Chennai Court September 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.
T.A. Mahommad Naina Rowther and ors. Vs. Muhammad Hehiya Rowther and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1933Mad218a
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The learned Judge's view that the decree of the High Court is invalid because plaintiff 6 (one of the respondents) died before the decree and his legal representatives had not been brought on record, is clearly wrong. The appellants should have brought the legal representatives on record before the decree, but they did not do so. The appeal was dismissed after hearing on merits. That the decree passed in such cases is not invalid is established beyond doubt by the decision of this Court reported in Suryanarayana Rao v. G. Joga Rao : AIR1930Mad719 and Vellayan Chetty v. Mahalinga Ayyar (1916) 39 Mad 386. In Kashi Nath Singh v. Kailas Singh AIR 1925 Pat 480, a case very much like the present, it was held that the decree is a valid one and can be executed if it is not barred under Article 182, Lim. Act. No doubt the decree in that case was a consent decree, but we do not think that this would affect the principle of the decision. In this case the petition is not barred...
Pulli Goundan Vs. Kumarasami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ714
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The purchaser of the properties from the Official Receiver of one Karuppa Goundan's estate is the petitioner before us. In I.A. No. 208 of 1928 one of the creditors filed an application before the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the sale. This application was not pressed and was dismissed. Another creditor took this order in appeal before the learned District Judge under Section 75, Clause (1) of the Act and the District Judge ordered that the application should be restored to file and enquired into by the Subordinate Judge. This Court directed the District Judge himself to go into the merits of the application and submit findings on two questions, Viz., (1) whether or no the withdrawal of the petition under Section 68 was collusive, and (2) whether the appeal under Section 75 of the Act to the District Court was bona fide and not merely in the insolvent's interest. The District Judge has now submitted h...
(Kota) Potharaju--prisoner Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad25; 136Ind.Cas.314
1. Two questions arise in this appeal. The first is what offence has been committed; the second, what the sentence should be. The appellant does not deny that he killed his mistress a woman called Mahalakshmi, but he pleads that he did so in consequence of grave and sudden provocation. The Judge has found that he discovered the woman in the arms of a former lover (P. W. 17), lest control of himself and stabbed her. The finding is probably correct. P. W. 17 admitted to the police that he was seated on Mahalakshmi's cot when the appellant entered the hut but not that she was in his arms. As he admitted further that she had solicited him, it is difficult to believe his pretence that he had refused her advances. On this finding, the Judge came to the conclusion that the offence committed was one Under Section 302, I.P. C. He was of opinion that though the provocation was sudden it was not so grave as to justify him in convicting of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This opinion he...
Kambala Sundararajamma Vs. P.S. Ramulu Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad519
Ramesam, Offg. C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises may be stated as follows: One Ramanujulu Naidu died on 31st February 1918 having executed his last will and testament on the preceding day, appointing his wife as the sole executrix and leaving him surviving the said wife Sundararajamma and three sons: Govindarajulu and two others. Under the will he gave a life interest to his widow, but she was given liberty to sell the house and invest the proceeds in three different houses and continue to possess a life interest in the three substituted houses and after her death the houses should belong to the three sons. Probate was obtained of this will on 13th September 1918. Govindarajulu the eldest son filed C. S. No. 628 of 1921 to recover his one third share of the property, which consisted only of a house, on the ground that it was ancestral property and that the testator had no power of testamentary disposition. That suit was disposed of by Coutts-Trotter, J., as he then was. ...
Vyraperumal Mudaliar Vs. K. Alagappa Maniagarar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad189; (1932)62MLJ31
1. The question in this second appeal is whether a co-sharer who to prevent arrest for a decree against himself and another co-sharer for arrears of rent due by both under the Estates Land Act pays the whole rent and brings a suit for contribution is entitled to a first charge on the other co-sharer's portion of the holding.2. The plaintiff and his cousin, 1st defendant's late husband, were jointly holders of ryoti land in the Ayakudi Zamin. They divided the holding among themselves in 1906 but as the patta remained joint in the Zamin accounts they were jointly sued for rent for faslis 1323, 1324 and 1325 (1914 to 1916) and a personal decree was obtained against them in the Revenue Court by the Zamindar. The plaintiff's cousin not having paid his share of the decree debt the plaintiff was on threat of arrest compelled to pay, in addition to his own share, the share of his cousin also on 2nd July, 1926. This suit was brought on 11th August, 1926, to enforce the plaintiff's right of cont...
Periyanan Chetty and anr. Vs. Rao Bahadur M.R. Govinda Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ496
1. The defendants are the appellants in these eleven second appeals. The suits were brought on behalf of Sri Subramanyaswami temple at Kunnakudi one of the five temples collectively known as Anjukoil of which the dharmakarthaship belongs to the Pandarasannadhi of Tiruvannamalai Mutt. The suits were originally brought by a receiver during the pendency of litigation as to the person entitled to the office of Pandarasannadhi of the Mutt and as such of the office of dharmakartha of the temples. After the litigation ended in 1920 by the Privy Council decision reported in Nataraja Thambiran v. Kailasam Pillai . the person declared entitled to the offices was substituted as plaintiff. The suits were brought for the possession of various plots of land in a hamlet called Muruganendal in the village of Uyyakondan belonging to the temple which had been alienated by a permanent cowle, dated 1st April, 1865, by the then dharmakartha in favour of the dharmakarthas of two other independent temples fr...
Palanivelu Odayar, Minor, by Guardian Kunju Alias Vijayalakshmi Vs. th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ763
Madhavan Nair, J.1. One Singaram Chettiar was adjudged insolvent by the District Judge of West Tanjore on 26th October,, 1923, by the order on I.P. No. 24 of 1923. On 30th May, 1923, he had executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 25,000 in favour of one Appadurai Odayar and had also transferred to him for Rs. 36,000 his rights under a hypothecation bond for Rs. 20,000. After the estate of the insolvent became vested in the Official Receiver, he filed O.P. No,- 15 of 1924 for; the annulment of the two alienations in favour of Appadurai Odayar under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. These alienations were annulled on 18th October, 1924. Subsequently, the Official Receiver filed I.A. No. 556 of 1926 in which he asked the Insolvency Court to pass an order for the payment by Appadurai Odayar of Rs. 4,000 as the profits for the two years from the 30th of May, 1923, to June, 1925. On 29th January, 1927, an ex parte order was passed against him in which he was directed to pay the O...
Municipal Council Vs. Kashi Munuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad1
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax in question since the notification contemplated by Section 80, District Municipalities Act, has not been published by the Municipality. Under this section a notification specifying the rate at which the tax will be levied will have to be published before levying the tax. In the notification, Ex. 2, in this case no specific rate leviable is mentioned. On the other hand it calls for objections. We therefore agree with the lower Court in holding that Ex. 2 cannot be treated as the final notification contemplated by Section 80.2. As the Municipality had no jurisdiction to levy the tax, the other question raised with reference to the correctness of the decision in the Madura, etc., Devas-thanams v. Madura Municipal Council A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 569 does not arise for consideration.3. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs....
Marudachala Nadar Vs. Chinna Muthu Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad155; 136Ind.Cas.316
Curgenven, J.1. The petitioner as plaintiff applied Under Order 23, Rule 1, Sub-rule 2, Criminal P. C, for permission to withdraw from his suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject-matter. The learned District Munsif, while refusing to grant such liberty, has thought that it was open to him to accept the former portion of the application and to allow the withdrawal of the suit. I think there is no doubt that an application of this kind must be treated as an indivisible whole and if a party is not allowed liberty to institute a fresh suit his pending suit should not be dismissed, but the application should be refused altogether and the suit should be retained upon the file. This is the view taken in Bhagwat Pershad v. Lachmi Pershad [1911] 10 I.C 346, and Mahant Biharidasji v. Parshotamdas [1908]32Bom345, and appears to me to be clearly reasonable. I must therefore allow the petition, set aside the District Munsif's order and direct the District Munsif t...
R.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar and ors. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1931
Reported in: (1932)62MLJ96
Vepa Ramesam, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The facts out of which these appeals, arise may be thus stated. A Nattukottai Chetti firm, vis., T.S.N. Firm, was adjudicated insolvent by the Rangoon High Court on the 10th March, 1930. On the 15th July, the Official Assignee of Rangoon applied to that Court that a letter of request be issued to the High Court, Madras, directing the Official Assignee of Madras to act in aid of the High Court of Rangoon in the matter of the insolvency of this firm. This was ordered by the Registrar of the Rangoon High Court on the same day. The order runs thus: 'Write letter as usual for such request,' The Official Assignee of Madras applied to this Court for an order directing him to act in aid of the Official Assignee of Rangoon in pursuance of the above letter of request and obtained such an order from our brother Waller, )., on the 19th January, 1931. But this order was passed ex parte,, i.e., without notice to the insolvents. The Official Assignee of Madras th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »