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.
Sri Rajah Kakarlapudi Venkata Sudarsana Sundara Narasayya Garu and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad925; (1938)2MLJ1039
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. These second appeals arise out of six suits instituted by the respondents the registered proprietors of the Panduru Mallavaram estate for recovery of the proportionate peishcush for faslis 1327 to 1338 in respect of the lands belonging to the appellants in Mallavaram, and the material facts are that the villages of Panduru and Mallavaram originally formed part of the Uratla estate. The suit lands were gifted to the predecessor-in-title of the appellants by the proprietrix of Uratla by Ex. XI the deed of 1859 and the deed is silent regarding separate registration or payment of proportionate share of the peishcush. The villages of Panduru and Mallavaram were transferred to the predecessor-in-title of the respondents by Ex. A the deed of 1875 and they were separately assessed and registered as one estate in the name of the transferee in the same year. The respondents purchased the estate in 1919 and applied to the Collector some time later for separate registration and...
Ryots of Garabandha, Sariapalli and Ramachandrapuram Village, Garabhan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ154
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioners ask for a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council. They claim to be entitled to a certificate under Clause (b) or failing that under Clause (c) of Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners desire to appeal from an order of this Court refusing to issue a Writ of Certiorari to the Madras Board of Revenue. Proceedings were taken place under Chapter XI of the Madras Estates Land Act and as the result of those proceedings the Board of Revenue enhanced the rents of three villages by 37 per cent. The petitioners contended that by reason of Section 168(2) read with Section 30(b) of the Act, the power of the Board of Revenue was limited to an enhancement of 12 1/2 per cent. This Court refused to order a writ to issue as it considered that the argument advanced was a fallacious one and had previously been rejected by this Court in Valluri Narasimha Rao v. The Ryots of Peddamamidipalli I.L.R.(1925) Mad. 499. If...
V.R.K.M. Kumarappa Chettiar Vs. K.M.V.R. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad898; (1938)2MLJ385
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 22nd January, 1935, P.L.S.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar, the second respondent, was adjudicated an insovlentonthe petition of K.M.V.R. Chidambaram Chettiar, the first respondent, by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah. The adjudication was based on a. transfer of immovable property dated the 23rd February, 1934, which was said to constitute a fraudulent preference. The petition for adjudication was filed on the 3rd of July, 1934, that is, more than three months after the transaction. Therefore the transaction, even if it constituted a fraudulent preference could not be made the basis of an insolvency petition by reason of Section 9 (1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The reason given for filing the petition beyond three months was that the Court was closed for the summer vacation and it was not possible to file it before the 3rd July, 1934, but the fact the Court was closed made no difference, as a Full Bench of this Court has pointed out Chench...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›