Chennai Court October 1938 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.
Kocherlakota Gopala Rao Vs. Kopparaju Lakshminarasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad268; (1939)1MLJ137
King, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point with regard to the effect of rateable distribution of assets upon the amounts payable to the decree-holder under the decree in O.S. No. 326 of I929. That decree awards the decree-holder a certain sum payable by the first and second defendants and also a further sum by way of costs payable by not only the first and second defendants but by the third defendant also. The decree was executed by the decree-holder and in his own execution petition and in another execution petition by another creditor of defendants 1 and 2 he received a certain sum amounting roughly to about one half of the total decree amount by way of rateable distribution. Subsequently to the receipt of this money the third defendant has admittedly paid Rs. 100 to the decree-holder. In 1934 the third defendant filed a petition in the Court of the District Munsiff of Bezwada praying that full satisfaction might be entered in his favour with regard to that portion of the dec...
C. Venkatarangam Naidu Vs. B. Jagannadha Dass and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad255; (1939)1MLJ140
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order requiring the appellant to furnish security before being allowed to defend a suit instituted on the Original Side of this Court by the respondents. The respondents are the secretary and treasurer of an association known as the Madras Mahajana Sabha. In 1931 and 1932 the appellant was the treasurer and also a trustee of the association. The suit has been filed to recover Rs. 7,074 from the appellant, and the respondent base their claim on two grounds. In the first place they say that the appellant will be found liable for this amount on the taking of an account of the monies he received when holding the office of treasurer. In the second place they sue on a promissory note for Rs. 6,000 which the appellant signed on the 20th December, 1934, in respect of monies he had received.2. The suit was filed under Order VII of the Original Side Rules. This order contemplates a suit to recover a debt or to liquidate a demand in m...
Perianna Goundan Vs. Sellappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad186; (1938)2MLJ1068
Varadachariar, J.1. This is an application filed by the ninth defendant in the Court below (eighth respondent here) for relief under Madras Act IV of 1938.2. The suit out of which the appeal arose was instituted for the recovery of money due under a mortgage deed dated 27th July, 1929, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In execution of a money decree obtained against the mortgagor, the eighth defendant purchased the equity of redemption in a portion of the hypotheca in 1930 and he sold the same to the ninth defendant on 11th August, 1933. The plaintiff claimed to bring to sale the properties purchased by the ninth defendant as part of the mortgage security. The ninth defendant in turn contended that the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff was nominal and not supported by consideration. The lower Court substantially upheld this contention of the ninth defendant and gave a decree in the plaintiff's favour for a small amount. On appeal by the plaintiff, we reverse...
Karnam Hirannayya Vs. Matan Thippeswami and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad215; (1938)2MLJ1032
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned District Judge of Bellary in a matter arising in execution. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are simple. The appellant was the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 38 of 1935. The respondents applied for execution of the decree by sale of the mortgaged property and the sale was fixed for 23rd August 1937. On the 16th of August, the judgment-debtor made an application to the Debt Conciliation Board under Section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act of 1936. On the 19th August, the judgment-debtor made an application to the District Court which was executing the decree for staying the sale of the property on the ground that he had made an application under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act, which runs as follows:When an application has been made to a board under Section 4 any suit or other proceedings then pending before a Civil Court in respect of any debt for the settlement of which application has be...
Hanibabeebi Ammal Vs. Syed Munurdeen Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad183; (1938)2MLJ1042
King, J.1. The respondent in this appeal was adjudicated insolvent in 1933. The appellant is his wife in whose favour a decree had been passed in 1932 awarding her mahar and maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5 a month, In 1934 she filed an execution petition for arrears of maintenance which were then due amounting, according to her, to Rs. 220 and prayed for the execution of her decree for that amount by the arrest of the respondent. The prayer was allowed by the first Court but was refused by the Appellate Court on the ground that her debt was one provable in insolvency and therefore she could not proceed1 to execute the decree for that debt without the leave of the Insolvency Court. It is against that decision that the present appeal has been filed by the wife.2. Mr. Sesha Aiyangar in arguing the appeal for the appellant has laid very great stress upon two decisions of the English Courts - Linton v. Linton (1885) 15 Q.B.D. 239 and Kerr v. Kerr (1879) 2 Q.B.D. 439. Both these cases refer...
Rani Veerammani Vs. Rajaveerabasava Chikka Royal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad278; (1939)1MLJ39
Burn, J.1. The appellant was the first plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1930 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor. There were four plaintiffs altogether and the decree passed in the suit was in favour of all of them. In E.P. No. 22 of 1936, on the 10th of February, 1936, the first plaintiff applied for execution of the decree without stating expressly that she was only one of the four decree-holders. It appears that in a subsequent suit, O.S. No. 42 of 1933 in the same Court which was a suit between the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff in O.S. No. 25 of 1930, there was a compromise by which those two persons agreed that out of the amount still due under the decree in O.S. No. 25 of 1930 the first plaintiff Rani Veerammani Garu should receive Rs. 3,000 and the balance should be taken by the third plaintiff Rani Mahadevammani Garu without any further claim by the first two plaintiffs in O.S. No. 25 of 1930. It was further declared in the decree in O.S. No. 42 of 1933 that ...
Tenneti Viswanadham Vs. M.S. Menon, Official Liquidator of the Swarajy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad202; (1939)1MLJ185
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. By a resolution dated the 7th July, 1935, the Swarajya Printing and Publishing Company, Limited, Madras, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, resolved to issue 1,000 debentures of Rs. 50 each and 922 of these debentures were issued. There was no debenture trust deed, but on each certificate the conditions of issue were printed and the loan was stated to be on the security of specified immovable property. The debentures were registered with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies pursuant to Section 108 of the Indian Companies Act, but they were not registered under the Indian Registration Act. The company is now in liquidation, and the question is whether the holders of these debentures are entitled to rank as secured creditors. The question was considered by Gentle, J., on an application by the Official Liquidator, who is the first respondent in this appeal. The Official Liquidator contended that the debentures were invalid for ...
In Re: Addagalla Venkanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad240
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the Sub-Magistrate that the accidents register is a privileged document is erroneous and his refusal to send for it on that ground is unsustainable. The order of the Sub-Magistrate is therefore set aside and the register will be sent for, if still required....
Kadiyala Nagabhushanam and ors. Vs. Movva Anandayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad179; (1939)1MLJ170
Wadsworth, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 and 28 appeal against the decree in a suit brought by the plaintiffs as reversioners of their grandfather Butchanna for 6/7ths of the property held by two deceased ladies, Venkamma the mother of the first defendant and Rattamma the mother of the plaintiffs. The pedigree below will help to elucidate the facts:Ankulu(died about 1883)|___________________________|_____________| |Venkanna D.W. 2 Butchanna: Mahalakshmi| (died about 1879) (died about 1884)| |________|__________ _______________|___________| | | |Kotayya. Butchayya. | |Venkamma (died 1914) Ruttamma (died 1920)| |Defendant 1 Plaintiffs 1 to 6.|Defendants 2 to 4 and 28.2. In 1892, that is to say, when Ankula Butchanna and his wife were dead, Venkanna filed a suit against his brother's laughters Venkamma and Rattamma impleading also the husband the former and a relative who was alleged to be interesting himself on their behalf. The plaint Ex. A-4 alleges that there was no partition between Venkann...
Puthiamatathummal Peringadi Assankutti and ors. Vs. Peedikayilakath Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad295; (1939)1MLJ308
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the suit Pandikasala, that is, the warehouse, was the separate property of one Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji or the property of the first defendant's tavazhi. The site of the said warehouse together with certain buildings thereon were purchased on 15th January, 1922, by Poovantbankandi Hassankutti Company of which Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji was a partner. After the purchase, the firm also effected certain improvements. The firm closed its business in or about 1916. The accounts of the said business were looked into and a deed of dissolution was executed between the partners in or about January, 1920, as evidenced by Ex. K. Under the deed of dissolution the site of the warehouse and the buildings thereon were allotted to. the share of Kunhi Tharuvayi Haji. It was stated in the deed that a sum of Rs. 4,600 was due 'being the balance due to him after deducting the receipts and expenses from and out of the total sums due t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »