Chennai Court October 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.
Ponnuchami Chetti and ors. Vs. Annakamu Servai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad439; (1940)1MLJ148
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the right of a person, who is interested in land but is not the registered pattadar thereof, to bring a suit in the Civil Court to declare a sale held under Section 112 of the Estates Land Act to be invalid and to obtain an injunction protecting his possession. The essential facts of this case are that the two items in suit were originally acquired under an insolvency sale by one Solaimalai who let the plaintiff into possession under an agreement to sell. Solaimalai's title ceased by reason of a sale for arrears of rent. The purchaser in the rent sale was one Muthuveerappa who under a private arrangement with the plaintiff allowed the plaintiff to retain possession of the land, though' the patta was in Muthuveerappa's name. In 1931 there was a sale for arrears of rent of one of the items which was bought in by the Zamindar, the fourth defendant here. In 1933 there was a similar sale of the other item which also was purchased by the Zam...
Mahadevi Alias Kunhi Thampuratti Styled Manaviyathen, the Present Vali ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad504; (1940)1MLJ173
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question involved in this petition is whether the District Munsif of Calicut exercising small cause jurisdiction was right in entertaining the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The respondent was the agent of a stanam and it was his duty as such to collect the rents due to the stanam and to meet all proper expenses in connection with the estate. He was appointed as the agent on the 17th September, 1931. For reasons which have not been disclosed, and in any event would not be material, he was suspended from his duties on the 21st August, 1932. His suspension was followed by his dismissal on the 17th December, 1932. The respondent filed the suit out of which this petition arises to recover from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 189-9-9. His case was that after taking into account what he had collected by way of rent and what he had expended, and the salary due to him during his period of suspension together with the peon's salary which h...
Sivaprasad Sowcar Vs. Sekharamantri Narasimhamurthi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad187; (1940)1MLJ79
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The property in dispute is a house in Allipuram, a suburb of Vizagapatam. The original owner was one Sekharamantri Appalaswami, the father of the first defendant in the suit and the first respondent in the second appeal. Sekharamantri Appalaswami was indebted to the father of respondents 2 to 5, one Kanti Mahanti Appalanarasayya. For the recovery of the debt, K. Appalanarasayya instituted a suit against Appalaswami, and in execution of the decree obtained therein purchased the suit house on 7th January, 1916, and obtained a sale certificate on 2nd July, 1920. Though he thus obtained a perfect title to the house, he never reduced it to possession either by process in execution or otherwise. S. Appalaswami and after him his son the first respondent have continued in undisturbed possession of the house. By the date of the suit, they had been in possession for over fifteen years, a period sufficiently long to give them a prescript...
Natesa Pillai and ors. Vs. Venkatarama Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad206; (1940)1MLJ568
Stodart, J.1. The appellants are the judgment-debtors. They applied to the Court below under Order 21, Rule 90 to set aside a Court sale of their property held on 12th August, 1935, on the ground that there was irregularity in publishing and. conducting it, which resulted in the property being sold for a price much below its real value. The objections of the appellants were not stated with any degree of clarity in their application to the lower Court but in the course of the hearing it was urged that the sale was also vitiated by illegality. For the Court at the beginning of its judgment states that:It is urged inter alia that there has been material irregularity and illegality and fraud in the publication and conduct of the sale.2. The Court held that the price fetched at the sale was not unduly low, that there was no material irregularity or illegality in publishing or conducting it and that the price fetched at the sale even if considered to be low was not the result of the alleged ...
Sir K.C. Manavikraman, ZamorIn Raja Avergal of Calicut, Trustee of Gur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad246
Somayya, J.1. This suit raises certain important questions as to the power of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board to start notification proceedings under Chap. 6-A of Madras Act 2 of 1927, as amended by Act 12 of 1935, in cases where schemes have been settled by the Civil Courts in suits to which the Board was a party. The plaintiff in this case is the Zamorin of Calicut, who is one of the trustees of the famous temple of Guruvayur situated in South Malabar. Defendant 1 is. the Hindu Religious Endowments Board and defendant 2, Malliserri Nambudiri, is a joint trustee along with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the chief trustee and is in charge of the affairs of the temple. This suit is filed to have it declared that the proceedings which defendant 1 started under Section 65-A(1) of Madras Act 2 of 1927, as amended by Madras Act 12 of 1935, are without jurisdiction and void and that the Board has no right to go on with the enquiry. The chief contesting defendant is defendant 1. ...
Thanammal and ors. Vs. Alamelu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad224; (1939)2MLJ814
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The conviction under Section 75 of the City 'Police Act is no bar to the trial for an offence uuder Sections 323 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code and the evidence justifies the conviction of the petitioners. The fines are not excessive and the revision is dismissed....
Katragada Lakshminarasamma Vs. Singamsetti Venkatasatyanarayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad571; (1940)1MLJ664
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only question arising for decision in this appeal is whether a mortgage executed after the passing of the Madras Estates Land Act can be regarded as an 'encumbrance created before the passing of the Act' within the meaning of Section 125 thereof by reason of the fact that the mortgagee paid off a mortgage executed before the Act and thereby became entitled to be subrogated to it.2. The facts, so far as they are material for the determination of this question, may be briefly stated. The appellant purchased the property which is a ryoti holding in an estate from one Subba Rao who had purchased it in October, 1926, at a rent sale held at the instance of the land-holder for recovery of arrears of rent due from the registered owner of the land. Long before the rent sale, however, the property had been mortgaged by the owner to one Prabhakaramurtamma under a mortgage (Ex. I) dated the 5th November, 1910. The deed provided that the mortgagee should, out of the mortg...
In Re: Ellappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad31; (1939)2MLJ727
Stodart, J.1. The District Munsif is clearly right.2. The first application to the Board though nominally filed by the fourth defendant was clearly adopted by all the defendants. For they applied for and got stay of execution from the District Munsif under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act on the strength of that application.3. It is also argued that having made another application to the Board, this time through the second defendant, the judgment-debtors are again entitled to stay.4. To admit such a proposition would lead to absurd results. In the Debt Conciliation Act there is nothing to prevent a debtor filing one application after another and under Section 25 of the Act he can obtain stay of a suit or other proceedings so long as an application is pending before the Board. When he files an application before the Board a little time must elapse before it is dismissed. In that time under Section 25 he can obtain stay of proceedings in suits and other proceedings and so on indef...
Minor C.R. Ramaswami Aiyangar, Represented by His Mother and Next Frie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad118; (1940)1MLJ32
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This petition raises important questions with regard to the stamping of plaints in suits for the partition of estates of joint Hindu families. The petitioner is the minor son of a Hindu father. Through his mother as next friend he has filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam for partition of the family properties and for possession of his one-fifth share therein. He has joined as defendants his father, his three brothers, and twenty-two other persons. The stranger defendants are made parties either as alienees of family properties or as creditors of the family. In his plaint the plaintiff avers that the family is one engaged merely in agriculture and that before the matters complained of, it had large cash resources. He alleges that his father has engaged in reckless speculation in land, in trade, and in litigation with the result that the cash resources have disappeared, the family properties have been sold or mortgaged and num...
Shanmugha Nadar Vs. Shanmughavel Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad145; (1940)1MLJ749
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is a prominent Beedi manufacturer and trader carrying on business under the name and style of K.A. Shanmughavel & Co., in Shandy Bazaar, at Ambasamudram for about fifteen years prior to the suit. He claims that his Beedies have acquired such a wide reputation in the market, particularly the two brands known as 'Shanmughavel Beedi' and 'Asal Shanmugham' or 'Shanmughani Beedi', that the term 'Shanmugham' and its adaptations have, as applied to Beedies manufactured or sold at Ambasamudram, become so much identified with his business and goods as to denote them exclusively among the purchasing public. Having learned that the appellant who bears the name of Shanmugha Nadar, taking advantage of his name, started business in beedies just a few months prior to the suit under the name and style of 'P.S. Shanmugham and Brother' near the respondent's premises at the same place and was selling beedies describin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »