Chennai Court May 1938 Judgments
P.R. Govindaswami Naicker Vs. C. Javanmull Sowcar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-21-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ918
ORDERStodart, J.1. The petition in my opinion must be allowed.2. The first two grounds have been, I think, properly rejected by the learned Judge.3. But the third ground has in my opinion been wrongly rejected.4. I assume that the debtor is an agriculturist though in his plaint barring the simple statement that he is one, there are no averments in support of that statement.5. On this assumption however the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act applies to this debt and the debt, by the operation of that Act, becomes reduced.6. Under Section 7 of the Act no sum in excess of the reduced amount is recoverable from any land belonging to the debtor.7. Under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act the creditor is now about to recover by sale of the debtor's property mortgaged to him the full amount of the debt, that is to say, without deducting the amount by which it has become reduced by the operation of the Agriculturists Relief Act.8. The suit is for an injunction to prevent him from doing s...
Tag this Judgment!Manickavachakam Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ44
Burn, J.1. It is very clear to me that this is not a case for interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The jurisdiction of the learned Subordinate Judge is not questioned. It could not be, since it is by law the duty of the trial Court to frame the issues. When I ask what is the illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, Mr. T.M. Krishnaswami Aiyar can say no more than that, in his view, the burden has been wrongly thrown on his client in issues 1, 3 and 6. But this, namely, which way the burden was to be thrown, was the precise question which the learned Subordinate Judge had to decide. There is no allegation that the learned Subordinate Judge has acted perversely or has omitted to consider anything which it was his duty to consider. The sole complaint against him is that he has come to the wrong decision. That, in my opinion, can never be a ground for interference in revision. With all respect to Mockett, J. and Stodart, J.,...
Tag this Judgment!Bopanna Prakasam Vs. Maganti Nagabhushanam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad938; (1938)2MLJ478
Madhavan Nair, J.1. In this petition I am called upon to decide the question whether the suit promissory note is admissible in evidence. The lower Court held that it was inadmissible and this petition is to revise that order of the learned District Munsiff.2. The question arose in the following circumstances. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He instituted a suit on a promissory note for Rs. 200. The defendant raised the contention that the suit note was a forgery. He also stated that the promissory note was insufficiently stamped and was therefore inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. When the case came on for hearing the defendant did not appear. He asked for an adjournment which was refused. But he did not withdraw his appearance in the case. The learned District Munsiff admitted the promissory note in evidence and decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred against this decision, but the learned Judge in appeal thought that the case was one which should have been...
Tag this Judgment!Trojan and Co. Vs. Al. Al. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1938
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ997
Mockett, J.1. The plaintiffs are a firm of stockbrokers carrying on business in Madras. They are Nattukottai Chetties; and so is the defendant. The plaintiffs sue for moneys due to them from the defendant arising out of a course of dealings, beginning in December, 1934 and ending in March, 1935. The dealings concern Government promissory notes mill shares and silver. The defence of the defendant is that this money is irrecoverable, it being a gaming transaction and therefore within the mischief of Section 30 of the Contract Act. It seems to me that the first thing that I have to do is to discuss the nature of the transactions and the relations of the parties to each other and find definitely what those relations were and what the transactions were. Personally I have not any doubt in my mind about the true facts. The defendant pleads that he (a resident of Pallathur which is quite near to the village from which the plaintiffs come) entered into an arrangement with them by which dealings...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeman Nallanchakravarthula Sampath Kumara Venkata Rangacharyulu Ayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad857; (1938)2MLJ430
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in appeal No. 119 of 1931. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 166of 1930 on the file of the District Munsiff of Peddapuram in which he sued under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the order made on a claim petition. The facts are comparatively simple. The property concerned in the claim was one half share in two vacant sites and a house. The appellant thought that he had purchased the whole of these properties on 15th April, 1918, when a sale deed Ex. A was executed in his favour by Venkatasubba Rao and Ramadoss, the sons of one J. Chikka Rao. In 1921 the respondent filed a small cause suit, against one Venkataseshagiri Rao who was a son of a first cousin of J. Chikka Rao and in execution of his decree he attached what he alleged to be the undivided half share in these properties belonging to Venkataseshagiri Rao. Now it is not disputed that...
Tag this Judgment!Vakkalanka Kondamma Vs. Kasaneedi Venkatarayadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad34; (1938)2MLJ846
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. Her suit was for the enforcement of a promissory note dated 9th August, 1929, executed by the first defendant, the undivided father of defendants 2 to 5. The promissory note bears an endorsement on the back of part payment, dated 6th July, 1932. The plaint was filed on 28th June, 1935. The suit note was insufficiently stamped and was inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. The plaintiff therefore on 30th July, 1935, applied for an amendment of the plaint seeking permission to take his cause of action on the promissory note dated 11th August, 1926, which had been cancelled and superseded by the execution of the suit note which was renewal of this note. This note also had been filed along with the suit note. The application for amendment was refused by the learned Judge on the ground that the endorsement dated 6th July, 1932 can only refer to the suit note and cannot be taken as an acknowledgment of the prior...
Tag this Judgment!Kesavan Nambudiri Vs. Lakshmi Varasyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ568
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. These three revision petitions arise out of three suits instituted upon three promissory notes dated 23rd July, 1928, 23rd July, 1931, and 24th July, 1931, executed by one Kesavan Nambudiri, the first defendant in all the suits in favour of the plaintiffs in the respective suits. On the date of the execution of these notes, the first defendant was the karnavan and manager of the tarwad of the defendants in the suits though the promissory notes do not ex facie show that they were executed by him as such. The suit claim was resisted by defendants 3 to 6 on the ground that the debts were not incurred for family necessity. Subsequent to the execution of the last promissory note, there was a partition in the family in and by which the members became separate and the said partition is evidenced by the deed dated 1st November, 1932. This deed is relied on by the plaintiffs as evidence of ratification of the debts due to them by the contesting defendants. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.N.K.M. Nagappa Chettiar Vs. O.R.M.O.M.S.P. Firm and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Mad999; (1939)1MLJ625
1. The parties to this appeal are Nattukottai Chettiars. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit. He is a trustee and he sued in that capacity on the original side of this Court to recover from the first respondent, a banker, trust moneys which he alleged the first respondent had wrongly-applied in reduction of a debt owed by the second respondent. The first respondent is one Lakshmanan Chettiar, who carries on business in Madras under the style of the Order R.M.O.M.S.P. Firm. The second respondent is the uncle of the appellant and a co-trustee.2. The father of the appellant was one Meenakshisundaram Chettiar, who did business in Madras with the second respondent, his brother. Meenakshisundaram died in 1914. After his death the joint family consisted of the appellant, his minor brother Lakshmanan and the second respondent. In 1916 the appellant and his brother separated from the second respondent and a deed of partition was executed. It was decided by the appellant and the second r...
Tag this Judgment!T. Sivasankara Mudaliar Vs. Radhabai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1938
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ515
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of the right of a Hindu father to the custody of his minor daughter, the allegation being that he had abandoned the minor. The appellant is the father of the minor who was born in 1922. Her mother suffered from tuberculosis and died a few months after the child was born. Before the mother's death, the appellant entrusted the minor to his sister Gnanambal, who was married to one Subramania Mudaliar. Subramaniam died in August, 1931 and Gnanambal in October, 1932. After the death of Gnanambal the first respondent, who is another sister of the appellant, took charge of the minor and has had charge of her ever since. In 1927 the first respondent went to live with Gnanambal and her husband. Gqanambal owned the house in which she, her husband, the first respondent and the minor were living and by her will left the house to the first respondent and minor jointly. She further provided that on the death of the first respondent the ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Swaminatha Odayar, Lately a Minor by Guardian Meenakshi Achi but ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-09-1938
Reported in: (1938)2MLJ704
ORDER1. The point to decide is whether the amount in question was borrowed and expended on behalf of the family. The books of the institution containing the necessary entries were in the High Court. The claimant therefore in support of his claim relied upon the entries as they appeared in the printed book marked Ex. II. It seems to us that we are not in a position to pronounce judgment in the appeal we are hearing without taking additional evidence. In pursuance of our direction the clerk who maintained the accounts has appeared and his evidence has to be recorded. The evidence is for the purpose of showing that the sum in question was borrowed and expended for the school.2. The case again came on for hearing after the additional evidence was taken in pursuance of the above order and the Court delivered the followingVenkatasubba Rao, J.1. The learned Judge has now returned a finding on the matter on which he was directed to hold an enquiry. It relates to the amounts spent by the group ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »