Chennai Court October 1939 Judgments
Peri. Su. Aru. Peria Karuppan Chettiar Vs. Doraiswamy Naicken and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad461; (1940)1MLJ134
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only question arising in this appeal is one of limitation. The first respondent having obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on 8th April, 1926, filed an application for the passing of the final decree for sale on 27th of October, 1933. The appellant who had even before the institution of the mortgage suit attached the same property in execution of his money decree and purchased it in execution on 6th July, 1931, opposed the application as barred by limitation. Both the Courts below have held that the application is not barred and passed a final decree for sale. Against that decree this appeal has been preferred.2. The appellant's learned Counsel contends that both the grounds on which the Court below has overruled the plea of limitation are erroneous and unsustainable, while the first respondent's learned Counsel maintains that they are valid. The time fixed for payment under the preliminary decree having expired on 8th October, 1926, the application for fi...
Tag this Judgment!Pothukuchi Mahalakshmi Vs. Modali Suryakanta Manikyamba and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad494; (1940)1MLJ119
Horwill, J.1. The only question that arises in Second Appeal No. 705 of 1936 is whether a daughter's daughter is to be preferred to a widowed daughter in the matter of inheriting Anwadheyaka Stridhanam property. Both the lower Courts have held that the widowed daughter was to be preferred. One of the grand-daughters (the first plaintiff) has appealed.2. The contest between the widowed daughter and the granddaughter arises because of a difference of opinion with regard to this matter, in the Mitakshara and the Smritichandrika. The Smrilichandrika says that Bhartridatta and Anwadheyaka stridhana pass to sons and daughters, all inheriting together in equal shares and that daughters include maiden daughters and married daughters whose husbands are alive, but not widowed daughters. The order of inheritance given by the Mitakshara with regard to the same class of property is (1) unmarried daughter; (2) married daughter who is unprovided for; (3) married daughter who is provided for; daughter...
Tag this Judgment!Kasireddi Siddareddi (Dead) and ors. Vs. Mandapalle Co-operative Socie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad452; (1940)1MLJ121
Horwill, J.1. The husband of the second defendant, Lakshmayya, owed two sums of money to the Mandapalle Co-operative Society. The first was secured and the second unsecured. The Registrar passed an award with regard to the first debt; and it was then sent to the revenue authorities for execution under rule 14(5) of the Co-operative Societies Act and for recovery of the decree amount as if it were arrears of land revenue. Where land is sold for recovery of land revenue it is sold free of encumbrances; but it has been frequently held that where land is sold for the recovery of money due to Government or to public bodies under Special Acts, such as the Co-operative Societies Act and Abkari Act for example, the land is not actually sold free of encumbrances. Nevertheless, a precisely similar form of proclamation is generally used in the recovery of such money; and so there is no mention in the proclamation, as there would be in a proclamation in a sale held under the Civil Procedure Code, ...
Tag this Judgment!Goona Durgaprasada Rao Alias Pedda Babu and anr. Vs. Goona Sudarsanasw ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad513; (1940)1MLJ800
Mockett, J.1. I concur generally with the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver, and I am not proposing to restate the facts which are clearly set out in the judgments of the learned Trial Judge and of my learned brother. I desire however to deal with the important question raised by issue 11 in this case which is:Whether the late G.M. Appalaswami Naidu was a Roman Catholic, not governed by Hindu Law, at the time of his death.2. After discussing the evidence his Lordship continued.3. But the whole evidence points to the conclusion that so far as he was concerned - and I use that expression advisedly - he abandoned the Christian religion at the time of his marriage to Appalanarasamma in 1913 and lived and worshipped as a Hindu up to the time of his death and was cremated. None of the defendants have gone into the witness box to deny any of the facts proved by the plaintiff, and it must be emphasised that it has never been suggested from the Bar, although we asked the que...
Tag this Judgment!Gopala Chettiar and ors. Vs. Arasappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad523; (1940)1MLJ791
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants to redeem an usufructuary mortgage executed by their father in favour of one Madasami Pillai on 21st March, 1877. The respondents 1 to 5 and 7 are the heirs of Madasami Pillai and the 6th respondent is the purchaser of the property from them. Both the Courts below have dismissed theisuit on the ground firstly that the mortgagor's title was extinguished by the adverse possession of Madasmi and his successors for over the statutory period, and secondly, that, in any case, the 6th respondent acquired a valid title by estoppel as against the appellants under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as a bona fide purchaser for value. Mr. Sitarama Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contests the validity of both these conclusions in this appeal.2. The facts so far as they are material for the purpose of the appeal may be briefly stated. The mortgage deed, marked as Ex. A in the case, provided that-B...
Tag this Judgment!Kowtha Suryanarayana Rao Vs. Patibandla Subrahmanyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad902; (1940)2MLJ330
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs are five members of an Association called the Ram Mohan Roy Free Library and Reading Room Association, which was registered in 1914 under the Societies Registration Act, XXI of 1860. Defendants 1 to 9 are the members of the managing committee of that Association and the tenth defendant is a person who, according to the findings of the lower appellate Court, has given an unconditional gift of an upstairs room erected above the original premises of the Association. The managing committee has permitted the tenth defendant to have embedded in three wall-plates with the name 'Kowtha Suryanarayana Rao Public Hall' engraved. The plaintiffs have brought this suit to restrain the defendants from affixing plates of cast letters of this description or any other letters either cast, or written or of any kind except those bearing the words Ram Mohan Roy.2. It is argued not only that the managing committee acted ultra vires in permitting the tenth defendant to place plat...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State Vs. A. Veerayya Vandayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad451
Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is an inamdar and in 1934 filed a number of suits in the Court of the District Munsif of Tanjore for the ejectment of tenants. He claimed that he was the owner of the kudiwaram rights and that the defendants had refused to surrender to him possession of the lands which they were cultivating. At the time the suits were filed the respondent was entitled in law to institute the suits in the District Munsif's Court and there to substantiate his claim that he possessed the kudiwaram rights. During the pendency of the suits, the Legislature amended the Estates Land Act, 1908, and the amendment had the effect of making the respondent's inam an estate within the meaning of the Act, which meant that the amendment took away the right of the Civil Court to grant a decree for ejectment. The only course left to the respondent was to apply to the Revenue Court for an order for compensation for loss of the kudiwaram rights, if he possessed them. Certain of the suits were ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ponnuswamy Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad945
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The prosecution of the petitioner was sanctioned by the Joint Magistrate and the appeal should not have been heard by the Joint Magistrate except with the permission of the Court to which an appeal lies from his Court. This petition is therefore allowed and the appeal is remanded to the District Magistrate of Salem for disposal by him or such other Magistrate as he may direct....
Tag this Judgment!Nainalasetti Veera Raju Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Counci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad521; (1940)1MLJ152
Wadsworth, J.1. This second appeal raises the question whether the Government are entitled under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act to levy penal assessment in respect of the irrigation of land registered under a particular Government work, by reason of the fact that the ryot has stored the water flowing from that work on to his land in a private reservoir.2. The facts are simple. The plaintiff-appellant owns land S. No. 72 registered as wet land under the Mallu Dora tank. Within the boundaries of S. No. 72, there is a small private reservoir which has been in existence for many years. It receives water, flowing through the fields higher up, from the Mallu Dora tank. Below S. No. 72, there is another Government source called the Timmaraju Cheruvu which receives the drainage water flowing through the fields irrigated by the Mallu Dora tank. The plaintiff is admittedly entitled to irrigate his crops in S. No. 72 with water flowing from the Mallu Dora through the fields above. He has however ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuttukken Eramullan Haji and ors. Vs. Pappinisseri Chandroth Narayanan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad453; (1940)1MLJ165
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The first and second respondents filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Taliparamba for the redemption of a kanom on the payment of the kanom amount and the value of the improvements. The first respondent is the melcharthdar (lessee from the jenmi with power to redeem the kanom) and the second respondent is the jenmi who granted a kanom to the karnavan of the 11th respondent's tarwad on the 29th June, 1884. On 5th June, 1892, the kanomdar created a sub-kanom in favour of three persons who are not parties to the suit. In the original kanom deed, it was stipulated that the kanomdar should only be called upon to pay for improvements to the property at the rates stipulated therein. The sub-tenants of the sub-kanomdar were made parties to the suit and contended that they were entitled before ejectment to compensation on the basis of the provisions of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, 1900. The plaintiff-respondents maintai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »