Chennai Court April 1933 Judgments
Ponnuthaye Ammal Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad858; (1933)65MLJ833
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff (decree-holder) against the order of the District Judge of Coimbatore declaring on the application of the respondent (the Official Receiver of Coimbatore) that the decree is of no force as against the respondent and that the execution of it by sale of the properties of the insolvent (1st defendant) in the decree cannot proceed.2. The facts are simple and undisputed. The appellant is a widow and she sued the 1st defendant, her husband's brother and the 2nd defendant, son of the 1st defendant, members of the joint family of her husband, for arrears of maintenance and for future maintenance claiming a charge for the latter on certain family properties specified in the plaint. Four days after the suit was registered, i.e., on the 22nd August, 1927, the 1st defendant was adjudicated insolvent. On the 21st November the plaintiff's vakil reported that the 1st defendant had been adjudicated and asked for time to consider what should be...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Asari Vs. Anandayammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad688; 145Ind.Cas.378; (1933)65MLJ386
ORDERBurn, J.1. I cannot see that Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code has anything to do with ordinary conjugal rights; it deals with 'maintenance' only and I see no reason why maintenance should be supposed to include anything more than appropriate food, clothing and lodging.2. On the facts of this case it is clear that the husband has offered to give his wife maintenance in his house but he wants her to live in a separate room and not to associate with the other members of his family. She has refused this offer and in my opinion she has no sufficient grounds for refusing. She cannot claim under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be treated 'as a wife'; she can only claim to be maintained on a scale appropriate to her station in life.3. The order for payment of separate maintenance is therefore unsupportable, and I set it aside....
Tag this Judgment!Chikkanna Chetty and anr. Vs. Dhanakoti Narayana Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad73; (1933)65MLJ841
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned District Judge has made an order directing the plaintiff to pay his next friends a portion only of the costs incurred by them. The only question argued in the Lower Court as well as here relates to the costs payable to the next friends. Are they entitled to the full costs incurred by them as contended for on their behalf or only to a portion of those costs as held by the learned District Judge? There is a third alternative, the one raised in the memorandum of objections, namely, are they entitled to no costs at all? Ordinarily I should be reluctant to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court in the matter of costs; but in this I case I am afraid that the Lower Court has overlooked the plain provisions of law bearing on the subject.2. On the minor plaintiff attaining majority, he elected to I abandon the suit and applied for its dismissal. Order 32, Rule 12(4), I Civil Procedure Code, provides, 'Where the minor elects to abandon the s...
Tag this Judgment!The National Insurance Company, Limited Vs. Seethammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad764; 145Ind.Cas.998; (1933)65MLJ455
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Stone, J. He held that an insurance policy effected with the National Insurance Co., Ltd., which has its head office at 7, Church Lane, Calcutta, on the 7th July, 1919, for Rs. 1,500 was effected in Madras. He has, however, stated no reasons in his judgment for so holding.2. The point to be considered by us here is, where was this policy of insurance effected? If it was effected in Madras, then a trust has been created in favour of the assured's wife and the policy money has to be paid to the Official Trustee of Madras; and that is by reason of Section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act. If, on the other hand, the policy was effected in Calcutta, it having been effected in 1919, that is to say, before 1923, there is no trust and letters of administration will have to be taken out by the widow of the assured for the purpose of obtaining the policy money.3. It is contended for the appellants that this policy...
Tag this Judgment!Velayuda Mudali (Died) and anr. Vs. the Co-operative Rural Credit Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ90
Pakenham Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit relates to two items of property. The A schedule property belongs to one Kuppuswami Padayachi and was sold to the appellant and two others on 9th December, 1922(Ex. C). The other two vendees sold their share to the plaintiff on 19th December, 1923 (Ex. D). The B schedule property belonging to one Thangavelu Padayachi was sold to the plaintiff on 27th June, 1923 (Ex. E). The properties were sold as free of encumbrance. But plaintiff found that they were both subject to a mortgage on 17th August, 1917, for Rs. 460 in favour of the 1st defendant, the Cooperative Rural Credit Society of Ulakottai Village. Default having been made under the mortgage to the Co-operative Society, it proceeded by C. C. S. I of 1922 to obtain an award from the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies. An award was passed on 31st August, 1922, directing the mortgagor to pay the amount. It was filed in Court with an execution petition, E. P. No. 16...
Tag this Judgment!Ramaswami Aiyar Vs. Pakkiri Pathar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad65; 147Ind.Cas.1179; (1934)66MLJ24
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. C.M.S.A. No. 156 of 1930.--The appellant is the decree-holder on a mortgage in favour of his deceased mother Mangalathammal and himself in O.S. No. 275 of 1918 in which a preliminary decree was passed on 7th December, 1918, by the District Munsif, from which an appeal was taken to the District Judge, which was dismissed on 30th September, 1920; and from which a second appeal was taken to this Court which was dismissed on 6th April, 1923. Mangalathammal having died pending the second appeal, the appellant was added as her legal representative. Soon after the preliminary decree by the District Munsif, the then decree-holder Mangalathammal obtained a final decree on 28th April, 1919. After the decision in second appeal, the appellant, his mother having died in the meanwhile, on 5th March, 1926, applied to the District Munsif for a final decree in pursuance of the decree of the second appellate Court. This was granted by him on 21st September, 1926. On appeal by the...
Tag this Judgment!Velayuda Mudali and anr. Vs. Co-operative Rural Credit Society and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad40
Walsh, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit relates to two items of property. The A schedule property belongs to one Kuppuswami Padayaehi and was sold to the appellant and two others on 9th December 1922 (Ex. C). The other two vendees sold their share to the plaintiff on 19th December 1923 (Ex. D). The B schedule property belonging to one Thangavelu Padayachi was sold to the plaintiff on 27th June 1923 (Ex. E). The properties were sold as free of encumbrance. But plaintiff found that they were both subject to a mortgage on 17th August 1917 for Rs. 460 in favour of defendant 1, the Co-operative Rural Credit Society of Ulakottai Village, Default having been made under the mortgage to the Co-operative Society, it proceeded by C.C.S. 1 of 1922 to obtain an award from the Assistant Registrar of Co operative Societies. An award was passed on 31st August 1922 directing the mortgagor to pay the amount. It was filed in Court with an execution petition, E.P. No. 1650 of 1922, on 17th No...
Tag this Judgment!Viriyala Jagannatha Rao Vs. Viriyala Narayanamurthy, Minor, by Mother ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Mad696; 145Ind.Cas.714; (1933)65MLJ374
Krishnan Pandalai, J.1. The sole point in this appeal is one on which it appears there is no direct decision of this Court, and it is, whether an application for execution against a minor judgment-debtor mentioning therein as his guardian the person who had been appointed and was acting as guardian but who happened to have died before the date of the application, is or is not sufficient to furnish a fresh starting point for limitation for a further application. The question has been directly decided in the Lahore and Patna High Courts in Ghulam Hussain v. Narain Singh A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 636 and Puran Mall v. Mt. Dilwa (1922) 72 I.C. 1003 respectively in the affirmative. I am content to say that I agree with the view of those High Courts and adopt it. There is also a decision of our Court in Samia Pillai v. Chockalinga Chettiari I.L.R.(1893) 17 Mad. 76 : (1893) 4 M.L.J. 8 which shows that this view is right. In that case it was held that an application for execution against a judgment-deb...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Venkatramana (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kedari Setti Sanyasayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Mad136; (1934)66MLJ76
Ramesam, J.1. These revision petitions are against the decisions of the District Munsif of Peddapur in S.C.S. Nos. 372 and 379 of 1931. They are connected and arise out of the same transaction. The transaction out of which the suits arise may now be described. The plaintiff is the same in both cases and is a dealer in gramaphones. He managed to get up a party of 120 persons. These 120 persons are to subscribe the first week each one rupee. At the end of the first week prizes 'are drawn and one of them gets a gramaphone. Then he goes out of the transaction. The second week the remaining 119 subscribe Re. 1-4-0 each. At the end of the second week another gentleman gets a gramaphone by taking lots. He goes out of the transaction. Third week the remaining 118 subscribe Rs. 1-8-0 and so on. Each week the amount of subscription is increased by four annas but is paid by a diminishing number of persons. At the 20th week 19 persons would have drawn gramaphones in this way. But the remaining 101...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rangaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1933
Reported in: (1934)66MLJ253
Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, for having brought a false charge of murder against five persons. One Kanniammal, a Shanar woman, wife of P. W. 1, died on the 11th May, 1932 and the prosecution case is that she committed suicide. After she was dead, the appellant went to the Police Station at a place nine miles away from the village and made a complaint (Ex. A) to a constable who was then in the station. In that complaint he charged five persons with having murdered this woman and he described in the complaint how they had murdered her. That complaint the Police investigated and certified to be false. The report that the case was false was put before the Sub-Magistrate and notice was given to the appellant to appear and show cause why his complaint should not be struck off, but he did not appear. The report of the Police was accepted by the Sub-Magistrate who ordered further investigation to be sto...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »