Chennai Court April 1938 Judgments
Kizhakkekara Natuvil Mankolath Illoth Govindan Nambudiri, Karnavan and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad887; (1939)1MLJ646
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant, and the suit as amended in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court in S.A. No. 86 of 1927 is for recovery of the plaint properties from the respondent with mesne profits from 1919.2. The title of the appellant to the suit properties is admitted and it is not disputed that as found by the Courts below the respondent is a trespasser in possession since 23rd September, 1918. The suit was instituted on 3rd December, 1921 and normally the appellant would be entitled to a decree for possession with mesne profits from 1919 as claimed. But the appellant had on 1st May, 1919, executed a usufructuary mortgage of the properties in favour of one Moosan Kutti and his son Muhamad Kunhi for a period of two years, and though it is recited in the deed of mortgage that possession had been given, the respondent was in possession of the mortgaged properties and they were not delivered to the mortgagees. The debt is outstanding though the term of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Koneti Desikachari (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Sri Mahant Prayag Dasji Var ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad31; (1938)2MLJ817
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question with regard to the effect of Section 84 of the Indian Trusts Act. The plaintiffs in the Court below were the 2nd and 3rd appellants and one Koneti Desikachari who is now dead and is represented by the 4th and 5th appellants. The appellants are members of a joint Hindu family of which Koneti Desikachari was the managing member. At all times material to the suit the family were the owners of two villages lying in the neighbourhood of the Thirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanam, one of the most important Hindu temples in India. This temple is in the Tirupathi hills, Chittoor District. The suit was filed to recover certain-sums alleged to have been paid by Koneti Desikachari to the respondent under a contract which he failed to fulfil and for damages resulting from his breach. The respondent was the sole manager of the temple at the time. The appellants had mortgaged these two villages, and Koneti Desikachari approached the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Mamidi China Venkata Sivayya Vs. Nekkanti Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad906; (1939)1MLJ705
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this appeal relates to the validity of a sale of immovable property in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 290 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsif's Court of Narsapur obtained by the appellant against one Nekkanti Suryanarayana and his two sons. The property was sold on 2nd October, 1935 and purchased by the appellant the decree-holder himself. An application was made by the said Nekkanti Suryanarayana the first judgment-debtor to set aside the sale alleging that there were material irregularities and fraud in the conduct of the sale in consequence whereof the property did not fetch a fair price. He also impeached the sale on the ground that before the date of the sale he had filed an application in the Sub-Court of Narsapur for his being declared an insolvent, that the said petition was admitted and an interim receiver appointed, that he applied to the Court (the District Munsif of Narsapur) to stop the sale but the Court declined to do s...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: G. Anantachari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ574
Pandrang Row, J.1. These cases arise out of a defalcation discovered some time in the middle of 1936 in the treasury of the Corporation of Madras after an audit by a firm of chartered accountants. There appears to have been a practice in the corporation treasury, the only purpose of which was to receive collections and to remit them to the Imperial Bank of India, to cash cheques, originally only pay cheques of the corporation officials, later on cheques signed by corporation officials and finally any cheques which the Assistant Revenue Officer thought fit to pass. The case for the prosecution is that this practice which is described by one of the Magistrates as a 'pernicious and obviously illegal practice' was availed of by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 1937, Ananthachari, for the purpose of using corporation money for his own profit by having the use of corporation money from time to time. The modus operandi followed is described in paragraph 5 of the judgment of Mr. Tre...
Tag this Judgment!S. Muniyandia Pillai Vs. Muthusami Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ399
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, a subscriber to a chit fund conducted by the first defendant and the father of defendants 2 and 3, sued for the recovery of money subscribed by him to the chit fund. A decree was given in his favour as against the first defendant but the suit was dismissed as against defendants 2 and 3, the sons of the deceased stakeholder. The decree as against the first defendant was based upon the Full Bench decision reported in Sesha Aiyar v. Krishna Aiyar (1935) 70 M.L.J. 36 : I.L.R.Mad. 562 (F.B.). In that case it was held that the stake-holders were personally responsible for the refund of the money to the subscriber and that they in conducting the chit fund committed offence under Section 294-A of the Indian Penal Code.2. In this revision petition it is argued that the lower Court should have given a decree against defendants 2 and 3 also. The question whether the sons of a deceased stake-holder are liable to pay their father's debt out of joint f...
Tag this Judgment!Nama Nagayya Vs. Kalle Narasayya Described as Kalle Narasimhayya in Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad853; (1938)2MLJ501
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. In this revision petition we are called upon to consider the question whether an acknowledgment of a debt made by a person described as de facto guardian of a minor would keep the debt alive against the minor which would otherwise become barred. The de facto guardian is the son of the sister of the grandfather of the minor.2. Section 19, Expl. 2 of the Limitation Act says that an acknowledgment to be effective against the person making it must be signed 'either personally or by an agent duly authorised in his behalf'. Section 20 requires that effective payment must be made by the person liable to pay or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf. Section 21 of the Limitation Act explains the expression 'agent duly authorised in this behalf' and says 'in Sections 19 and 20 'it' shall include in the case of a person under disability his lawful guardian, committee or manager, etc.' This sub-section was introduced because there was a co...
Tag this Judgment!Naivarani Matathil Ayya Pattar Vs. Krishnan Alias Thondee Karuppasan A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad835; (1938)2MLJ337
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an application made by the petitioner before us under Section 40 of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act for possession of the property in pursuance of a Revenue sale certificate issued to him by the Collector.2. The facts are these. The first respondent is the jenmi of the property. The second respondent is the kanamdar. Respondents 3 to 14 are tenants under the kanamdar. The property was sold for arrears of the Government Revenue due on it from the first respondent and it was purchased by the petitioner. A sale certificate under Section 38 of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued in his favour and it stated that the petitioner had purchased at a public auction the property mentioned therein when it was sold for arrears of revenue due by the first respondent. It did not make any mention of the second respondent or of respondents 3 to 14. When the petitioner applied for possession, respondents 3 to 14 claimed the value of the impr...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal Vs. G. Perumalswami Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad953; (1938)2MLJ511
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether a Hindu mother has the right to remain in the family house after it has been sold at an auction held in pursuance of an order passed in a partition suit and has been purchased by another branch of the family. One Thavasamuthu Nadar had three sons, Rathnaswami, Vallathambi and Guruswami. Rathnaswami married Amanthammal, the sixth defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises, and by her had two sons and one daughter (the first and second plaintiffs and the ninth defendant). Vallathambi married Janaki Animal, the appellant, who was the eighth defendant and by her had five sons and one daughter (the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and eleventh defendants). Guruswami married Raja Rajeswari Ammal, the seventh defendant, who bore him three sons and a daughter (the third, fourth and fifth plaintiffs and the tenth defendant). Thavasamuthu lived with his three sons and their families in the family house at Por...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralingam Pillai and ors. Vs. Arumugam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad814; (1938)2MLJ156
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. This revision petition has been referred to Bench as it raises an important question of law. The plaint, as the assignee of a promissory note, obtained a decree against defendant 1 to 6 the executants of the note (with whom we are not concerned) and the seventh defendant, the payee and the assignor, a Hindu female. The seventh defendant died and the plaintiff and defendants 8 to 10 her reversionary heirs became entitled each to a fourth share of the property held by her. The plaintiff then transferred the decree to the petitioner in the lower Court, who applied for execution; but nothing turns upon the transfer, as the transferee stands in the shoes of the plantiff. The question to decide is, has the decree become inexecutable by virtue of the doctrine of merger? The Court below has allowed execution and its order is challenged here by defendants 8 to 10.2. Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, has been relied upon by their learned Counsel, but there can be no...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnambala Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad905; (1938)2MLJ529
Stodart, J.1. Petitioner bought some property in court-auction.2. The whole of the purchase money paid by him was forfeited under Rule 86 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. He now asks me to revise the order of forfeiture. Only the initial deposit of 25per cent, could in any case be forfeited. To that extent the District Munsiff's order is wrong. As for the initial deposit the District Munsiff certainly had discretion to order its forfeiture since the party had not, along with the balance of the purchase money deposited, the cost of the general stamp to be affixed to the sale certificate. But having regard to the fact that the new rule requiring payment of the cost of the stamp was fairly recent having been in force for only six months and also to the fact that the clerk of the Court who issued the Chellan should have drawn the petitioner's attention to the new rule and asked him to pay the small sum necessary to defray the cost of the stamp, I think the Court need not have ordered for...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »