Chennai Court November 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.
Kopparthi Venkataratnam and anr. Vs. Palleti Sivaramudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad560; (1940)1MLJ314
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents' mother in the Court of the District Munsif of Nellore for a decree setting aside a conveyance on the ground of fraud. The respondents' mother was an ignorant cultivator and she bought from the first defendant in the suit, the appellants' father, certain wet lands in the Nellore District. The first defendant had granted a lease of these lands for seven years to a third party. Not only did the first defendant fail to disclose this fact to the vendee, but he represented to her that she could take immediate possession and cultivate the lands. This amounted to a fraudulent misrepresentation and as this is the finding of the District Judge on first appeal it cannot be challenged in this Court. The District Munsif held that there was no fraud, but granted the plaintiff a decree for damages based on the amount of two years' mesne profits. The District Judge reversed this decision and dec...
In Re: Chidambaram Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad383; (1940)2MLJ425
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal has been placed before us to-day on a question raised with regard to the Court-fee payable. The memorandum of appeal bears a Court-fee stamp of Rs. 15 and the Deputy Registrar has called upon the appellant to day an additional fee of Rs. 85 on the ground that the memorandum should be stamped with a fee of Rs. 100 under the provisions of Article 17-A of the Second Schedule of the Court-Fees Act. As the appellant questioned the validity of the Deputy Registrar's decision a notice was issued to the Government Pleader. The facts are these. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Dharapuram for a declaration that a certain alienation was a fraud on creditors. He filed a similar suit in respect of another alienation in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The suit filed in the Court of the District Munsif was subsequently transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge and tried along with the suit wh...
In Re: Kuruba Anjanappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad892
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The enquiry held by the District Judge was a departmental enquiry and Section 476, Criminal P.C., is not applicable. The appeal is therefore allowed and the complaint filed against the appellants will be withdrawn....
Raja Srimanthu Muthu Vijia Ragunatha Duraisingam Alias Gowri Vallabha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad379; (1940)1MLJ391
1. These appeals raise a number of questions of importance to landholders and ryots in the Madras Presidency. The appellant is the Zamindar of Sivaganga, which is one of the important Zamindaries of Southern India. Before 1922 it was the custom of the tenants to pay their rent in kind, but in that year the Court of Wards, which was then in charge of the estate, formulated a scheme for the permanent commutation of rent in kind to re at in money. The scheme provided for the tenants signifying their acceptance in writing of the proposal and for the exchange of pattas and muchilikas drawn up on the new basis. At the time the scheme was viewed with favour by the tenants. Practically all of them signed consent statements and many of them accepted pattas which stipulated for the payment of the rent in money, but owing to the large number of tenants it was not possible to complete the arrangement by the issue of pattas to all of them while grain prices remained stable, and some tenants refused...
Athiyappa Goundan Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad420; (1940)1MLJ367
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This is an application to revise the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in E.A. No. 261 of 1938 in O.S. No. 52 of 1932.2. The application before the lower Court was presented under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act IV of 1938 to scale down the amount of a mortgage decree. It is admitted that the original mortgage was executed for Rs. 7,000 on the 4th November, 1914, the whole of the mortgage-debt being the price payable by the mortgagors for lands purchased by them from the mortgagees. Subsequent to this mortgage and before the debt was discharged, there was a partition among the mortgagors and after that partition, by consent of parties, the mortgage-debt was split up with the result that under a fresh mortgage deed, Ex. C, security was given only for Rs. 2,500 which was the portion of the debt that fell to the mortgagors under that document. This was executed on the 22nd January, 1925. Under this mortgage deed, the properties that...
The Official Assignee Representing the Estate of S.N. Firm (insolvents ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad441; (1940)1MLJ254
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The Official Assignee of Madras who was impleaded as the 17th defendant in O.S. No. 64 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Trichinopoly is the appellant. He was brought on record as representing the estate of defendants 1 to 7 who were adjudicated insolvents in I. P. No. 345 of 1935 on 6th September, 1935. They were members of a joint Hindu family which was carrying on a banking business under the name and style of the S.N. Firm which suspended business on 30th April, 1935. Between 25th March, 1935 and 17th April, 1935, the plaintiff-respondent had paid this firm a total sum of Rs. 6,950 at Trichinopoly in the following circumstances. The plaintiff had arranged to purchase certain lands in the village of Thiruvarambur from one S.V. Nallasivam Pillai of Tuticorin. When the plaintiff told the third defendant of this plan the latter suggested that the transaction could be arranged through the defendant's branch at Tuticorin which he said was close to ...
Gundavarapu Seshamma Vs. Kornepati Venkata Narasimha Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ400
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this appeal is whether an adoption by a Hindu widow is valid when the family is divided and she has obtained the consent of the nearest sagotra sapindas of her husband, but has not consulted a daughter's son, he being of age. In other words does the Hindu law demand that the daughter's son shall be consulted, if he is of age, before the widow can adopt, notwithstanding that the proposed adoption has received the approval of her husband's nearest agnates?2. In this case one Kornepati Lakshminarayana died divided from his brothers. He was survived by his wife Subbamma and his two daughters, the appellant and one Rathamma, who is now dead. The appellant has four sons who have not been made parties to this litigation. Rathamma had two sons the fifth and sixth respondents. In the year 1916, about 40 years after her husband's death, Subbamma adopted a boy named Narasimha Rao, the son of the third respo...
Rajah Tadakamalla Seetharamachandra Rao Bahadur, Zamindar of Bethavole ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad656; (1940)1MLJ699
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The question in dispute is between two neighbouring proprietors in relation to a natural water-course known as Durgadevi Cheruvu which flows between the two estates of North Vinagadapa and the South Vinagadapa. The plaintiff is the owner of the estate of South Vinagadapa, and defendants 1 and 2 are the owners of North Vinagadapa. Both these estates formed part of one estate which belonged to two brothers who partitioned it in 1844 by a deed of partition dated 29th August, 1844 (Ex. N). Under the said partition it was stipulated that the mountains, water-courses and certain other properties should be kept joint and none of them should cause obstruction to the supply channels and water channels flowing as per mamool till that date to the tanks from one part of the estate to another.2. The Durgadevi vagu rises in a forest in the North-east of both the estates and flows in a westerly direct...
In Re: Kollapalle Subramanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad822
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The signature of the petitioner; in the forwarding note does not necessarily prove that he was in possession of the goods and his conviction under Section 486, I.P.C., cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
P.R.S.A.R. Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. P.S.A.R.A.R. Arunachalam Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad375; (1940)1MLJ228
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These six Civil Revision Petitions deal with three different matters arising out of the adjudication in insolvency of one Palani Goundan and his son Kandaswarai Goundan by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, but they may all be conveniently dealt with in one judgment. Ihe order of adjudication was passed on the 26th September, 1928, on a petition filed by P.S.A.R.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar who alleged that the insolvents had fraudulently preferred another Chettiar, Somasundaram by name, by executing in his favour on the 2nd June, 19-7, a mortgage of immovable property. The insolvents did not enter an appearance and the order of adjudication was passed without opposition. On the 14th October, 1929, the petitioning creditor applied to the Court for an order under the provisions of Section 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act setting aside the mortgage in favour of Somasundaram. The Subordinate Judge held that the fraudulent preference alleged had been est...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »