Chennai Court September 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.
M. Paramasivam Pillai Vs. A.V.R.M.S.P.S. Ramasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad152; (1939)1MLJ557
King, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether in the circumstances of this case the decree-holder in O.S. No. 42 of 1929, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tuticorin can proceed against the first respondent to recover from him the sum of Rs. 1,600 referred to in the surety bond executed by him in 1932. The facts are that O.S. No. 42 of 1929 was a suit upon a mortgage and in that suit at the instance of the mortgagee a receiver had been appointed. There was an appeal by the third defendant against this order appointing the receiver which was numbered as C.M.A. No. 375 of 1931 in the High Court. When the appeal was filed, an application was also filed for stay of further proceedings by the receiver and stay was granted on condition that the third defendant should give security for one year's income from the mortgaged property fixed at a sum of Rs. 1,600. In accordance with that order the third defendant executed a surety bond the terms of which are now in dispute. The a...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Perianna Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad53; (1938)2MLJ813
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of the respondents of offences under Section 4, Clause (1)(a) and (i) of the Madras Prohibition Act.2. The first respondent was a toddy renter at Thumbankurichi till the introduction of prohibition in the District of Salem, and the second respondent is his son. They are stated to have possessed and offered illicit arrack for sale on 14th November, 1937 and the evidence of P.W. 5 the Circle Inspector which was hot seriously challenged in this Court shows, that on information that the first respondent was clandestinely selling illicit arrack in the shed in his field at Thumbankurichi, the witness proceeded to the village with a party. P.W. 2 the Village Munsiff joined them at Thumbankurichi and the party went to the shed of the first respondent. The Circle Inspector noticed the respondents offering two bottles of arrack to P.Ws. 3 and 4, and on seeing the police party the respondents and P.Ws. 3...
Nalam Lakshmikantham and ors. Vs. Nalam Ramalingayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad170; (1938)2MLJ972
Varadachariar, J.1. Some of the plaintiffs in the suit have preferred this appeal against a decree which declined to file an award and embody it in a decree of Court. The parties are descendants of different branches of what may be referred to as the Nalam family which had founded various public charities in the circars. During the period of the first defendant's management, disputes arose between them and as a result, a muchilika referring the disputes to arbitration was executed by the parties on 8th June, 1931. Reference was made in the muchilika itself to the questions which the arbitrator was to decide. We may refer in particular to questions 4 and 5, namely, (4) How is the management of the choultry at Rajahmundry by the first defendant from 1919 up to date? How is the management of the Dharmakarthas of the other charitable institutions for the past 12 years? (5) What is the nature of the scheme to be framed regarding the future administration of the said institutions? The arbitr...
Sri Maharani Adilakshmi Devamma Garu by Her Authorised Agent Kancherla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad94; (1938)2MLJ934
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal purchased a zamindari in Court auction and he filed a suit to recover rent from the defendant on the suit land which admittedly has never paid any rent within living memory, though it is shown in the zamindari records as a land in respect of which a rate of rent has been fixed. It would appear that the defendant belongs to the family of a former zamindar and it is conjectured that his immunity from rent is due to this fact. In 1903 when the Court of Wards was in charge of the estate, a similar claim was put forward to levy rent on this same land and, the then occupant of the land contended that the land had been granted rent free. This contention was upheld and there is a specific finding that the lands are rent-free lands. It appears to me that this decision bars the present suit.2. In the first place I am of opinion that it operates as res judicata, for if there was a pre-existing rent-paying relationship to which the ...
Kolisetti Ethirajamma, Minor by Next Friend and Mother Paruchuru Thaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad150; (1938)2MLJ1026
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant sued her father-in-law for maintenance due to her as the widow of the defendant's son The marriage was in 1925 at which time the plaintiff must have been a mere child. Her husband died on 7th August, 1930 There are findings of fact that the defendant had no ancestral property and that the plaintiff after her husband s death left her father-in-law's household voluntarily. In appeal it is argued that by reason of the circumstance that she was a minor at the time of her marriage and that she was taken into her father-in-law's household, she has a right to claim maintenance out of her father-in-law's self-acquired property. This contention seems to rest on no authority at all. It is true that the learned Judges who decided Meenakshi Ammal v. Rama Aiyar (1912) 24 M.L.J. 106 : I.L.R. 1912 Mad. 396 in negativing the claim to maintenance by an adult daughter-in-law against her father-in-law, refers to the possibility that special circumstances might make it equita...
Sankaranarayana Aiyar Firm (insolvent) Now Represented by the Official ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad196; (1938)2MLJ1001
Abdur Rahman, J.1. I have been invited in this case to set aside the order passed by the District Munsiff of Ambasamudram dismissing an application made to him by the petitioner under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code.2. The facts, so far as they are necessary to be stated for the disposal of the questions of law raised before me, lie within a narrow compass. The respondents had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 252 of 1932 against certain judgment-debtors and had applied for execution by attachment and sale of certain properties (E.A. No. 737 of 1935). The properties were sold and the sale proceeds were brought into Court on the 8th of November, 1935. Before this, however, the petitioners, who had a decree passed in their favour in October, 1934, against the same judgment-debtors (O.S. No. 156 of 1934) had made an application on the 7th of November, 1935, that is, a day before the sale proceeds were actually brought into Court, for rateable distribution. If this were all, no objection coul...
In Re: the Calicut Bank, Limited, Through Its Manager P.C. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad58; (1938)2MLJ812
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It carried on business as a banking concern in Colombo and Madras. By reason of a rush by depositors to withdraw their monies with the company it was compelled to suspend its business at Colombo on the 15th August last, and at Madras the next day. On the day it suspended business at Colombo the directors presented to this Court a petition under Section 153 of the Indian Companies Act asking the Court to refer a scheme which they had prepared, to the shareholders and creditors for their consideration. The scheme had for its object the continuation of the company's business. At the same time an application for staying all other proceedings was filed. The case came up before Venkataramana Rao, J., on the 17th August, but was adjourned until the 19th of that month. On that day a petition was filed by certain creditors asking for an order directing the compulsory winding up of the c...
Jhorama Vs. Viswasarayi Latchanna Dora
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad19
King, J.1. The appellant here is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 68 of 1921. In 1926 the appellant filed an execution petition seeking to attach certain property and obtain orders of attachment. That execution petition was recorded in 1927 with a direction to the appellant to apply by separate application for sale of the attached property. A subsequent application, E.A. No. 49 of 1928, was made in March 1928 and was ordered in July to be 'struck off the file to be restored when applied for after the stay is raised,' an order having been received from the High Court, where a civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed, to stay execution shortly before this. Unfortunately the disposal of the civil miscellaneous appeal occupied several years, and it was not until 27th April 1934 that the judgment of the High Court was delivered. That judgment runs as follows:The only question for decision is whether the attachment of the several items made on 2nd and 3rd February 1926 is according to law. So ...
Kathoom Bi Vs. Abdul Wahab Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Mad313; (1939)2MLJ208
1. The question involved in this appeal is whether respondents 1 to 3 at times material to the suit stood in a fiduciary position with regard to the appellant. The appellant is the only daughter of one Abdul Rahiman Sahib, who died on the 18th June, 1921, when she was about six years of age. The appellant's mother had pre-deceased the appellant's father, who was a Sunni Mohammadan. Under the Sunni Law, his heirs were: the appellant, his three brothers, Waheb, Majeeth and Hameed (respondents 1 to 3), his second wife, Sakina Bi (who died during the pendency of the suit) and his mother Rabia Bi, who died before the suit was instituted. Abdul Rahiman was a dealer in rope, thread, coir, carpets and other articles. His business was a very successful one and when he died he left a considerable fortune. All the members of his family lived together and the heirs continued to live together after his death. In the year following his death the third respondent married his widow, Sakina Bi, and by ...
In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., S. Barkatally and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1940Mad157
Gentle, J.1. The applicant is a debtor of the company in liquidation. On 17th February 1938, he borrowed from this banking company a sum of Rs. 1000, and as security for his loan he deposited 450 shares of two other companies. On 30th May 1938, repayment of this loan was demanded by the company. The applicant wrote a letter to the agent of the company on 4th June 1938. This letter is not available, but the contents are set out in the applicant's affidavit in support of his application in para. 4, and it is not controverted that his recollection in regard to the contents is accurate. The letter was to the effect that the applicant was the holder in due course of a fixed deposit receipt with the Bank for a sum of Rs. 1000 standing in the name of Sri Bageerathi Ammal maturing on 28th July 1939, and he requested an adjustment of this debt from the company against the amount due from the applicant. An interview took place on the day of, or shortly after, the letter I mentioned, between the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »