Chennai Court February 1939 Judgments
Padalinga Mudaliar Vs. Arumugha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad944; (1939)2MLJ415
Gentle, J.1. In the suit the claims made by the plaintiff were for a declaration that certain plots of land set out in Ex. H belonged to the plaintiff for recovery of possession of two plots 1-B and 1-D from the defendant and an injunction restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of other plots. The first Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the appeal to the lower appellate Court was dismissed. The defendant presents this second appeal and contends (1) that a suit does not lie by reason of the provisions of Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, and (2) that on account of the dismissal of an execution application filed by the first plaintiff against the defendant all remedies in the suit are barred.2. The facts shortly are as follows: - An adult and two minor members of a Mudaliar family owned certain properties which they mortgaged to the second plaintiff on 26th January, 1923. The mortgagee filed a suit and a decree was passed in O.S. No. 302 of 1...
Tag this Judgment!A.L. Meenakshi Achi and anr. Vs. S.T.L.R.M. Alias L.R.M. Ramaswami Che ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad552; (1939)2MLJ653
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which is raised in this appeal is whether a creditor has the right to bring a suit for the administration of the estate of a deceased Hindu who was joint with his son and died leaving no property apart from his interest in the family estate. One Arunachalam Chettiar, a member of the Nattukottai Chettiar community, died in February, 1930, being survived by a widow and a son (the second respondent). The first respondent, who claims to be a creditor of the deceased, filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Devakottai for the administration of his estate. The widow and the son and 18 creditors were made defendants. The appellants who were the fourth and fifth defendants challenged the right claimed by the first respondent to bring a suit for administration. In addition to denying that the plaintiff-respondent was a creditor of the father they averred that a suit for administration would not lie because the family estate had devolved...
Tag this Judgment!Balada Lakshminarayana Deo Vs. the Imperial Bank of India
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad580; (1939)1MLJ615
Newsam, J.1. I cannot agree with the view taken by both Courts below that a servant of the Imperial Bank of India holds his office at pleasure and is liable to be dismissed without notice.2. The view is based on Chellam Aiyar v. Corporation of Madras (1917) 6 L.W. 284, in which case provisions similar to Section 50 of Schedule II of the Imperial Bank of India Act were considered and interpreted in that light.3. The decision along with others has been fully considered. In Venkateswara Aiyar v. S.M.S. Devasthanam : (1935)69MLJ206 , which I take as my authority for the true position, servants of the Crown hold office during the pleasure of the Crown - not by virtue of any special prerogative of the Crown but because such are the terms of their engagement Shanton v. Smith (1895) A.C. 229. But servants even of a statutory body do not hold office at pleasure merely because the statute provides the body or person by whom they may be dismissed. It is not right to assume that the power of dismi...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Gopalaswami Odayar and anr. Vs. T.S. Swaminatha Odayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad519; (1939)1MLJ712
ORDER1. The question before us is whether a sale which has taken place by the direction of this Court should be confirmed or whether a fresh auction should be ordered. The suit out of which this matter arises was filed for partition of the properties of a joint Hindu family. The final decree was passed on the 5th May, 1938, and the first defendant, who is objecting to the sale being confirmed, received as his share in the family estate immovable properties in the Tanjore District, but he was directed to pay to the fourth defendant in the suit Rs. 7,662-6-0 and to the sixth defendant Rs. 12,841-7-8, both sums to carry interest. In order to discharge the first defendant's liability to the fourth and sixth defendants a receiver was appointed to sell a portion of the lands allotted to him. The receiver gave notice that a sale would take place on the 28th January of this year. The sale took place on that date and the properties were sold to the sixth respondent for a sum of Rs. 31,250. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Emberumanar Jeer Swamigal Vs. the Board of Commissioners for Hindu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad511; (1939)1MLJ901
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Pandrang Row, J., refusing to issue a writ of certiorari. The appellant is the head of a math known as the Sri Emberumanar jeer Math, which is situate in the village of Alwarthirunagari in the Tinnevelly District. In the math is a shrine and it is said that this shrine is a subsidiary shrine of the Sri Athinatha Alwar Temple which also lies within the village limits. The Sri Emberumanar Jeer Math is one of four maths which are particularly interested in the temple, the others being the Vanamamalai, Sri Ahobila and Thirukkurangudi Maths, the heads of which are respondents 7, 8 and 9. There has been great strife with regard to the right to receive theertham and other honours in the temple on festival and non-festival days. The quarrel commenced so long ago as 1905 and in that year a suit was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly by certain persons to establish what they claimed to be their right...
Tag this Judgment!Koka Audinarayana Rao Naidu Vs. Bhavaraju Lakshminarayana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad588; (1940)1MLJ558
Varadachariar, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of a suit for accounts filed by a principal against his agent. Both the Courts have held that no part of the cause of action arose within the limits of the Chicacole Munsif's Court's jurisdiction and the plaint has been returned for presentation to the proper Court, as the conditions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code are not satisfied in the present case.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that either as a matter of law or even as an inference of fact as to the intended place of performance of the contract, I should hold that the cause of action arose in whole or in part within the Chicacole Court's jurisdiction. I am unable to accede to this contention. As pointed out by the learned District Judge, the reasoning' in Tika Ram v. Daulat Raw (1924) I.L.R. 46 All. 465, where a very similar question arose, is clearly in favour of the view taken by the Courts below.3. Mr. Jagannadha Das...
Tag this Judgment!Sengamuthu Gounder Vs. Thayarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad646; (1940)1MLJ740
Gentle, J.1. The facts which are relevant to this Second Appeal are as follows: One Chikayi Ammal was the owner of a piece of immovable property. In 1919 she mortgaged it in favour of the deceased husband of the third defendant in the suit. Chikayi Ammal later sold this property, or the equity of redemption to one Chinnathayi, the deceased father of defendants 1 and 2. In 1920 Chinnathayi executed a second mortgage of the same property in favour of the plaintiff. It is convenient to refer to the third defendant as the 1st mortgagee, the plaintiff as the 2nd mortgagee and the first and second defendants as the mortgagor.2. In 1926 the first mortgagee filed a mortgage suit upon the mortgage of 1919 and in that suit did not implead the second mortgagee as a party. In 1930 a mortgage decree was passed and in due course the mortgaged property was put up for sale by auction and was purchased at the sale by the first mortgagee, who, since that date has been in possession of the mortgaged prop...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliana thevan and ors. Vs. Muthuswami Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad174
Gentle, J.1. In the suit the plaintiff sued on a promissory note dated 5th April 1929 executed by defendant 1 in favour of Kaliappa Kavundan in respect of a sum of Rs. 1355 with interest at one per cent, per mensem. The person in whose favour the promissory note was given transferred it on 7th March 1932 to the plaintiff. The lower Courts decreed in his favour the amount claimed not only against defendant 1, the executant, but also against defendants 2 to 9 as being members of a joint Hindu family with defendant 1. The appellants are defendants 6 to 9, namely, the brothers and nephews respectively of the executant. I have no doubt that the suit was one on the promissory note. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the executant alone is responsible in a suit upon a promissory note at the instance of an indorsee and it is contended that the plaintiff is an indorsee. In Maruthamuthu Naicker v. Kadir Badsha Rowther A.I.R. (1938) Mad. 377, it was held that the indorsee of a prom...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Balakrishna Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad746
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The summons is to issue at the cost of the petitioner and the refusal of the Magistrate to send for the document is un-supportable. The order of the Magistrate is therefore set aside and the document will be sent for before proceeding with the case further....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muthuswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad839; (1939)2MLJ39
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The charge-sheet filed by the Police under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, sets out the facts which constitute the offence under Section 163, Clause (a)(2) of the Madras Local Boards Act and as pointed out in the Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelu Chetty (1926) 52 M.L.J. 210 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 525 , this would amount to a complaint as defined in Section 4, Clause (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 223 of the Madras Local Boards Act empowers the police to make the complaint and the charge-sheet was filed within three months of the commission of the offence. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »