Chennai Court December 1939 Judgments
Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Muthukumaraswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad417; (1940)1MLJ317
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938. On the 8th October, 1938, he filed an application in the Court of the District Munsif of Cuddalore asking for the amendment under Section 19 of the Act of a money decree which had been passed against him, By an order dated the 4th May, 1939, the District Munsif dismissed the application. The petitioner then filed the application now before us asking this Court to reverse the District Munsif's decision under the powers of revision conferred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent says that the petition does not lie because the Government has amended the rules framed under the Act and by the amendment has provided for an appeal against an order passed under Section 19. The petitioner contends that the new rules cannot have retrospective effect. This question calls for decision before the Court examines the reasons advanced...
Tag this Judgment!M. Venkata Rao Vs. B. Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad700; (1940)1MLJ605
Horwill, J.1. The Sri Parthasarathi Temple, Triplicate, leased the suit land to the first defendant, the first defendant sub-leased it to the second defendant, and the second defendant to the plaintiff. At the termination of the period of tenancy, the second defendant brought proceedings under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act to recover possession from the plaintiff. An order was passed under Section 43 in the second defendant's favour, and the plaintiff thereupon filed this suit under Section 47. He raised very many pleas and they are set out in the five issues. Inter alia, the plaintiff alleged that the second defendant agreed to allow the plaintiff to remain in possession for three years which, he said, was the period of the lease of the first defendant from the temple and the second defendant from the first defendant. After the plaint was filed the temple obtained an order under Section 43 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act against the first defendant. The...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavi Amma and Ors. Vs. Kongot Patinhare Pathayapura tarwattil Chiru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ791
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The parties are members of a Marumakkattayam tavazhi. On the 15th of August, 1933, certain members of the tarwad, representing a two-thirds majority, applied to the Collector for the registration of the tarwad as impartible under Section 43 of the Marumakkattayam Act, XXII of 1933. As required by the statute, notice of the application was served upon the first respondent, who on the 23rd of October, 1933, filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Alatur for partition of the tarwad under the provisions of Section 38 of the Act. Notwithstanding the suit, the registration application was proceeded with and resulted in the Collector passing an order on the 15th January, 1934, for the registration of the tarwad as impartible. The District Munsif held that the registration of the tarwad had the effect of defeating the suit and accordingly he dismissed it. The respondent then appealed to the District Court of South Malabar. The District Judge held t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavi Amma Vs. Nagappan Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad182
Leach, C.J.1. The parties are members of a Marumakkattayam tavazhi. On 15th August 1933 certain members of the tarwad, representing a two-thirds majority, applied to the Collector for the registration of the tarwad as impartible under Section 43 of the Marumakkattayam Act, 22 of 1933. As required by the statute, notice of the application was served upon respondent l, who on 23rd October 1933 filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Alatur for partition of the tarwad under the provisions of Section 38 of the Act. Notwithstanding the suit, the registration application was proceeded with and resulted in the Collector passing an order on 15th January 1934 for the registration of the tarwad as impartible. The District Muusif held that the registration of the tarwad had the effect of defeating the suit and accordingly he dismissed it. The res-pondent then appealed to the District Court of South Malabar. The District Judge held that the registration of the tarwad did not affect the...
Tag this Judgment!Boda Subba Rao Vs. Kandregula Narsiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad495; (1940)1MLJ220
Mockett, J.1. A short point is raised in this petition on which there is no authority whatever. The plaintiff-petitioner sued the defendant on the balance of a promissory note for Rs. 20. The promissory note is dated the 5th July, 1927, renewed by payment on the 13th June, 1930, and again on the 12th June, 1933, so that it would become barred on the 12th June, 1936. The District Munsif's Court of Ramachandrapur was closed for the long vacation from the 9th May, 1936, to the 19th June, 1936. The 20th was the penultimate Saturday, and the 21st was a Sunday, and so the petitioner filed his suit on the 22nd June, 1936. It is not contended that under ordinary circumstances, the suit would be within time; but the point was taken before the learned District Munsif that this was a suit which is cognizable by a Village Court under Section 13 of the Madras Village Courts Act. That is so. It is therefore argued that this suit could have been filed in the Court of the Village Munsif which was open...
Tag this Judgment!Yarlagadda Venkatasubbayya Vs. Gajjala Satyanarayanamurty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad489; (1940)1MLJ465
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These two connected second appeals arise out of a suit and a cross-suit brought in the District Munsif's Court, Masulipatam. O.S. No. 17 of 1934 was a suit by the appellant for an account of dealings in groundnut with the respondents, a firm of Commission Agents and O.S. No. 81 of 1934 was by the Commission Agents against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 856-7-0 said to be due to them on those dealings. The question for determination in both the suits being the same, they were heard and disposed of together by a common judgment in both the Courts below. Both the suits having been decided against the appellant in the lower appellate Court, he has preferred these appeals. As the first respondent has been the principal contesting party throughout, he is hereinafter referred to as the respondent.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The appellant who is a groundnut merchant entered into an agreement in October, 1932, with the respondent whereby he was to p...
Tag this Judgment!Pentakota Audinarayana Naidu Vs. the Panchayat Board of Munagapaka Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad660; (1940)1MLJ582
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a revision from the decree of me Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam acting as a judge of the Court of Small Causes in a suit instituted by one Pentakota Audinarayana Naidu against the Panchayat Board of Munngapaka for the refund of money alleged to have been paid by him for profession and house taxes and in regard to the licensing fee for his rice mill and brick kiln under a mistaken belief that the properties or business in respect of which he had paid the license fees or other taxes were situated within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Board. The levy of the profession-tax was also questioned on the ground that the notice issued to the plaintiff by the Panchayat Board did not comply with the requirements of law and the demand was therefore illegal. The Subordinate Judge disallowed the plaintiff's claim in regard to the refund of house-tax and license-fee as he held the payments made by the plaintiff to have been voluntary and not under a mistake of fact that...
Tag this Judgment!Thadi Chandrayya and ors. Vs. Vaitla Seethanna and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad689; (1940)1MLJ590
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is one of limitation. The suit was filed by the first respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Ramachandrapur. He was the reversioner to the estate of one Ramanna, which after Ramanna's death devolved upon his daughter Pullamma. The reversion opened on the 3rd July, 1916, when Pullamma died. The first respondent was born on the 1st November, 1908, and therefore attained his majority on 1st November, 1926, which gave him until 1st November, 1929, in which to file the suit. On the 30th October, 1929, he filed a plaint in the Court of the District Munsif and asked for possession of the suit properties from the appellants, who were in possession under the alienations created by Pullamma. In the plaint, the properties were described in two schedules, A and B. The properties in schedule A were valued at Rs. 693 and the mesne profits thereof at Rs. 2,040. The properties in schedule B were valued at Rs. 250. In...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Kareem Beedi Factory, by Its Proprietor Khan Bahadur Abdul ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ597
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of beedis and has been carrying on business in Madras for 25 years. As the result of his industry he has is carried on in five buildings in Sembudoss Street, George Town, Madras. In No. 41, Sembudoss Street, he stores the tobacco required for the making of his beedis. He stores beedi leaves in No. 59 and uses Nos. 48, 57 and 58 for the handling and storage of the finished products. Sembudoss Street is in a residential part of Madras. It is a very narrow street and it is said that the growth of petitioner's business has resulted in a grave nuisance and a menace to health. On the 19th August, 1938, thirteen people living in the neighbourhood presented a petition to the Commissioner of Police, complaining of the nuisance and asking that action be taken. The Commissioner of Police had no jurisdiction to interfere, and the petition was forwarded to the Commissioner of the Corporation of Madras. The Commissioner inquired into...
Tag this Judgment!Khan Bahadur Abdul Kareem Sahib Vs. the Commissioner, Corporation of M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad19
Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of beedis and has been carrying on business in Madras for 25 years. As the result of his industry he has succeeded in building up a very substantial concern. The business is carried on in five buildings in Sembudoss Street, George Town, Madras, In No. 41, Sembudoss Street, he stores the tobacco required for the making of his beedis. He stores beedi leaves in No. 59 and uses Nos. 48, 57 and 58 for the handling and storage of the finished products. Sembudoss Street is in a residential part of Madras. It is a very narrow street and it is said that the growth of petitioner's business has resulted in a grave nuisance and a menace to health. On 19th August 1938, thirteen people living in the neighbourhood presented a petition to the Commissioner of Police, complaining of the nuisance and asking that action be taken. The Commissioner of Police had no jurisdiction to interfere, and the petition was forwarded to the Commissioner of the Corporation ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »