marwadi Ganesh Mull
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ914
ORDERJackson, J.1. This Court would not have called up this case except that it involves an interesting point of law; because the petitioner confined his appeal below to a plea ad miseri cordiam, and a party must obviously work out all his remedies in the properly constituted Courts below before he comes up for revision.2. The point of law is whether when a person makes one statement in the Committing Court and contradicts it in the Sessions Court, the Sessions Judge can complain in the alternative that one or other of the statements must be false. If the statement in the Sessions Court is true, can the Sessions Judge complain of the statement in the Committing Court? He can only do so if the latter statement has been committed in relation to the sessions trial. It has been held in Calcutta in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor (1926) 100 I.C. 708 that if a person makes a false charge in a police station which eventuates in a trial, the false charge is in relation to the trial. In the same way the...
Maddur Muniswami Chetty Vs. the Board of Revenue, Land Revenue and Set ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad33; (1931)61MLJ479
ORDER1. This is an application filed by Maddur Muniswami Chetty praying that the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari to the Board of Revenue, Land Revenue and Settlement, Madras (1st respondent), and the Collector of Chittoor (2nd respondent), and to call for the entire records in connection with the proceedings taken against the petitioner which resulted in the removal of the petitioner from his position as a member of a Panchayat Court, and to quash the proceedings.2. The petitioner was one of the members of the Panchayat Court of Tirupathi. The President of the Court sent up a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was guilty of certain specific misconduct and that he was not a fit person to continue as a member of the Panchayat Court. The petitioner in his turn sent up a petition against the President of the said Court charging him with irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings and other specific acts mentioned in that petition. The C...
N.C.T. Chidambaram Pillai Vs. S.V. Subramania Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad513; 140Ind.Cas.674
Pandalai, J.1. These petitions are by respondents 5 and 6 to a petition filed by the special receiver appointed in I.P. No.20 of 1925 in which respondents 1 to 4 were adjudicated insolvents to avoid a transfer by the insolvents, Ex. 1, dated 19th July 1925 of a decree obtained by them to respondent 5 and also a sub transfer by respondent 5 of the same decree by Ex. 2, dated 9th April 1926 to respondent 6 on the ground that Ex. 1 was a fraudulent transfer voidable against the receiver Under Section 53 and that Ex. 2 was also a transfer without consideration and invalid against the receiver. Certain dates are important. Ex. 1 is as already stated dated 19th July 1925. The insolvency petition was dated 13th August 1925 and the adjudication followed on 9th February 1926.2. The subtransfer by respondents 5 to 6 was on 9th April 1926 and the present petition to avoid the transfer and retransfer was filed on 3rd May 1926. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the petition dismissed it holdi...
(Allu) Ramalinga Ayyar Vs. Malli N.M. Subba Ayyar (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad168
1. The question that this appeal raises is, whether the respondent has proved his debt within the meaning of Section 78, Provincial Insolvency Act. A certain Malli firm filed a suit claiming an amount against the appellant. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant applied to be adjudicated an insolvent, and the Insolvency Court appointed an interim receiver to take possession of his properties. Thereupon, the plaintiff, Malli firm, applied to the Court where the suit was pending, that the interim receiver might be brought on the record. That application was refused and eventually a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. That decree contained a clause which ran thus: 'The plaintiff may prove their debt in insolvency.'2. Some time after the passing of the decree, the appellant was adjudicated an insolvent. Then the decree was assigned by Malli firm in favour of the present respondent. We are now concerned with what happened subsequently. He applied to the insolvency Court, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »