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.
Perumal Mooppan and anr. Vs. Subramania Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad299; (1939)1MLJ74
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The only point urged by Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar is that his clients should have been given relief under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act by non-suiting the plaintiff. I do not think this contention is tenable. Under Section 41 it must be shown that the first defendant was the ostensible owner with the consent express or implied of the person interested in the property. There is no evidence of tacit consent. The mere fact that an entry was made in the Survey Register cannot be relied on as such consent. I therefore dismiss the second appeal with costs.2. Leave to appeal refused....
Vadamalai Thiruvanatha Sevuga Pandia thevar Avergal, Zamindar of Seitu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-13-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ433
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant - the landholder - sued to evict the respondent from his holding on the ground that with reference to the terms of Section 151 of the Madras Estates Land Act the tenant had materially impaired the value of the holding for agricultural purposes and rendered it substantially unfit for such purposes. The proved facts are that the contesting respondent purchased a holding of 41 cents, round which he built a wall apparently in substitution for an old mud wall which had previously existed, and in the northern half of the holding he constructed a small house and two cattle-sheds. The actual extent occupied by these buildings is said to be just under two cents out of the 41 cents of the holding. But it is contended that if one takes into consideration the area required for the ordinary use of these buildings, about one-fourth of the holding has been diverted from agricultural purposes. The rest of the land seems to be used for growing vegetables and fruit trees. B...
A. Venkatasubbu Mudaliar and anr. Vs. G. Narayanaswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad346; (1939)1MLJ9
Gentle, J.1. The Sri Kapaliswarar Temple in Mylapore is one to which the provisions of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (XX of 1863) hereinafter called 'the Act' apply, and it is included amongst the temples falling within Section 3 thereof. Defendants 1 to 11 are sued as the members of the Madras Hindu Devasthanam Committee, which Committee is responsible for the superintendence of this, amongst other temples. The plaintiffs were trustees of the temple appointed by the Committee. The second plaintiff was appointed as interim trustee; the 12th defendant was appointed as interim trustee at a meeting of the Committee whereat the second plaintiff was dismissed from his office of interim trustee.2. The plaintiffs claim(1) the following declarations:(a) that the dismissal of the second plaintiff as interim dharmakarta was irregular and illegal and that he is entitled to continue in his office;(b) that the appointment of the 12th defendant in place of the second plaintiff was illegal and v...
In Re: Kottengodan Alavi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad269; (1939)1MLJ123
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his step-brother Kunhali and sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Sessions Judge of South Malabar.2. There was an altercation between the appellant and Kunhali near the shop of the appellant about 10 A.M. on the 20th of May last and Kunhali was stabbed with M.O. No. 1 the knife on the left forearm. The radial artery was pierced and Kunhali' died of haemorrhage soon after.3. The appellant is alleged to have stabbed the deceased in the course of the altercation and P.Ws. 9 and 10 the disinterested witnesses not to mention P.Ws. 8 and 12 the relatives of the deceased swear to it. P.W. 13 saw the appellant pursuing the deceased with a knife in his hand and the belated story of the appellant in the Sessions Court that he was attacked by five persons including P.W. 8 and the deceased and a stab aimed at him might have caused the injury of the deceased is worthless. The witnesses were not questioned about any...
Lakshmamma (Dead) and anr. Vs. P.S. Subramanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad489; (1939)1MLJ620
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Chittoor on a petition by a Brahmin lady named Lakshmamma under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. The lady alleged that she was the widow of one P. Sambiah Sarma who had died while in employment as a station master on the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway. She claimed a succession certificate to enable her to draw the amount standing to the credit of P. Sambiah Sarma in the Railway Provident Fund. It was not disputed that Sambiah Sarma, the depositor, had made a declaration under the Provident Fund Rules in favour of Lakshmamma, nominating her as the person to whom he desired the amount at his credit to be paid in the event of his death. One P.S. Subramanyam the son of P. Sambiah Sarma by his first wife opposed the application and alleged that Lakshmamma had never been legally married to his father. The learned District Judge found that Lakshmamma had lived with P. Sambiah Sarma as his wife for many ...
Madhavi Amma and Ors. Vs. Kongot Patinhare Pathayapuratarwattil Chirud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad151; (1939)1MLJ91
King, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the interpretation of certain sections in the Marumakkathayam Act (XXII of 1933). The appellants in this appeal were defendants in a suit for partition filed under this Act by the plaintiff who represented one tavazhi of a tarwad in South Malabar. The suit was filed on the 23rd October, 1933. Prior to filing that suit, the plaintiff had received notice of an application made under Section 43 of the Act, to the Collector for the registration of the tarwad as impartible. While the suit was pending, the Collector did register the tarwad as impartible on the 15th January, 1934. The question which then arose before the learned District Munsiff who was trying the suit as whether the order of the Collector registering the tarwad as impartible rendered the suit incompetent. The District Munsiff held that it did so render it but upon appeal to the learned District Judge, the opposite view was taken and the Judge remanded the suit for disposal upon i...
Papathi Ammal (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Doraiswamy Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad290; (1939)1MLJ337
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question of the right of a donor to revoke a registered deed of gift of immovable property prior to its acceptance. The donor is the first defendant. He executed the deed Ex. A dated 14th March, 1917, giving his properties to his mother and his wife and her issue, if any, with a remainder to a nephew under whom the plaintiff claims. It has been found as a fact that, although this deed was registered, there was no change of possession and no delivery of the deed to the donees, nor was there any acceptance by them. By Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, a gift is made by a voluntary transfer from the donor to the donee, accepted by or on behalf of the donee. The acceptance must be during the lifetime of the donor and if the donee dies before acceptance the gift is void. Under Section 123, if the gift relates to immovable property, it must be made by a registered instrument, duly signed and attested. In England it is undoubtedly the law that a...
Bethambhotlu Subbayya of Tangutur Vs. Pothula Venkata Narasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad598; (1939)IMLJ830
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the Vice-President of the Panchayat Board of Tarigutur and owing to a vacancy in the Office of the President he was acting as President from November, 1936. The complainant was elected President at a meeting held on 29th May, 1937, hut the petitioner disputed the validity of the meeting and declined to hand over charge of the office to the complainant till 10th July, 1937. He has therefore been convicted under Section 208(3) of the Madras Local Boards Act for failure to hand over charge to the complainant but the offence was committed by the petitioner while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and Section 227-K of the Madras Local Boards Act provides that no Court shall take cognisance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Local Government. There was no sanction in this case and the trial is illegal. The Conviction of the petitioner is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded...
Hejmady Co-operative Society by the Present Official Liquidator Mr. K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad282; (1938)2MLJ980
King, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of an application by the liquidator of a Co-operative Society under Section 47(6) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. Section 47(3)(b) describes the powers of the liquidator in the following terms:To determine from time to time the contribution to be made or remaining to be made by the members or past members or by the estates or nominees, heirs or legal representatives of deceased members or by any officers or former officers to the assets of the society such contributions, including debts due from such members or persons.2. The liquidator in the present case passed an order determining what contribution should be made by the members under this sub-section and applied to the Court under Sub-section (6) which runs as follows:Save as provided in Sub-section (5) orders under this section shall on application be enforced by any Civil Court having local jurisdiction in the same manner as a decree of such Court,to enforce the order against the ...
Kaza Parandhamayya Vs. Surapaneni Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad280; (1939)1MLJ114
Varadachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an application filed by the third defendant in the suit, objecting to the sale of certain properties at the instance of the plaintiff who had obtained a decree against the fourth defendant in the suit. The suit had been instituted against three defendants of whom the first defendant and the third defendant were the sons of the second defendant. As the first defendant died pending the suit his son the fourth defendant was added as his legal representative. Defendants 2 and 3 contended that the debt incurred by the first defendant was a personal debt of his and that they and their interests in the joint family property could not be held liable therefor. The case went to arbitration and a decree passed in terms of the award held that only the one-third share which the fourth defendant (as the son of the first defendant) had in the joint family property was liable for the suit debt. Defendants 2 and 3 were exonerated. It is the attempt o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »