Chennai Court April 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.
Mathukumalli Ramayya and ors. Vs. Vuppalapatti Lakshmayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad598; (1938)2MLJ128
ORDER1. The Full Bench have laid down that the Court can grant an extension of time but it must be for cogent reason. A number of affidavits, counter-affidavits and reply affidavits have been filed before us. They disclose a certain amount of conflict but certain main facts are beyond dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has told us that he received intimation by trunk phone from his clients in the mofussilon the 10th March, 1938, that they were in a position to make the deposit but as the time had expired by that date he was asked for advice as to what they ought to do. He replied to them to come over to Madras immediately. This they did but it was too late on the 11th when they arrived to file the petition for extension that day. This petition was accordingly filed on the 12th March, 1938. We accept these statements made by the petitioners' Counsel and according to them the real delay is only of four days. There is also the fact that the petitioners are a large number, wh...
Paboodan Goolabchand Vs. M.J. Miller and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad966; (1938)2MLJ688
ORDERVaradachariar, J.1. The appellant, a marwari banker at Coonoor, sued for recovery of a sum of money representing the balance due under a running account of advances and dealings between himself and the second defendant, when the latter was in management of an estate known as the 'High Field Estate' near Coonoor. The plaint prayed for a decree not only against the second defendant but also against defendants 1 and 3 and against the estate of W.M. Miller, the deceased father of the first defendant and the husband of the third. It is difficult to understand the ground on which the third defendant was sought to be made liable, and as the lower Court exonerated her and that part of the decision has not been appealed against, it is unnecessary to refer to that part of the claim any further. The suit was decreed as against the second defendant, but dismissed as against the first. The second defendant has allowed the decree against him to become final. The plaintiff has appealed against s...
Gurunathaswami Koil by Manager Kodi P. Muthirulappa Pillai Vs. Alangar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad594; (1939)1MLJ517
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant claims to be the newly appointed trustee of the Gurunathaswami temple and the suit was instituted by him for recovery of the movable properties of the temple including cash after taking an account of the trust money received by the respondent the previous trustee who is stated to have been lawfully removed by the members of the community. The respondent pleaded that the suit was bad for want of sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and the plea was upheld by the Courts below.2. The question for determination is whether sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is necessary and as pointed out in a similar case in Venku Chettiar v. Doraisami Chettiar (1921) 14 L.W. 38 which was followed by the Full Bench in Appanna Poricha v. Narasinga Poricha : AIR1922Mad17 , Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code governs only suits for the vindication of the rights of the public in public, charitable or religious trusts and not to suits by a...
Patelkhana Venkataramaswami and anr. Vs. the Imperial Bank of India an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad889; (1938)2MLJ461
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach. C.J.1. The suit which has given rise to this reference was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry by the Imperial Bank of India, the 1st respondent. The bank sued to enforce specific performance of an agreement entered into by the 2nd and 3rd respondents with the bank to secure repayment of moneys advanced to them. The 2nd respondent is the father of the 3rd respondent. They and the appellants, who are the minor sons of the 3rd respondent, constitute an undivided family. In 1923 the 2nd and 3rd respondents started a business, and for this purpose opened an account with the bank. On the 14th August, 1923, in pursuance of an arrangement with the bank, which was willing to finance them, they executed a document in the following terms:In consideration of the Imperial Bank of India advancing us sums of money from time to time we hereby undertake not to alienate or in any way transfer or mortgage any of our immovable property as per schedul...
Maharajah Rajasri Raja Saheb Meharbhan Dostan Raja Sri Rao Swethachala ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad432; (1939)1MLJ602
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. We do not propose to call upon the respondents. The nature of the right which the first defendant possesses, is fully set out in Secretary of State for India v. Maharajah of Bobbili The question here is, whether the plaintiff has acquired as against the first defendant, the right of -easement which he claims. The learned District Judge has fully considered the question and as we agree with his conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with the matter in great detail. Mr. Govindarajachari for the appellant (the first defendant) has endeavoured to show that the District Judge was influenced by certain judgments in some previous cases, which are in law inadmissible. True, the District Judge has referred to and discussed those judgments in some detail but takes care to observe that in arriving at the finding, he considered the evidence irrespective of them. Section 167 of the Evidence Act provides that the improper admission of evidence shall not be ground of itself for ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. B.V. Sabapathy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad847; (1938)2MLJ456
Burn, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance, and of rather frequent recurrence, on which there are conflicting rulings of this Court.2. The respondent is a resident in Orathanad in the District of West Tanjore. He is the owner of a shop by the side of a District Board road passing through the village, and he is alleged to have made an encroachment on the road by putting up in front of his shop a tin sunshade 11 feet long and 2 feet broad. On the 6th of February, 1937, he was served with a notice, dated the 21st of January, 1937, issued by the President of West Tanjore District Board under Section 159(1) of the Madras Local Boards Act, requiring him to remove the encroachment, before the 21st of February, 1937. Alleging that the respondent had failed to remove the encroachment, the District Board overseer, duly authorised by the President, prosecuted him in C.C. No. 118 of 1937 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Orathanad for an offence under Section 207 (1) of the Loc...
Sivanmalai Goundan Vs. Arunachala Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad822; (1938)2MLJ428
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The suit has been brought by the assignee of a mortgage bond. The assignment was made by the guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards, Act of the minor who became entitled to the mortgage. The question raised in the appeal is whether the assignment is void or voidable. Section 29 of the Act, which imposes a limitation on the powers of a guardian of the property, enacts inter alia that he shall not transfer any immovable property of his ward without the previous sanction of the Court. Then Section 30 goes on to say that a disposal by the guardian in contravention of this provision is voidable ' at the instance of any other person affected thereby '. This section renders the transaction voidable and not void ab initio. Does 'the fact that the statutory prohibition has been incorporated in the order appointing the guardian, clothe the prohibition with a quality which it does not otherwise possess? In other words, is the lower appellate Court right in holding...
A. Dhanapala Chetty Vs. D. Goverchand Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad959; (1938)2MLJ775
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgage suit filed by the 1st respondent against the appellant. There were two mortgages, one dated the 2nd April, 1921, for Rs. 600 and the other dated the 25th April, 1921, for Rs. 400. The first mortgage carried interest at 24 per cent, per annum and the second mortgage interest at 30 percent, per annum. The property charged in each case was the appellant's half share in a house. The second respondent is a subsequent mortgagee, but he took no part in the case and he is not concerned with the questions raised in this appeal. The appellant contested both the mortgages on these grounds: (i) that he was a minor at the time they were entered into; (ii) that this question of minority had already been decided in his favour in a previous litigation, and therefore the doctrine of res judicata operated; and (iii) that no consideration passed for either mortgage. He raised a further contention with regard to the second mortgage to ...
Pichandhi Murugappa Mudali and anr. Vs. Kuppuswami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad819; (1938)2MLJ375
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellants are residents of Kandappar Koil Street in Ayyampet Village and the suit out of which the Second Appeal and Memorandum of Objections arise was instituted by them on behalf of the residents of that street for a declaration of their right to perform the Surasamharam festival of the Subramaniaswami of Kandappar Koil in front of the Mokambari Amman Temple on the Shashti day in Arpasi month and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the performance of the festival. Their right to perform the festival in the public highway in front of the Mokambari Amman Temple was declared by the District Munsiff without specifying that it is subject to the directions of the Magistrate and the rights of the public, and the defendants were restrained from interfering with the performance of the festival. An appeal was taken and the suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the right to perform festival in the public highway was no...
Adepalli Venkata Gurunadha Ramaseshayya Vs. Vissamsetti Venkatarathnam ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad823; (1938)2MLJ283
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. I am surprised that the lower Court has been able to persuade itself that the appeal was out of time. The following statement of facts brings out the point to be decided.2. In the present case application for copy was made on 26th August, 1932. Copy was ready on 12th October, 1932. The interval between 26th August, 1932, and 12th October, 1932, is 47 days. He is entitled to deduct that. Balance is 31 days. Appeal was therefore filed one day too late. Learned Counsel for appellant contends that both days, the26th August, 1932, when copy applied for and the 12th October when the copy was ready should be excluded, as time requisite for obtaining the copy.3. Section 12 of the Limitation Act says that in competing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree appealed therefrom shall be excluded. The simple question is, what is meant by 'the time r...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »