Chennai Court November 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.
Chaduragiri Kattari Nagayya Kamarajendra Ramaswami Kamaya Nayakkar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad814
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These two appeals are from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madura giving possession of the suit property known as Bodinaickanur Zamin bungalow in the City of Madura, to plaintiffs 2 and 3. Appeal No. 302 of 1934 is by the defendant; appeal No. 9 of 1935 is by plaintiff 1. The substantial question for determination is whether the suit property forms part of the impartible zamindari of Bodinaickanur and the plaintiff, as the present proprietor of the zamindari, is entitled to it or was it the absolute property of one Kamalammal and on her death, did it devolve on plaintiffs 2 and 3 as her daughter's daughters. The facts necessary for its disposal may be briefly stated. The major portion of the site on which the building stands was purchased by Bangarasami Naieker, a former Zamindar, some time prior to 1870. He died in 1871 and was succeeded by his son, Kamaraju Naieker, who was then a minor. The Court of Wards was in management of the e...
Gopu China Jogayya, Gopu Seshavatharam and Co. Vs. Manepalli Bapanayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad374; (1939)1MLJ88
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. After this appeal had been instituted, the first appellant was adjudicated an insolvent in the District Court of Kistna at Masulipatam and Mr. V. Rama Rao, the Official Receiver of that Court, was authorised under an order dated the 25th August, 1938, to continue the appeal in the place of the first appellant. The insolvent was not able to furnish the necessary security, but his brother-in-law, Mr. Venkatakrishnayya was prepared to furnish it himself, if he were appointed a special receiver for the purpose of conducting the appeal. This was brought to the notice of the learned District Judge in a formal application later in the day, whereupon the learned District Judge cancelled his previous order and appointed Mr. Venkatakrishnayya as receiver for the purpose of the appeal. The first respondent in the appeal has filed a petition (No. 2992 of 1938) asking the Court to declare that the appeal has abated so far as the first appellant is concerned, t...
Bkottiprolu Seetharamamma Vs. Ramireddi Patta Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad739
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals arise out of cross suits and as they relate to the same transaction, they may be conveniently dealt with together. A.S. No. 64 arises out of a suit for specific performance instituted by the vendor. A.S. No. 65 arises out of a suit instituted by the intending purchasers for getting refund of the advance paid by them in pursuance of the contract of sale. It will be convenient to refer to the parties by their position in A.S. No. 64. It is common ground that on 20th August 1929, the parties entered into the agreement, Ex. A for the sale and purchase of about 1,31 acres of land for Rs. 10,100 and that the defendants paid Rs. 1000 in cash as advance. The document provided that the sale should be completed before the end of June 1930. For reasons which it is unnecessary to go into now, the transaction was not so completed and there was a revised contract between the parties on 25th July 1930 (Ex. B). The price was reduced by Rs. 1000 and the time for comple...
Mantena Kanakaraju Vs. Datla Atchutharamanaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad432; (1940)1MLJ600
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. It is contended that the Act does not apply to the scaling down of debts which have ripened into decrees after the commencement of the Act. I can find no support in the Act for this contention. The definition of 'debt' specifically includes a decree debt and it Seems to me clear that a decree debt is nonetheless a debt because it does not fall within the category for which special provision is made in Section 19. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to deduct the amount debited for interest at a time when the account was still running with fluctuating balance. When the account closed there was a definite amount of Rs. 1874-7-0 due and this must be treated as the principal amount and plaintiffs will be entitled to interest thereon at 6| per cent, from 1st October 1937 and the decree will be scaled down accordingly. Leave refused....
A.M. Gopalakrishnan Vs. the Official Liquidators and
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ209
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. In Application No. 2162 of 1938 one A.M. Gopalakrishnan, an employee of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Ltd., prays for an order that directions should be issued to the Official Liquidators to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000 furnished by him to the above Bank as security for his post as the Chief Cashier in the Anderson Hall branch, in full and in priority to the claim of any creditor. In support of the application he has filed an affidavit stating that he was employed on the 9th March, 1938 and that his services were terminated due to the fact of the Bank being wound up. He submits that the security account was deposited for a specific purpose agreed upon between him and the Bank and that in the event of any loss caused to the Bank by his misconduct, the Bank might recoup themselves from out of the sum only such loss and nothing more and that on the termination of his services the amount should be returned to him. He contends that the Bank was trustee to him...
K. Manaithunainatha Desikar Vs. Gopala Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad380; (1939)1MLJ317
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur in O.S. No. 4 of 1937 directing the plaintiff to pay additional court-fees over and above the amount paid with the plaint. I have advisedly called it an appeal because that is what it really is though it purports to be a Revision Petition. The petitioner has no fault to find with the order of the learned Sub-Judge, except that on its merits it is wrong. I am clearly of opinion that this is not a matter falling under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code.2. The suit was one for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's joint possession of the suit properties as joint trustee and if necessary to put the plaintiff in joint possession of the office of trusteeship and of the properties described in the plaint. A contention was raised before the learned Subordinate Judge that the court-fee paid was not sufficient and issue 9 was framed in this form, 'has ...
V.V. Vythilingam Pillai Vs. Seshan Minor by Guardian Fankajathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad477; (1939)1MLJ416
Abdur Rahman, J.1. One Srinivasulu Naidu executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant on the 3rd July, 1921. The mortgagor died leaving him surviving a legitimate son, an illegitimate son and a concubine. The appellant instituted a suit on the basis of the mortgage after the mortgagor's death (O.S. No. 288 of 1933). He did not know of the existence of the illegitimate son and the concubine and thus impleaded the legitimate son alone who was considered by him to be the sole legal representative of the deceased mortgagor. It might be stated here that the legitimate son was in possession of the properties left by his father Srinivasulu Naidu including the house mortgaged by him. A decree was passed in favour of the appellant mortgagee on the 22nd October, 1930. In execution of this decree the mortgagee brought the property to sale and purchased it himself sometime in 1934. It seems that before the appellant had obtained the mortgage decree a suit was filed by the illegitimate son who is...
Pandyappa Arasu Binnani Vs. Chennappa Hegde and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad165
Abdur Rahman, J.1. A suit on the basis of a mortgage was filed against 22 persons who were members of a Malabar tarwad. The managers of the family, both de facto and de jure, were impleaded as defendants. The suit was decreed and it was held that the mortgage was effected for the family benefit. After the mortgaged properties were sold in execution, the decree-holder applied for a personal decree against the defendants and wished to proceed against the other family property, (R.I.A. No. 694 of 1924). The first Court dismissed the petition but the order was reversed by the District Judge of South Kanara on 18th December 1930. While accepting the appeal, he happened to make the following remark in his judgment:I am not at all deciding now, nor is this a proper stage to decide, whether this personal decree against some of the mortgagors will operate not merely against themselves individually but also against the family assets in their hands. This is a matter in execution with which I have...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras Vs. Bank of Chettinad Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1938
Reported in: [1939]7ITR1(Mad)
LEACH C.J. - This reference arises out of the assessment to income-tax and super tax for the year 1933-34 of the Bank of Chettinad Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act as the agent of the Chettinad Bank Limited company registered in the Native State of Pudukotta. I will refer hereafter to the Bank of Chettinad Limited as the Kanadukathan Bank and to the Chettinad Bank Limited as the Pudukotta Bank as the Commissioner of Income-tax has done in his statement of the case. The assessment proceeded on the basis that profits had accrued to the Pudukotta Bank from business connection in British India within the meaning of Section 42 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act. In order to appreciate the position it is necessary to state how the two banks came into existence and what their course of business is.Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar of Chettinad with his three sons had a large money lending business with many branches in Burma, Ceylon the Federated Malay States and French, Coc...
Margaret Lornie Vs. Abu Backer Sait, Minor by Guardian Alli Mohammad S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad414; (1939)1MLJ664
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris dismissing her suit, O.S. No. 74 of 1933. That suit was filed by her in her capacity as executrix to the will of her late husband, J. Lornie who had died on 19th May, 1933. Mr. Lornie appears to have been doing while alive, a business in tea and coffee. He had a tea factory of his own, and was also advancing monies to owners of tea and coffee estates, in order to obtain for the purposes of his business the produce of those estates. It is alleged in the plaint that he advanced in the first instance a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the defendant, a minor, on a promissory note executed on 17th November, 1924, by his mother, Kathijabai. Whether at the time she had been appointed guardian of the son is not known, though it is known she was in fact appointed the guardian of his person as well as his property some time in 1925. The money was advanced in order to enable her to disch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »