Chennai Court December 1937 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.
S. Maruthamuthu Naicker Vs. P. Kadir Badsha Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad377; (1938)1MLJ378
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is a reference under Order 46, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in a suit on a promissory note. The note was executed by the first and second defendants in favour of one Ponnusami Naicker who indorsed it to the plaintiff. The two sons of the second defendant who constitute with him an undivided family have been made defendants, as it is sought to make them liable on the ground that the debt was incurred for family purposes by the second defendant in his capacity of managing member. The sons having raised the plea that the plaintiff as the indorsee is not entitled to sue them on the strength of the indorsement of the instrument, the Subordinate Judge has referred to us this question:Whether an indorsee of a promissory note executed by the managing member is entitled to recover the debt from the property of the non-executant coparceners on the ground of their liability under the Hindu Law or whether he is li...
Chadalavada Venkata Subbayya Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad483; (1938)1MLJ539
Pandrang Row, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff in the lower Court. He sued the Secretary of State for India in Council and the present Village Munsif of Pedapudi in the Tenali Taluk for a declaration that the order of the Board of Revenue dated 12th May, 1928, in second appeal is illegal and ultra vires.2. The facts necessary to understand the points in issue may be stated briefly. The plaintiff-appellant's grandfather Ramanappa was Village Munsif of Pedapudi till 1883 when he was dismissed by the Sub-Collector for misconduct, and a divided member of the same mirasi family was appointed to the office, namely, the grandfather of the second defendant. The plaintiff's contention was that that appointment was only temporary, and to be in force only during the lifetime of the dismissed Village Munsif, and that on the death of the latter in 1923, the plaintiff was entitled to be appointed Village Munsif. On this basis, the plaintiff, during his minority, by a next friend s...
In Re: Last Will and Testament of Hajee Sir Ismail Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1937
Reported in: (1938)1MLJ444
Wadsworth, J.1. This matter concerns the will of Hajee Sir Ismail Sait, a gentleman of the Cutchi Memon community, who died on the 24th of April, 1934, in the Tuberculosis Sanatorium at Arogyavaram in the Chittoor District. The petitioner, who is one of the sons of the testator, propounds a registered will dated 19th March, 1934, about which there is really no dispute, and also desires probate of two communications, which are alleged to amount to a codicil to that will, despatched by the testator to his solicitors, Messrs. Moresby and Thomas, on 13th April, 1934.2. Most of the issues framed in this suit are entirely irrelevant to probate proceedings. The first issue in this case as to whether the deceased was governed by the Hindu or the Muhammadan law so far as it relates to the execution of his will is governed by authority, namely, Sarabai Amibai v. Mahomed Cassum I.L.R. (1918) Bom. 641, where it has been held that the Muhammadan law governs the wills of Cutchi Memons and that conse...
Ramachandra Naidu and ors. Vs. Vengama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad357
Leach, C.J.1. In O.S. No. 1 of 1889 of the District Court of Trichinopoly a Hindu widow, one Venkalakshmi Ammal, sued her step-sons, Venkatarama Iyer and Ramarathnam Iyer for maintenance, and on 2nd September 1890 obtained a decree which applied to the maintenance then due and to future maintenance. The maintenance was made a charge on the family properties. The decree was not expressed in precise terms, but it was held in subsequent execution proceedings that the decree did in fact give a charge on the family properties and this question must be regarded as having been finally decided. On 13th November 1888 Ramarathnam sold his share in 393 acres of the family lands to one Krishna Iyer, who was defendant 21 in the widow's suit. On 27th November 1888 Krishna Iyer sold his interest in these properties to Vengama Naidu and Perumal Naidu. Between 7th December 1888 and 2nd June 1890 Vengama Naidu and Perumal Naidu Under 13 deeds disposed of their interest in the properties to various peopl...
Ramchandra Naidu and ors. Vs. Vengama Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1937
Reported in: 174Ind.Cas.493
Leach, C.J.1. In O.S. No. 1 of 1889 of the District Court of Trichinopoly a Hindu widow, one Venkalakshmi Ammal, sued her stepsons, Venkatarama Iyer and Ramarathnam Iyer for maintenance, and on September 2, 1890, obtained a decree which applied to the maintenance then due and to future maintenance. The maintenance was made a charge on the family properties. The decree was not expressed in precise terms, but it was held in subsequent execution proceedings that the decree did in fact give a charge on the family properties and this question must be regarded as having been finally decided, On November 13, 1888, Ramarathnam sold his share in 393 acres of the family lands to one Krishna Iyer, who was defendant No. 21 in the widow's suit. On November 27, 1888, Krishna Iyer sold his interest in these properties to Vengama Naidu and Perumal Naidu. Between December 7, 1888, and June 2, 1890, Vengama Naidu and Perumal Naidu under 13 deeds disposed of their interest in the properties to various pe...
The Pollachi Transport, Ltd., by General Manager Mr. G.D. Naidu Vs. Ar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad485; (1938)1MLJ864
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against an order granting compensation to the respondent for an injury he suffered while he was doing the duties of a conductor in a vehicle belonging to the appellant-company which plied from. Palghat to Pattanheri on the 13th March, 1935.2. So far as the amount of the award is concerned, it has not been challenged before us. Two points were argued before us by Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant-company. One is the question of limitation and the other is that the respondent is not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. In regard to the question of limitation, his point is that while the accident took place on the 13th March, 1935, the claim to compensation was instituted on the 12th December, 1935 and notice of compensation was given only on the 6th November, 1935. It is true that under Section 10(1) of the Act, notice of the accident...
Garapati Venkanna Vs. Mullapudi Atchutaramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad542; (1938)1MLJ610
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. It becomes necessary to state a few facts in order to make the questions of law raised intelligible. The suit may be shortly described as one brought by the reversioners of a deceased Hindu. One Brahmayya(senior) died somewhere about the year 1864 and was succeeded by his widow Subbamma, who died on 27th September, 1914, that is, about 50 years later. On her death the estate vested in two persons named Ramayya and Brahmayya (junior), sons of two brothers. After Ramayya's death his sons (plaintiffs 1 to 5) along with Brahmayya (junior) executed on 21st November, 1916, the document Ex. F, in favour of the 6th plaintiff, a stranger. On 27th September, 1926, that is, on the last day of the period provided by the law of limitation, the present suit was brought. The plaint, which purports to have been filed by plaintiffs 1 to 6, was in fact signed and verified only by the sixth plaintiff, who described himself as the authorised agent under Ex. F of plaintiffs 1 to 5. I...
M.C. Krishnan Nambiar Vs. the Municipal Prosecutor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad709; (1938)2MLJ31
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the Subordinate Judge of Calicut from 1st April, 1934 to 18th June, 1934 and his absence from Calicut during the summer recess from 29th March, 1934, to 4th June, 1934, cannot make any difference. He was holding that appointment till 18th June, 1934, and as pointed out in Veerappa Chettiar v. Municipal Council, Palni (1924) 48 M.L.J. 428 : I.L.R. 48 Mad. 476 the test for liability in the case of a person holding an appointment is not personal presence within the Municipality. There is therefore no force in the contention that the petitioner was not holding that appointment within the Municipality of Calicut for 60 days, and the decision in Mahadeva Aiyar v. Municipal Council, Masulipatam : (1937)2MLJ569 is clearly distinguishable. The levy of profession-tax was therefore legal and Section 34 of the Elementary Education Act empowers Municipal Councils to levy an education-tax under the head of profession-tax. Section 36 enacts that the educati...
Secretary of State Vs. Pullela Rangaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad583
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from the preliminary and the final decree in O.S. No. 58 of 1929 on the file of the subordinate Judge of Vellore. The suit was for sale of the plaint properties in satisfaction of two mortgages that had been executed by defendants 1 and 2 and the undivided deceased father of defendant 3. Defendants 4 to 6 were imp leaded as persons claiming to be puisne mortgagees of one or other of the mortgaged properties. The only contesting defendant was defendant 7 the Secretary of State for India in Council, who had some of the properties mortgaged in his favour under the provisions of the Land Improvement Loans Act. Defendant 7 not only claimed priority in respect of his mortgage, but also contended that the suit should be dismissed summarily, as no notice of the suit was given to him prior to suit as required by law. For some reason or other, this objection to the maintainability of the suit was not made the subject-matter of a separate issue and the judgmen...
Soora Kulasekara Chetty and anr. Vs. Tholasingam Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Mad349; (1938)1MLJ344
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent filed a complaint against the appellants before the Bench of Magistrates of Saidapet, in which he accused the appellants of assault, insult and criminal intimidation. The charges against the second appellant were dismissed on the 23rd September, 1930, and he was accordingly discharged. The case proceeded as against the first appellant and resulted in his acquittal on the 25th May, 1931. The respondent was not satisfied with the decision of the Magistrates and he filed two applications in revision, one against the discharge of the second appellant and the other against the acquittal of the first appellant. These applications were filed in the Court of the District Magistrate of Chingleput and were heard by him. The hearing resulted in the dismissal of the petitions on the 13th July, 1931. On the 12th July, 1932, the appellants filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Chingleput for damages for malicious prosecution. The Distri...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »