Chennai Court February 1939 Judgments
Emani Satyanarayanamurthi, Manager of Sree Bala Tripura Sundari Rice M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad891; (1939)2MLJ279
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit brought on the basis of a deed of partnership to recover money due by way of contribution towards the loss incurred by the partnership from the defendants as sons of a deceased partner. The basis of the suit is a covenant in the deed of partnership which runs as follows:If any of the shareholders should die owing to an act of Providence while the business of the firm is being carried on, his heir or his representatives shall after his life time be a partner in his place, being entitled to the right and interest of the said partner, and he shall get the business done subjecting himself to the aforesaid terms and on that account neither the partnership should be cancelled nor would it come to an end.2. The plaint alleges that the partnership worked at a loss and that by a resolution of the shareholders the plaintiff was authorised to collect the proportionate quotas of the loss from the various shareholders on behalf of the firm, ...
Tag this Judgment!Marimuthu Pillai Vs. M. Muthirulappa Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad809; (1939)2MLJ512
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Ramnad dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the order dismissing him from the office of hereditary karnam of Kilkudi village passed by the Sub-Collector on 15th December, 1930, and the appellate orders of the District Collector in February, 1931, of the Revenue Board in the same year dismissing his appeals to them are illegal, void and not binding on him. The defendants were (1) the karnam who was appointed in the place of the plaintiff after his dismissal, (2) the Secretary of State for India in Council, and (3) the Rajah of Ramnad within whose zamindari the office is held, the office being one governed by Act II of 1894 and not Act III of 1895.2. It was contended inter alia that the suit itself was not competent and that the order of the District Collector on appeal which was confirmed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal was final and cannot be canvassed in a Civil Court. On this poin...
Tag this Judgment!Malladi Venkata Sastry and ors. Vs. Malladi Venkataramanayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad626
Wadsworth, J.1. It seems to me apparent that when a man builds an upper storey on to an ancestral house, even when he uses his separate money for the building, the construction is made with the aid of the family properties which supply to the new structure both its foundation and its site. The appeal will be allowed to this extent and the plaintiff will be given a decree for partition of the upper storey, subject to any rights which may have accrued by reason of the mortgage suits to which the plain-tiffs were parties. Parties to pay their own costs, the appeal being dismissed in other respects....
Tag this Judgment!Vellanchetty Venkata Narasimham Vs. Pinapa Satyanarayanarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad512; (1939)1MLJ775
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The marriage was solemnized on 27th June, 1937, and the complaint was made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kandukur on 21st July, 1938. Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) provides that no Court shall take-cognizance of any offence under that Act save upon complaint made within one year of the solemnization of the marriage and Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act is in terms restricted to civil proceedings. The making of the complaint to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate of Ongole on 24th June, 1938, is therefore immaterial and the order of dismissal is correct. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Jeeva Ammal Vs. Ranganatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad788; (1939)2MLJ294
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant, a Hindu wife, sued her husband for maintenance. The parties married in or about 1920 and lived together until 1926 when there was a breach. According to the findings of the learned District Judge, the occasion for this breach was the misconduct of the plaintiff and her adultery with her brother-in-law, resulting in a panchayat which excommunicated her. Shortly after this breach, she went away to Penang where she lived until 1933. In 1933 she returned to India and almost at once started proceedings against her husband for maintenance. The basis of her suit is an allegation that she had been cruelly ill-treated and driven from, the house. The plaint contains no suggestion that she herself was in any way to blame or that she had ever strayed from the path of virtue. The District Judge finding that the basis of her plaint was untrue and that the allegations of the defendant regarding her misconduct had been established, dismissed the suit.2. It is now contend...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Rao Vs. Janaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad681; (1939)1MLJ728
Wadsworth, J.1. It seems to me that the lower Court was wrong in declining to consider this application on the merits. The case of Subbaraya Devai v. Sundaresa Devai (1932) 36 L.W. 586 is authority for the view that Order 9, Rule 9 read along with Section 141, Civil Procedure Code, does apply to pauper petitions. There is a conflict of authority on the question whether the dismissal for default of a pauper petition bars a future petition on the same grounds. But whether the decision operates as res judicata or not, if the Court has jurisdiction to decide a petition under Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 141, it has a duty to decide such a petition on its merits and cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction merely because there is an alternative remedy. The petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the lower Court for disposal on the merits. Costs to abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!S.V. Subramania Pillai Vs. G.J. Ponniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad569; (1939)1MLJ729
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The Sanitary Inspector of a Panchayat Board was held to be a public servant in Queen-Empress v. Tiruvengada Mudali I.L.R. (1998) 21 Mad. 428, because of Section 43 of the Madras Local Boards Act (V of 1884) which has been deleted in the Madras Local Boards Act of 1920 (Act XIV of 1920) and it is not contended that as such officer, a Sanitary Inspector has any of the duties specified in Clause 10 of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. It follows therefore that the Sanitary Inspector of a Panchayat Board is not a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and the fact that the Sanitary Inspector in this case was authorised by the President of the Panchayat Board to collect fees for sealing animals before slaughter would not make him a public servant. The charge framed under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is therefore quashed and the Magistrate will proceed with the case according to law on the footing that the Sanitary Inspector is no...
Tag this Judgment!P.E.R.M. Annamalai Chetty, Joint Firm, Palni, Through Its Partner P.E. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad538; (1939)1MLJ792
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J., in S.A. No. 492 of 1934. By that judgment he has reversed the decree of both the lower Courts and dismissed the suit with costs throughout.2. The appeal raises a question of importance involving a decision as to the limits within which a natural guardian under Hindu law can incur a simple contract debt so as to bind the minor's estate. That such a guardian has the power to borrow by charging, mortgaging or even by selling the estate or a sufficient portion of it, for purposes termed necessary or beneficial according to that law, cannot at this time of the day be questioned. It is also settled that even in the absence of a proved necessity or benefit, an honest creditor can still recover the debt from the estate if he can show that in advancing the money he acted in the bona fide belief after due enquiry, that the guardian was acting for such a purpose in incurring the d...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Anantha Sayana Naidu, by Next Friend Renu Ammal Vs. Kondappa Nai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad479; (1940)1MLJ212
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question in this second appeal turns upon the construction of a will Ex. III, dated 27th November, 1917, left by one Vijiaraghavalu Naidu. It was his last will and testament. He executed the previous wills Exs. I and II dated 25th July, 1917 and 21st November, 1917, respectively. Before July, 1917, the testator was ill. He had no male issue. He had only a daughter by name Kuppammal. The persons who were the objects of his affection were his wife Chinnammal, the said daughter Kuppammal and her husband Rangaswami Naidu the seventh defendant in this case. He had properties in four villages, namely, Vallam, Nemili, Mazhayur and Vadakku-mangalam in the North Arcot District. By his will dated 25th July, 1917, he purported to bequeath his properties in the Vallam village to his daughter Kuppammal and the extent of the bequest is thus stated in the said will:She shall hold and enjoy the same from generation to generation with powers of alienation by gift, mortgage, ...
Tag this Judgment!S.T.P. Kasi Chetti Alias thenappa Chetti and ors. Vs. Minor Nagappa Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad814; (1939)2MLJ262
Stodart, J.1. These appeals arise out of certain proceedings had in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 76 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivaganga. That decree was passed on the 21st December, 1932, and was slightly modified in A.S. No. 37 of 1933 of this Court on the 23rd August, 1934. The decree directed the payment of money to the two plaintiffs Palaniappa Chetti and Nagappa Chetti. The first plaintiff became a major in 1931 and the second plaintiff was at all material times a minor. On the 21st January, 1935, the plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint petition in the Sub-Court requesting the Court to sanction a compromise. By that compromise the terms of the decree were varied. The original decree provided that the decretal amount should be paid jointly to the plaintiffs. By the compromise it was provided that half of it should be paid to the first plaintiff and half to the second plaintiff. Then the amount of the decree was varied. The decree amount was about Rs. 64,000. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »