Chennai Court January 1937 Judgments
Kuppu Govinda Chettiar Vs. Uttukottai Co-operative Society by Its Liqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad604; (1937)1MLJ640
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this Revision Petition relates to the amount of the court-fee leviable on a plaint which prays for a declaration that an order of a liquidator of a co-operative society determining the amount of contribution payable by the plaintiff under Section 42(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act is null and void. The case of the plaintiff is that he ceased to be a member in or about June, 1930, that more than two years after he ceased to be a member an order for contribution was made against him on the 25th November, 1933, directing him to pay a large sum, namely, Rs. 8,000 and that the liquidator had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and he therefore prayed for a decree that such an order is illegal, void and of no effect and unenforceable against the plaintiff'. He paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-A(iii) of Schedule II to the Madras Court-Fees Amending Act. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff should have valued the c...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmi Ammal and anr. Vs. Anantharama Aiyanagar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad699; (1937)2MLJ209
M. Venkatasubra Rao, Kt., Officiating C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is, whether succession to a Hindu male dying before the passing of Act II of 1929, leaving a female heir (a limited owner under the law) who is alive after the Act has come into force, is governed by the provisions of that Act. The last male holder was one Venkatakrishna, who died a minor on the 11th July, 1927. He was succeeded by his mother, Lakshmi Ammal (the first defendant) against whom the. action has been brought by the plaintiffs claiming to be the presumptive reversioners, with a view to obtain certain reliefs in regard to her deceased son's estate. The plaintiffs' right is challenged by the sister of Venkatakrishna, Sundarathammal (the second defendant in the suit) and her son, who allege that under the Act, they have a preferential right to the succession; and if this contention is well founded, the plaintiffs would cease to be the nearest or presumptive reversioners. Act II of 1929 received...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Sankaranarayana Reddiar Vs. the Taluk Board of Aruppukottai Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad211; (1937)2MLJ903
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The question in this Civil Revision Petition relates to the legality of the profession tax levied on the petitioner for two half years, i.e., the half year ending 30th September 1930 and the half year ending 31st March 1931, by the Taluk Board of Aruppukottai in Ramnad District. The amount levied was Rs. 100 for each half year; notices of demand were served on the petitioner for each half year's levy. He failed to prefer an appeal soon after the service of notice with reference to the half year ending 30th September 1930, but he did it only after the service of notice with reference to the 2nd half year, for both half years after paying the taxes levied. The appeal was filed on the 11th May 1931, the date of service of notice being 10th April 1931 and the 10th May being Sunday. The president of the Taluk Board rejected the appeal as time barred, without placing the memorandum of appeal before the Board as he was bound to. This action of the president is not justi...
Tag this Judgment!M.R.M.A.R. Natesa Chettiar Vs. T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad769; 173Ind.Cas.244
1. The two suits against the decrees in which these two appeals are laid were disposed of in one judgment. Natesa Chetty, the appellant in both appeals, was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 20 of 1934. In O.S. No. 24 of 1934 he was defendant 7. His adversary Ramalingam Chetty was defendant 4 in O.S. No. 20 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 24. He is the contesting respondent here. In a Court auction, held in pursuance of a mortgage decree, Natesa Chetty through a clerk purchased the mortgage property on 13th October 1924 and was put in possession by the Court on 16th October 1927. But Ramalingam Chetty was a puisne mortgagee of a major portion of the property and he had not been impleaded in the suit. His interest therefore remained unaffected by the decree. On 30th June 1932, Natesa Chetty filed what is now numbered as O.S. No. 20 of 1934 and on 10th August 1933 Ramalingam Chetty filed O.S. No. 24. Natesa Chetty's suit was that the property comprised in the first mortgage be sold again and out o...
Tag this Judgment!Kuppu Govindan Chettiar Vs. Uttukottai Co-operative Society by Its Liq ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1937
Reported in: 169Ind.Cas.698
Venkatramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this revision petition relates to the amount of the court-fee leviable on a plaint which prays for a declaration that an order of a liquidator of a Co-operative Society determining the amount of contribution payable by the plaintiff under Section 42 (6) of the Co-operative Societies Act is null and void. The case of the plaintiff is that he ceased to be a member in or about June 1930, that more than two years after he ceased to be a member an order for contribution was made against him on November 25, 1933, directing him to pay a large sum, namely, Rs. 8,000 and that the liquidator had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and he therefore prayed for a decree that such an order is 'illegal, void and of no effect and unenforceable against the plaintiff.' He paid a court-fee of Rs. 100 under Article 17-A (iii) of Set. II to the Madras Court Fees Amending Act. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff should have valued the claim unde...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Thammanna Rattayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad490
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the acquittal of three of the accused in C.C. No. 29 of 1935 on the file of the District Magistrate of Kistna. The acquittal of these accused was ordered by the Sessions Judge of Kistna in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1936. The offences charged were Under Sections 5 and 6, Child Marriage Restraint Act (19 of 1929). These three accused were accused 3, 4 and 5 in the trial Court. Accused 3 and 4 were the parents of the bridegroom and accused 5 was the priest who solemnized the marriage, which is alleged by the prosecution to be a child marriage. The case for the prosecution was that the bridegroom was under 18 years of age and the bride under 14 years of age when the marriage was solemnized on 7th February 1935. Accused 1 and 2 were the parents of the bride and their convictions were upheld in appeal. Accused 6 was another priest who was said to have solemnized the marriage. He was acquitted on appeal, but there has been no appeal so far as his acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasulu Naidu Vs. Sundaresa Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad677
ORDERBeasley, C.J.1. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent on a promissory note. That suit was dismissed by the lower Court. Certain facts must be stated. The suit debt was incurred on 9th December 1931. Before that, on 11th October 1931, the respondent had filed his own petition to be adjudicated as an insolvent and he prosecuted that petition and on 21st November 1932 was adjudicated. Ha was given one year's time to apply for discharge and at the end of that time applied for discharge and an order of discharge was granted conditional on payment by him of one anna in the rupee. This condition he satisfied. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this suit against him. In his written statement the defendant stated that the plaint was false and vexatious and had not been properly presented and that the plaintiff had fraudulently, with knowledge of the insolvency, presented the plaint with a deficient stamp and was proposing terms to which the debtor did not consent. He then pleade...
Tag this Judgment!Katta Gundayya and ors. Vs. Katta Siddappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad599; 173Ind.Cas.194; (1938)1MLJ574
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The first plaintiff and the other defendants are their sons and grandsons. Till 1915, the two branches constituted an undivided Hindu family which was possessed of extensive properties, movable and immovable. They had also a family business. In 1915 partition between the two branches began and the parties have gone on dividing portions of the properties, from time to time, sometimes by arrangement between themselves and sometimes through arbitrators. Some movables, some immovables and various outstandings remained undivided even at the date of the plaint in this suit which was filed in 1931. After the division began in 1915, the family trade continued to be carried on till 1922, though it appears that from 1920 the defendants began to do business on their own account as well. After 1922 it is admitted that no further business was carried on in common. On the other hand, the plaintiffs' branch also began to do business ...
Tag this Judgment!Yevanje Krishna Bhatta Vs. Khandige Iswara Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad579
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the plaintiff for a refund of a certain sum of money on the ground that in the settlement of account between the parties he has paid certain amounts in excess of what was legally due to the defendant. The plaintiff executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant on 26th June 1915 and took a lease back from him on 3rd August 1915. Under the lease he had to pay rent according to the rate specified therein. On 3rd April 1928 the parties looked into the accounts for a period of ten years and arrived at a certain figure as being due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendant and on the basis of that calculation the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 1,657 on that date. The plaintiff's case is that it was not a final taking of accounts and that he subsequently found out that the figure was arrived at on a wrong calculation of interest, that a sum of Rs. 523 collected by the defendant as receiver in another suit was no...
Tag this Judgment!Bhyradevanhalli Lingappa Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-27-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Mad717
ORDERBeasley, J.1. The suit here was to recover Rs. 165-11-0 due on a promissory note dated 10th August 1930 executed by the defendant in favour of one Malliah who endorsed it to plaintiff 1 for Rs. 120 payable with interest at 12 per cent, per annum. The date of the endorsement is 14th August 1934. Before that, on 14th July 1934, Malliah the transferor had been adjudicated an insolvent and the Official Receiver was made a party to the suit. The defendant contended amongst other things that the plaintiff's were not entitled to sue and he also pleaded partial discharge. This latter plea was found against by the trial Judge who held that the suit was maintainable and that plaintiff 2, namely the Official Receiver, stood in the shoes of the debtor and he therefore gave a decree in favour of plaintiff 2 with costs but dismissed plaintiff 1's suit, plaintiff 1 being the endorsee of the promissory note. If the adjudication of Malliah had stood, there would be nothing wrong so far as I am abl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »