Chennai Court January 1939 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.
Adusumilli Gopalakrishnayya Vs. Julury Narasimha Rao, Minor by Guardia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad609; (1939)2MLJ120
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is a revision against the order of the Sub-Collector of Bezwada passed on the 5th November, 1936, in a petition filed by a person interested in a holding sold in execution of a revenue decree. His complaint was that the sale is vitiated by fraud and material irregularity, particulars of which are given in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The respondent in that petition was the decree-holder purchaser who took the objection that the Sub-Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The objection was overruled and he has now preferred this revision against that order.2. I am of opinion that the learned Sub-Collector went wrong in the view he took of the matter. He has taken the view that Section 192 of the Madras Estates Land Act is so worded as to make the procedure of Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, by which execution sales affected by material irregularity are allowed to be set aside, available to the r...
Thyagarajan Chetty and anr. Vs. Narayana thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad450
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question arising in this appeal is one relating to the admissibility of a mortgage document, Ex. A which was put into evidence as containing a recital of a boundary which supports the plaintiff's case of title. The document was marked in the trial Court without formal proof, but with an objection to its admissibility. It was a mortgage by three brothers, namely D.W. 2, P.W. 1 and another who is alleged to be dead, though there is no evidence so far as I can find of his death. It relates to a land, in which the present parties have no interest but to a land which is situated to the west of the land which is the subject-matter of the present suit. Now it is well established that a recital of a boundary in a document between third parties is not ordinarily admissible to prove possession or title as against a person who is not a party to the document. But this rule is subject to exceptions. There is a good deal of authority for the view that such a statement when c...
Rentala Ganga Raju Vs. Bikkina Bulli Ramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad483; (1939)1MLJ329
Madhavan Nair, J.1. The thirty-ninth defendant in O.S. No, 60 of 1923 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry is the petitioner before us. In that case a mortgage-decree was passed against the petitioner and others and that decree was appealed against to this Court. The appeal was dismissed on 13th February, 1936.2. When the decree-holder sought to execute the decree, the proceedings were got stayed by the petitioner on 29th September, 1938, by an application under Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938 (the Madras Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act); and on 14th April, 1938, he filed an application under Section 19 of the said Act praying to scale down the decree-debt and amend the decree accordingly. This application was filed to the lower Court within the period mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. But that Court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the application and returned the petition for presentation to the proper Court.3. The petition has therefore been present...
Annamalai Chettiar Vs. Lakshmanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad433; (1939)1MLJ429
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the effect of the insolvency of the judgment-debtor under a mortgage decree, the adjudication taking place after orders had been passed for the sale of the hypotheca under the decree but before the sale was actually held. The appellant, who is the plaintiff, is a purchaser under a subsequent sale held by the Official Receiver. The following are the essential dates. The mortgage decree is dated 19th May, 1925. The judgment-debtor preferred his insolvency petition on 1st July, 1926. The sale under the mortgage decree was ordered on 8th July, 1927. The adjudication was on 26th July, 1927. On 7th September, 1927, the sale in execution of the mortgage decree was held without notice to the Official Receiver and the defendant purchased the property. On 31st January, 1930, the Official Receiver sold the property to the plaintiff subject to the mortgage upon which the decree was passed and the subsequent mortgage. The sale-deed was actually exe...
In Re: G.J. Joseph
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad407; (1939)1MLJ255
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly, dated 20th April, 1938, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner from his conviction under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Musiri. The petitioner was the Head Clerk of the Sub-Magistrate's Court at Kulitalai and the charge against him was that he committed criminal breach of trust in respect of an aggregate sum of Rs. 112 made up of four separate items ranging in date from 6th April to 4th May, 1937. The amounts in question were fines received by the petitioner as Head Clerk from parties and the receipt of these sums is not denied. It is also stated that ultimately the whole of the amount was made good by the petitioner's wife and another. The principal defence in the case was that there was no criminal misappropriation, stress being laid on the adjective 'criminal'. It is unnecessary to deal at length with the contention that there was no mi...
P.S. Venkataraman Vs. Srimathi A.C. Janaki
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad595; (1939)1MLJ520
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance regarding the validity of an alleged marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is a Brahmin by birth and follows the Hindu religion. The defendant is a Nair lady belonging to a respectable Nair tarwad of Malabar. In December, 1934, the plaintiff was the Managing Director of a film company known as the South Indian Film Corporation which has since gone into liquidation. The defendant was employed in the said corporation. It is alleged in the plaint that on the 21st December, 1934, the plaintiff and the defendant went through a form of marriage according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at a village called Tiruneermalai, a few miles distant from Madras and from that day up to 4th April, 1935, lived together as husband and wife. It is further alleged that the defendant left for her place thereafter and refused to return and live with the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff instituted the suit, out of wh...
Avanashi Goundan and ors. Vs. Palani Madari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad406; (1939)1MLJ259
ORDERPandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore dated the 14th day of March, 1938, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners from their convictions and sentences under various sections of the Penal Code. The charges framed against the petitioners who are nine in number and two others were briefly as follows: - that they were members of an unlawful assembly on the 14th September, 1937, at Chinna Puthur and did, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, namely, to assault and cause hurt to the chucklers of the village, commit the offence of rioting and that in prosecution of the common object certain individual members of that assembly committed certain individual acts and finally that all the accused eleven in number have thus under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 352, 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. It is clear that the charge which the...
Sithalingachetti Minor by His Next Friend and Mother Alamelu Ammal Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ745
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the minor plaintiff appellant was bound to accept 1 acre 24 cents of wet lands purchased by his uncle Sinnia Chetti on the 14th November, 1927, for a sum of Rs. 2,950 out of the money belonging to the aforesaid minor.2. The circumstances in which Sinnia Chetti came to be in possession of the minor's funds may be briefly stated. Sinnia Chetti and his brother Palaniswami Chetti were joint till March, 1920, when a partition was effected between them. Palaniswami Chetti died on the 2nd December, 1921, Heaving a pregnant widow and a daughter. Sinnia Chetti appears to have been then asked by the other members of his family as well as that of the widow's to take charge of the properties left by Palaniswarhi and look after the existing daughter, the widow and the child when born' (Ex. III). The widow subsequently gave birth to a son, who is the present plaintiff. In accordance with the arrangement arrived ...
Diravyam Pillai and anr. Vs. Veeranan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad702; (1939)2MLJ822
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the predecessor-in-title of respondents 1 to 5 for obtaining a declaration that he was the full owner of the suit properties and for setting aside an order passed on 14th September, 1931, dismissing a claim petition that he had filed. The suit properties belonged to a joint Hindu family which consisted of five brothers and the sons of four of them. Defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the present suit are four of the brothers; another brother Sundararaja Aiyar had died before suit. Defendants 7 to 12 are the sons of four of the brothers. The appellants who were defendants 1 and 2 in the lower Court had obtained a decree for money payable by the five brothers personally and from out of the properties of the joint family in the hands of the five brothers and their sons. In execution of that decree, the appellants attached the interests of the sons in the joint family properties. This attachment which was made on 15th March, 1930, ...
Samuel Koilpillai Skinner Vs. Arunachalam Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad356; (1939)IMLJ350
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This, reference arises out of a small cause suit filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Srivaikuntam in which the plaintiff seeks to recover Rs. 35 as arrears of house and shop rent for a period of seven months. The terms of the tenancy are embodied in a document which is stamped with a stamp of the value of twelve annas, the appropriate amount if the document falls under Clause (a)(i) of Article 30 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act.2. Schedule 1-A was added to the Stamp Act by the Madras Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1922. The question is whether it should be stamped under the provisions of Article 30(a)(viii) of the amended Act. Article 30(a)(viii) requires the same duty to be paid as on a conveyance for a consideration equal to three times the amount or value of the average annual rent which would be paid or delivered for the first ten years if the lease continued so long. If Article 30(a)(viii) applies the appropriate stamp will be Rs. 3, not twelve ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »