Chennai Court November 1939 Judgments
K.S.R.M. Sivasubramaniam Chettiar Vs. Murugesa Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad566; (1940)1MLJ537
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant obtained a money decree against the second respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirupur and in execution of that decree attached immovable property belonging to the judgment-debtor. The property was sold by the Court in execution proceedings on the 23rd February, 1932, the first respondent being the purchaser. The first respondent immediately deposited 25 per cent, of the purchase price, which was Rs. 715, as required by Rule 84 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sale proclamation disclosed that there was a mortgage on the property, but it indicated that the mortgage was invalid. The mortgage was in fact a valid one and subsequently the mortgagee obtained a mortgage decree. The first respondent did not pay the balance of the purchase money within fifteen days, as required by Rule 85 of Order 21, but on the 29th February he applied for an order setting the sale aside on the ground of material irregularity in the p...
Tag this Judgment!Cherutty Alias Vasu (Minor) and anr. Vs. Nangamparambil Ravu Alias Kut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad513; (1940)2MLJ358
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Vayitri by the appellants and their parents for a decree for maintenance. The first appellant is the son and the second appellant is the daughter of one Nangamparambil Imbichutty and his wife Kalyani. Both the appellants are minors. The parents and their two children constitute one of two branches of an undivided Hindu family of which the first respondent is the manager. The respondents represent the other branch and were all made defendants. The District Munsif held that the parents of the appellants were not entitled under the Hindu law to maintain a suit for maintenance, but that the appellants were, and granted them a decree. The respondents appealed to the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, who gave judgment in their favour. The appellants then appealed to this Court. The appeal was heard by Wadsworth, J., who concurred in the decision of the Subordinate ...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. G.V.C. Babu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad731; (1940)1MLJ437
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is entitled to succeed. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Bellary for a declaration that the appellant council had acted illegally in requiring him to pay profession-tax in respect of the three half years ending with 31st March, 1931, 30th September, 1931 and 31st March, 1932, and' for an injunction restraining the appellant from levying the tax. The District Munsif held that the respondent was liable to the tax except in respect of the half year which ended with 31st March, 1931. He was of the opinion that the respondent was not liable in respect of that half year because the notice of demand had not been given within the required period. The respondent appealed to the District Judge of Bellary in respect of the reliefs which had been refused him and the appellant filed a memorandum of objections challenging the correctness of the District Munsif's decision that the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Yenamandra Jagannadham Vs. theerthala Adilakshmi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad545; (1940)1MLJ433
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is a second appeal which came before Mr. Justice Wadsworth in the first instance. The question raised in it related to the right of a brother's son's daughter to inherit under the Hindu Law, The precise question is not covered by authority in this Presidency and for that reason the learned Judge has referred the point for consideration by a Bench.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in the trial Court. He instituted the suit for the recovery of possession of property which appertained to the estate of one Narasayya who died some time before 1895. He was succeeded by his widow Viramma, who in 1895 entered into an arrangement with the next reversioner Suryanarayana who was her husband's brother's son. By that arrangement, Suryanarayana in consideration of a sum of Rs. 100 agreed to Veeramma holding the estate as absolute owner - a transaction which is admittedly invalid under Hindu Law, Viramma having thus secured, as she probably thought, a Valid right to ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Nana Rao Vs. M.U. Arunachalam Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad385; (1940)1MLJ482
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which has been referred for decision is this:In a private transfer made after and during the pendency of an attachment in one suit, void against the title of an auction-purchaser in execution of a decree in another suit under an attachment made after the transfer but while the decree in the former suit remained unsatisfied and the attachment therein was subsisting?2. The circumstances which have given rise xo this reference are these. On the 25th October, 1924, one Appu Chetty obtained a money decree in O. Section No. 497 of 1923 of the Court of the District Munsif of Salem. The decree was transferred to the Court of the District Munsif of Krishnagiri for execution. On the 5th March, 1925, the decree-holder applied in Execution Proceedings No. 132 of 1925 for the attachment and sale of the property, There was then due under the decree a sum of Rs. 2,399-4-6. An order of attachment was passed on the same day and the attachment was effected ...
Tag this Judgment!Pendela Pundarikakshudu Vs. Sontineni Kondayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad669; (1940)1MLJ601
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was a simple money creditor of defendants 2 and 3, who executed a mortgage deed in favour of the first defendant on 20th June, 1923, which contained a covenant against leasing the property. The 'first defendant was also an unsecured creditor of defendants 2 and 3 and obtained a simple money decree against them. The first defendant attempted to execute his decree in 1932; but by that time the defendants 2 and 3 had filed an Insolvency Petition, and so the Execution Petition was struck off. The Insolvency Petition was subsequently dismissed; and before the first defendant filed another Execution Petition against defendants 2 and 3, the plaintiff, in order to satisfy his own decree, had persuaded defendants 2 and 3 to execute a lease of the property for ten years. He then filed E.A. No. 2847 of 1933 in the Execution Petition of the first defendant, claiming that the equity of redemption could be sold only subject to his lease. That petition was dismissed, and t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pullannagari Rami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad238
Mockett, J.1. The three accused have been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Akkammal, the wife of accused 1. The charge alleges that Akkammal died of suffocation. Her body was founds in the village well on the morning of 17th March at about 9 A.M. The medical evidence was to the effect that she had died of suffocation and not of drowning. For the present we will discuss the evidence on the basis-that Akkammal was in fact murdered although it will be necessary to return to an investigation of the medical evidence at a later stage. The plan Ex. W, indicates that accused 1 lived with his wife at Gangapurampalle in a kottam which is next to the main house in which his parents, P.W. 3, her husband, and her children lived. There is no doubt that accused 1 and his wife were not happy. Accused 1 had married a second wife and had been ordered by a Magistrate to pay Akkammal Rs. 10 a month for maintenance. Ex. J is the revision petition filed against that order, which was di...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Guruswamy Vs. Indo-carnatic Bank, Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad873
ORDERGentle, J.1. Contributories Nos. 349 and 756 : These two contributories object to being included in the list on the ground that the shares which they held in the company have been forfeited. Contributory No. 349 in his affidavit sets out that in 1936 he received a notice from the secretary of the company asking that payment be made of the first call on or before the 1st March and that if that was not done the question of enforcing Articles 27 and 29 would be placed before the directors for their consideration and that the contributory should make immediate arrangements for payment to avoid forfeiture of the shares. In regard to contributory No. 756, there is no such allegation of an earlier proceeding or notice. In regard to both of them, they each received a notice from the company dated 23rd November 1938 to the effect that in pursuance of the resolution of the board notice was given that if there was failure to pay by 23rd December 1938 the call in respect of allotment money, a...
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Subba Rao Vs. the Calicut Co-operative Urban Bank Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad635; (1940)1MLJ268
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether Article 181 or Article 182 of the Limitation Act applies to the execution of an award passed under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912. If the article which applies is Article 181 an award which was filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Calicut for execution willbe time barred. If Article 182 applies it still may be executed. The District Munsif and the District Judge of South Malabar on appeal held that Article 182 applies and their decision was confirmed in a second appeal which was decided by Venkataramana Rao, J. : AIR1939Mad304 The learned Judge has dealt with the argument in full and we are in complete agreement with his observations.2. Rule 15(7)(c) of the rules framed under the Act states that on application to the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the decision or award, the Court shall enforce the decision or award as if it were a final decree of the Court, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanatha Gurukkal Alias Parameswara Gurukkal Vs. V.V.R. Arunachalam C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad493; (1940)1MLJ352
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether an archaka of a temple who has been dismissed from his office by the trustee has a right to challenge the correctness of the trustee's action in a Court of law or whether his remedy is limited by Section 43 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, to an appeal to' the Temple Committee or to the Religious Endowments Board as the case may be.2. The appellant is admittedly a hereditary archaka of the Thirupalathurai temple in the Trichinopoly District. He is suffering from leucoderma and he was dismissed from his office by the trustee, ostensibly on this ground, but it would appear from the findings of both the lower Courts that the trustee was actuated by ill will towards the appellant. Section 43(1) of the Act states:All office-holders and servants attached to a temple or in receipt of any emolument or perquisite from the temple shall be under the orders and control of the trustee; and the trustee may f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »