Chennai Court December 1939 Judgments
K. Dasaradharama Reddy Vs. Syed Rahimtulla Hussani and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad492; (1940)1MLJ270
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The rule nisi must be made absolute. The respondent Board has entirely misconceived the law. On the 15th March, 1935, one Rahimtulla Hussani was adjudicated in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore. On the 28th June, 1935, he filed an application to the respondent Board for settlement of his debts under Section 4(1) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. The applicant had not obtained his discharge and is still an insolvent. The petitioner objected to the Board entertaining the application on the ground that the applicant's estate had vested in the Official Receiver. The leave of the Insolvency Court had not been obtained for the filing of the petition and the Official Receiver was not a party to it. Thereupon, the Board directed notice to be issued to the Official Receiver who replied that he could not be made a party to the application as the applicant had not obtained the consent of the Insolvency Court.2. The Board overruled the ob...
Tag this Judgment!Venkataramasastri Vs. Venkatasubramania Dikshitar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad674; (1940)1MLJ478
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, brought a suit on insufficient court-fee and he was granted a decree. The defect was not noticed during the course of the trial. In appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore, he was called upon to pay the deficient court-fee under Section 12 of the Court-Fees Act and as he did not do so within the time allowed, Section 10(2) was applied and his suit dismissed. This second appeal has, therefore, been preferred, the plaintiff contending that Section 12 of the Court-Fees Act does not apply to his case.2. The argument of the learned advocate for the plaintiff in this Court is that Section 12(2) only applies to cases where the plaintiff is the appellant. This sub-section runs:But whenever any such suit comes before a Court of Appeal...if such Court considers that the said question has been wrongly decided to the detriment of the revenue, it shall require the party by whom such fee has been paid to pay so much add...
Tag this Judgment!John Baptist D'Souza Vs. Lizzie Jane Lobo
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad584; (1940)1MLJ651
Pandrang Row, J.1. This petition raises a question of jurisdiction, namely, whether the District Court of South Kanara had jurisdiction to entertain the application presented to it by the respondent in the present petition under Sections 7, 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act for a declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is null and void and for maintenance, etc. The petition was by the wife against her husband. Both of them are natives of South Kanara and as would appear from the entry in the Marriage Register relating to their marriage in 1932, both are parishioners of the same parish in Mangalore. It appears however from the evidence that the respondent, that is the husband, has been employed for many years in the Telegraph Department in Burmah and has been residing most of the time at Rangoon. The petition was however put in in 1938 in the District Court of South Kanara on the ground that both the parties had last resided together at Mangalore in South K...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Annamalai Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ39
1. The accused, Annamalai Mudali, has been convicted of murder by the learned Sessions Judge of South Arcot, and has been sentenced to death. The case against him was that he murdered his wife Danabagiam on the 12th February, 1939.2. With the exception of an extra judicial confession which the accused is said to have made to his father-in law's brother (P.W. 20) the evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial. The body of Dhanabagiam (wife of the accused) was found on the morning of the 13th February, in a field within the limits of the village of Eriyur in Kallakurichi Taluk. It was about one mile from the railway station of Pukkiravari on the Salem Virdhachalam line. Information was given at first to the Village Munsif of Ulagianallur who was dead before the trial took place. He apparently discovered that the corpse was not lying within the limits of the village, and therefore he sent a yadast (Ex. F) to P.W. 19, the V.M. of Eriyur. P.W. 19 received Ex. F at about 2-30 P...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachala Mudali Vs. Raghava Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ477
Burn, J.1. Order 21, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, says that an application for attachment of any immovable property shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify the same. The application dated 12th August did not contain any description of the property to be attached and although the decree-holder was given an opportunity of supplying it, he failed to do so. The application was not 'in accordance with law' when it was presented, and as it was not amended within the time allowed no question of 'deeming it' to have been in accordance with the law [Order 21, Rule 17(2)] arises.2. This application is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Indian Succession Act (Xxxix of 1925);
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ264
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Somayya, J., directing that4etters of administration to the estate of one Edward Carmichael McCankie be issued to the appellant on the furnishing of security under Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act. The appellant contends that the learned Judge should have held that he was entitled to letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed under Section 241 of the Act, in which case he could not be called upon to furnish security. The deceased died in Littlehampton, England, leaving a will dated the 21st of February, 1936. Probate of the will was obtained in England. The testator appointed Mrs. Madeline Emily Hawkins, his executrix. The executrix was not able to come to India to take out letters of administration and she granted a power-of-attorney to the appellant to enable him to apply as her agent. Since the Succession Act of 1865 it has been the practice of this Court to grant letters of administration wi...
Tag this Judgment!Reddi Krishnan Naidu and ors. Vs. Chintala Somi Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad544; (1940)1MLJ363
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two appeals arise out of the same suit and they can be disposed of here in one judgment. The appellants obtained a money decree against the third respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Parvatipur. The appellants made the third respondent's sons parties to the suit and they are respondents 1, 2 and 4. The suit was on a promissory note executed by the father alone. The sons were joined as defendants on the ground that the debt was incurred for family necessities. The District Munsif dismissed the suit, as he was not satisfied that the promissory note was genuine, but on appeal to the District Judge a decree was passed against the father. In the District Court the appellants decided not to ask for a decree against the sons who were dismissed from the suit. In due course the appellants instituted execution proceedings and asked for the attachment and sale of the sons' interests in the family property. The sons objected on the ground that a...
Tag this Judgment!Puzhakkarat Kozhuvammal Ammad and anr. Vs. Cheriath Manayil Paru Amma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ764
Horwill, J.1. A suit was brought for redemption and was decreed, the mortgagee being ordered, for special reasons stated by the trial Court, to personally pay the costs of the plaintiff. On this question of costs an appeal was preferred to the District Court; and the District Judge came to the conclusion after considering the facts of the case that the defendant should not have been called upon to personally pay the costs.2. It is contended that no Second Appeal lies against an order for costs and certain authorities have been quoted; but there can be no doubt that if. in the Courts below wrong principles have been applied or there is some error of law in awarding the costs, then this Court can interfere in Second Appeal. If in the present case, for example, I can be satisfied that the lower appellate Court had considered the matter from the right point of view and had found after consideration of the facts that the first Court had wrongly exercised its discretion, then it would not be...
Tag this Judgment!Arumilli Surayya Vs. Pinisetti Venkataramanamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad701; (1940)1MLJ831
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for maintenance and sought to enforce it against the suit property over which she had a charge. The appellant was impleaded because he was in possession, he having purchased the property in a suit for sale brought by himself on a mortgage. He filed in the trial Court on the ground that he was not a bona fide purchaser with notice and he preferred an appeal which was dismissed on the ground that even if he did not have notice of the charge, his right would be subject to it because the charge was prior to the sale.2. The question whether a sale without notice would be subject to a prior charge is not free from doubt. As he law stands at present, Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act makes it clear that no charge shall be enforced against any property in the hands of a purchaser to whom such (property has been transferred for consideration and without notice of the charge; but the charge in the present case was prior to the amendment of ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Goods of Edwards Carmichael Mccankie
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad680
Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Somayya, J. directing that letters of administration to the estate of one Edward Carmichael McOankie be issued to the appellant on the furnishing of security under Section 291, Succession Act. The appellant contends that the learned Judge should have held that he was entitled to letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed under Section 241 of the Act in which case he could not be called upon to furnish security. The deceased died in Little Hampton, England, leaving a will dated 21st February 1936. Probate of the will was obtained in England. The testator appointed Mrs. Madeline Emily Hawkins his executrix. The executrix was not able to corns' to India to take out letters of administration and she granted a power of attorney to the appellant to enable her to apply as her agent. Since the Succession Act of 1865, it has been the practice of this Court to grant letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed in cases ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »