Chennai Court December 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.
Sundarammal Vs. Palaniandi Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad292; (1940)1MLJ171
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition arising but of an application for maintenance by a wife against her husband. The marriage is admitted and the maintenance is sought not only for the petitioner herself but also for her child aged about two years. The unfortunate feature of this case is that while this child was in the womb, the petitioner had an attack of small-pox which left her more or less a physical wreck and made her completely blind with the result that she is absolutely helpless and unable to earn anything by her own exertions, and indeed she requires assistance even for ordinary purposes. The learned Magistrate appears to have ignored altogether the claim of the child whose right to get maintenance is not and cannot be denied, because it is not pretended that the counter-petitioner ever gave anything for the maintenance of the child or that the child was living with him. So far as the child is concerned, it is obvious that the order of the Magistrate dismissing the pet...
Ayyappa Naicker Vs. Kasiperumal Nayakar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad250; (1939)1MLJ163
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This petition raises the question whether a person who has obtained an attachment before judgment is a person whose interests are affected within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code, when the property attached has been sold in execution of a decree obtained by another person. On the 30th November, 1932, the petitioner obtained an order for attachment before judgment in respect of certain immovable property belonging to the second and third respondents and on the 3rd July, 1933, a decree was passed in his favour. Some three weeks before the decree was passed the first respondent caused the attached property to be sold in execution of a decree which he had obtained against the second and third respondents. On the 8th July, 1933, the petitioner filed a petition in the Court which had ordered the sale (the Court of the District Munsif of Tuticorin) asking that the sale should be set aside on the ground that there had been material ...
Surathu Sitharatnamma Vs. Pillarisetti Seshamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ456
Varadachariar, J.1. These appeals arise out of the same suit which related to the estate of one Pillarisetti Butchi Venkatarao Naidu who died at Masulipatam on 17th November, 1932. The first plaintiff is the junior wife of the deceased and the second plaintiff is her minor daughter. The defendant is the daughter of the deceased by his predeceased senior wife. The main prayer in the plaint was for recovery of possession by the plaintiffs, on the footing that the deceased died intestate. As the defendant was setting up a will alleged to have been executed by the deceased on 10th May, 1932, there were alternative prayers for maintenance, for the marriage expenses of the second plaintiff, etc. The defendant set up Ex. I as the will left by the deceased. The plaintiff denied its genuineness and contended that even if it had been executed by the deceased, it must have been got from him at a time when he was not of a sound disposing state of mind and as a result of undue arid overpowering inf...
K.V. Krishna Aiyar Vs. K.G. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ468
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal adds another case to the long list of cases which have reference to the effect of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts of the present case are of an unusual nature and there is no reported decision which directly covers it. In execution of a small cause decree passed by the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat the property which is the subject-matter of this appeal was purchased on the 17th September, 1917, by one Krishnier to whom was issued the usual sale certificate. On the 7th January, 1918, Krishnier conveyed the property to two persons, Krishna Pattar and Subbalakshmammal, who by a deed dated the 3rd February, 1927, sold it to K.V. Krishna Aiyar, the present appellant. At the time of the sale the property was in the possession of Lakshmi Ammal, a sister of Sankaranarayana Aiyar, the judgment-debtor. She held the property as a monthly tenant of her brother. In 1919 she surrendered the possession of the property to Sa...
In Re: M.F.R.D. Cruz, a Shareholder of the The Garland Petroleum Compa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ122
ORDERGentle, J.1. This is the objection by Contributory No. 93, Mr. D. Balarama Reddi, against his name being included in the list of contributories. There is also an application by him for rectification of the Company's register of members by removal from the register of his name. His name appears in this register as the holder of 4,000 ordinary shares of the nominal value of Rs. 10 each, representing a total of Rs. 40,000. In respect of this, an amount of Rs. 8,000 has been paid and there remains a liability of a sum of Rs. 32,000. The shares of which he is recorded in the register as the holder were not allotted to him. 3,500 shares were originally standing in the name of one R.S. Pillai and 500 in the name of Ranganatha Mudaliar. The objector contends that none of these shares have been legally transferred to him, that he made an application to the Company for allotment by the Company to him of 4,000 shares, and instead of allotment, the managing director has caused his name to be ...
Narayanaswami Nayak and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Nayak, Son of Narayanappa N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad503; (1939)1MLJ324
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question as to the validity of a deposit under Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act before it was amended by Act XX of 1929 and Act V of 1930. On 13th April, 1919, the first defendant executed a mortgage in favour of one Sankaranarayanaswami Nayak the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title for a sum of Rs. 1,350. The mortgage deed provided thus:To this sum of Rs. 1,350, I shall add interest at the rate of Re. 0-14-0 per cent, per mensem and pay the amount of principal and interest due thus on 11th April, 1920 and duly redeem this bond. In default, to the amount of principal and interest accruing due till then, interest shall for the remaining periods be added at the rate of Re. 1-6-0 per cent, per mensem, and re the total of principal and interest, the interest accruing so due once in twelve months shall be added on to the principal, and you shall, whenever required, recover the amounts thus accruing due, along with interest at the sa...
Nyapati Vizia Rama Murti Vs. Nyapati Suryanarayana Murti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad507
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This batch of 29 second appeals arises out of suits instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of rent from various tenants in the occupation of the lands in the two villages of Jagannadhapuram and Venkatarayapuram, in the Ganjam district. The lands comprise three varieties, (1) Kaniyal (2) Kondholo and (3) Bogodo. The plaintiff is one of the co-sharers alongwith Nyapati Seetharamamma and Nyapati Suryanarayanamurthi. The relationship' of these three sharers will appear from the following pedigree: RAMANNA | |-----------------|----------------------|----------------------------| Jaganna Seenayya Ballayya Raganna | | | | Vijayaramamurthy Ramanna Seenayya : aughter (Mangu family) | | Buchamma. |------------| Venkatasrinivasa Rao Jagannadha Rao Pattabiramayya | | Narasanna: |-------------------------| Seetharamamma Suryanarayanamurti (Defendant 4). Vijayaramamurti (Defendant 3). (Plaintiff)2. It will be seen from the above that Sitaramamma is the widow of N...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Natesa Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad445; (1939)1MLJ131
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondent of an offence under Section 25, Clause (2)(b) of the Emigration Act.2. The respondent is the proprietor of M.S. Natesa Pillai Company, Cigar Manufacturers, Trichinopoly and the undisputed facts are that on 2nd July, 1937, ten persons described as cigar workmen went to P.W. 4, the clerk of the forwarding agents of Natesa Pillai Company at Negapatam with Ex. C the letter written under the orders of the respondent requesting the forwarding agents to make the workers start comfortably to Klang to which they were bound. It appears from the letter that a sum of Rs. 250 had been sent to the forwarding agents the previous day though it is also mentioned that the workmen were bringing with them money for their steamer fare and expenses, and P.W. 4 arranged with the deck passenger broker for tickets. The requirements of Section 16 of the Emigration Act were not complied with and the workmen...
Chokka Dhanamma and anr. Vs. the Coromandal Company, Limited and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad401; (1939)1MLJ235
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a contract for the carriage of goods from the wharf at Cocanada to a steamer lying at anchor in the roads. The facts are no longer in dispute. The first plaintiff the Coromandal Company was shipping agent for Messrs. Ralli Brothers and in that capacity through its agent the second plaintiff, arranged for the transport of 875 bags of castor seeds in a lighter of which the fourth defendant was the tindal, whereas the owner has now been found to be the second defendant, defendants 1 to 3 being members of a joint family. The goods were loaded into the lighter which left for the anchorage some 6 or 7 miles away from the wharf one night and returned on the following evening, whereupon the fourth defendant reported that his boat had sprung a leak and he had been obliged to jettison 330 bags of seeds and further 144 bags had been damaged by sea water. The circumstances were suspicious and an inquiry demonstrated that the fourth defendant's story was fa...
Munusami Chetti and ors. Vs. Periya Kuppusami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad691; (1939)1MLJ392
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that there was a public path running between the house belonging to the third plaintiff and the house belonging to the defendants and for an injunction requiring the defendants to remove the wall obstructing this alleged path. The trial Court found that, though there was no proof of a public path, there was a path common to the third plaintiff and the defendants measuring 3i feet in width and granted a declaration and injunction accordingly. The learned District Judge on an appeal by the plaintiffs held that there was a public path, that it was 8 feet in width and that there was no objection to the frame of the suit. Defendants therefore appeal.2. The main question in appeal is whether the plaintiffs can maintain the suit for establishing a public right of way and removal of an obstruction which constituted a public nuisance, without the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure and without pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »