Chennai Court September 1938 Judgments
Kamadana Seshayya Rao and ors. Vs. Kotamarthi Arundhatamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad184; (1939)1MLJ70
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question, on which so far as I am aware there is no precise authority, with reference to Section 26, Sub-section (3) of the Madras Estates Land Act. The appellants were defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiff, a ryot, to raise a distrait under Section 112 of the Act. The basis of the plaintiff's case was that the rent at the rate of Rs. 10 claimed by the landholder in the attachment notices was not the lawful rate and that the lawful rate was Rs. 6-12-0 on the basis of a compromise decree, Ex. A dated 7th January, 1922, in a suit for rent brought by the predecessor of the defendants against the predecessors of the plaintiff. The appellants' contention is that the rate fixed in the decree is not a lawful rate but a favourable rate granted by their deceased predecessor and that by virtue of Section 26(3) they are entitled to revert to the lawful rate of the land after the death of the person who agreed to the favourable rate.2. The facts are not...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Chettiar, Son of Ponnayyan Chettiar and anr. Vs. R.A.S. Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad654; (1939)1MLJ687
Abdur Rahman, J.1. These are two connected second appeals and relate to costs. They arise out of a suit for redemption filed by one Ramaswami Chettiar in the following circumstances. Originally the eastern portion of a house belonged to one Karuppanna Asari and the western portion to Sundaram Asari. Karuppanna Asari appears to have died before 1918 and a deed of usufructuary mortgage was executed by Sundaram and Karuppannan's heirs in respect of the whole of the house on 13th April, 1938 (Ex. B) for a sum of Rs. 1,200, in favour of defendant 1 who, along with an undivided brother of his, defendant 2 in this case, executed a simple mortgage of several properties including the sub-mortgage of the abovementioned house in favour of the third defendant in July, 1923 (Ex. I). On 11th May, 1932, Karuppannan's heirs sold the eastern portion of the house to the plaintiff under the sale-deed (Ex. A) and left a sum of Rs. 600 out of the sale price to be paid towards the mortgage executed in favou...
Tag this Judgment!Sirdhar Vasanta Rao Ananda Rao Dhyber Killedar Vs. Gopal Rao Sethu Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad299
Yaradachariar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for accounts between principal and agent. The final decree of the trial Court directed the defendant to pay a substantial amount to the plaintiff as a result of the taking of the account. On appeal by the defendant, the lower Appellate Court set aside that decree and directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant a sum of Rs. 3780 odd and also pay the defendant's costs including the court-fee payable to Government on the memorandum of appeal to the lower Court. It is against this latter decree that the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. The defendant was adjudged an insolvent during the pendency of the appeal in the lower Court and the Official Receiver has continued the proceedings as representing the defendant's estate.2. According to the plaint, the claim for account arose out of an agency constituted in March 1911 by a power of attorney marked Ex. A. But in substance the agency goes back to an earlier date. During th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaswami Mudaliar Vs. Vijiaraghava Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad590; (1939)1MLJ344
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of North Arcot dismissing the suit against defendants 2 and 3 in reversal of the decree of the District Munsif of Arni. On 22nd September, 1928, the plaintiff sold certain properties of his to the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,000. Rs. 500 was paid in cash and for the balance of Rs. 500 a promissory note was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff which carried interest at 1 per cent, per mensem. The first defendant committed default in the payment of the said money and this action has been brought for the recovery of Rs. 620 being the principal and interest due in respect of the said promissory note up to the date of the suit. The plaintiff also prayed for a sale of the said properties on the ground that he had a statutory charge for the payment of the said sum of money under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendants 2 and 3 have been impleaded as partie...
Tag this Judgment!T. Muhammad ShamsudIn Ravuthar and Brothers Vs. Shaw, Wallace and Comp ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1938
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ509
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant firm and the firm of M.A.P. Mohammad Hussain Ravuthar and Sons (now represented by the Official Assignee, the third respondent) were defendants in a suit instituted on the Original Side of this Court by the first and the second respondent firms. The first respondents are a firm of European merchants carrying on business in Madras. The second respondents are their 'guarantee brokers' which means that for consideration they guarantee to the first respondents the fulfilment of the obligations of those contracting with them. The appellants are manufacturers of brass and copper-articles and carry on their business at Pettai, Tinnevelly. The firm of M.A.P. Mohammad Hussain Ravuthar and Sons (for the sake of convenience I will hereafter refer to this firm as 'the M.A.P. firm') were merchants and commission agents carrying on business at Pettai, Madras and Bombay with their head office at Pettai. The suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs. 16,940-...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Jali Basappa by Next Friend Nagamma Vs. Heerada Rudrappa and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad167; (1938)2MLJ1053
Burn, J.1. There is no authority for the contention that an attachment before judgment which has come to an end with the dismissal of the suit, is restored when the suit is restored to file, in spite of an alienation of the property in the meanwhile. The case of Saranatha Aiyangar v. Muthiah Mooppanar : (1933)65MLJ844 , cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant is expressly against him on this point.2. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs (one set between the two respondents).3. Leave refused....
Tag this Judgment!Nambar Vs. Pandikadan Mullathil Chandukutty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad22
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether defendant 15 is entitled to priority by virtue of his decree against Gopala Menon, a junior member of defendant 1's tarwad, in S.C.S. No. 56 of 1921 on the file of the District Munsif of Parappanangadi. The facts are as follows : Gopala Menon who was entitled to a sub-mortgage right, died in 1917 and under the Malabar law he having died intestate, his property, that is his sub-mortgage right lapsed to the tarwad, but subject to the right being treated as an asset available for the payment of debts due to his creditors. In 1920 after the property lapsed to the tarwad, the tarwad mortgaged the properties including the suit property to the plaintiff. The suit property was thereafter purchased by defendant 15 in 1931. The two questions that fell to be decided before the lower Courts are : (1) whether defendant 15 can claim any priority over the plaintiff and (2) whether defendant 15 is entitled to the benefi...
Tag this Judgment!Bonthala Subbamma Vs. Gadamsetti Surappa Company, by Surviving Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad273; (1938)2MLJ1045
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Cuddappah vesting the1 property in dispute in the Official Receiver and directing him to sell it and distribute the amount realised among the creditors. That property was acquired by the husband of the appellant in 1928 and sold by him to the appellant on 4th May, 1934. The appellant claims to have become the owner of that property by virtue of this sale.2. The husband of the appellant had been adjudicated an insolvent by an order made on 30th January, 1915, under the provisions of Act III of 1907 which was then in force. Under that Act, there were no provisions such as are to be found in the Act of 1920 either obliging the Court to fix a time within which the insolvent should apply for a discharge or compelling the insolvent himself to apply for an order of discharge. It would appear that the appellant's husband was therefore under no obligation to apply for a discharge and in fact he did not apply f...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sambangi Lakshumanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad109; (1938)2MLJ1028
Burn, J.1. These appellants were all tried together in S.C. No. 11 of 1938 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vizagapatam. The judgment shows that they were committed for trial on charges of house trespass and robbery as well as murder but the learned Sessions Judge very properly postponed the trial for the minor offences and with the aid of Assessors tried the appellants only for the offence of murder.2. The facts are comparatively simple. The deceased was a son of one Lakshminarayana (P.W. 15) a merchant who lives in the village of Pekki in Vizagapatam District. P.W. 15's family is well-to-do. They are engaged not only in sundry trade but also in money-lending. The loans were mainly secured by the pledge of jewels and these jewels were kept in a bhoshanam box 51/2 cubits long, 2 cubits wide and 2 cubits high. P.W. 15 has two other sons, one elder (P.W. 14), and one Cunnayya younger than the deceased. The father and his sons lived in two houses adjoining one another, one fronting on t...
Tag this Judgment!Nanduri Sriramachandra Rao Vs. Chintamanibhatla Venkateswara Rao and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad157; (1938)2MLJ1048
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 24 of 1929 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vizagapatam, to execute against defendants 2, 6 and 7, the decree which he obtained against them ex parte on 5th March, 1930. There was an application to the Subordinate Judge to set aside this ex parte decree which was dismissed. Against this order of dismissal defendants 1 and 3 to 5 appealed to the High Court. On 20th October, 1932, the High Court gave judgment allowing the appeal, and extending its benefits to defendants 2, 6 and 7 also on condition that they deposited the decree amount within three months. This deposit was not however made, and so as against defendants 2, 6 and 7 the ex parte decree stood confirmed as from 20th October, 1932. The present application for execution was made on 15th August, 1935. It has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge as being filed more than three years after the date of the decree and the qu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »