Chennai Court February 1939 Judgments
Varagunarama Pandia Chinnathambiar Vs. Rengasamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad901; (1939)2MLJ292
Varadachariar, J.1. This is a petition asking this Court to revise an order passed by the Collector of Tinnevelly on an application made to him by the Zamindar of Sivagiri under Section 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act. I cannot accede to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a matter in which this Court has jurisdiction to interfere under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. It is not in every case that parties may be prejudiced by orders passed by Collectors under the Estates Land Act and that the Collector can be deemed to have acted as Court or that this Court will be justified in interfering under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. I have therefore no alternative but to dismiss the revision petition with costs.2. In the ordinary course, I should have contented myself with the above order; but it seems to me to be my duty to do what I can to prevent the perpetuation of the mistake into which in my opinion the Collector has fallen in this case. I am ...
Tag this Judgment!Viyathen Sreedevi Alias Kozhikote Kishakke Kovilagath Valia Thamburatt ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad934; (1939)2MLJ680
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises. She is the owner of certain lands in Malabar and in 1923 executed a kanom demise of the lands in favour of the respondent, who executed a counter-part (kychit). The demise, which was a renewal of an earlier demise, was for the usual period of twelve years. Although this period has expired, the respondent is still in possession of the property. The suit was filed by the appellant to recover a sum of Rs. 643 from the respondent. Of this amount Rs. 37-7-7 was claimed on the ground that the appellant had been compelled to pay to Government the land revenue owing to default by the respondent. The demise provided that the land revenue should be paid by the tenant. The balance of the claim, Rs. 605-5-5, represented a claim for damages for the wrongful selling of 75 teak trees growing on the property. It is common ground that the trees had not been sown by the tenant, but had grown sp...
Tag this Judgment!M. Raghavachariar Vs. Ponnuswami Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad519; (1940)1MLJ388
Gentle, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit against the order of the lower appellate Court, which reversed the order of the trial Court directing the fifth defendant personally to pay the costs of the suit. The facts are as follows. The first defendant as mortgagor executed on the 29th October, 1921, a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. On the 15th November, 1923, the fifth defendant bought one item of the mortgaged property which had been put up for sale, the purchase price being Rs. 1,434 and the vendor being the mortgagor. The fifth defendant as purchaser gave an undertaking to the vendor to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 1,240 out of the purchase price to be devoted towards the mortgage debt. There was no contract or privity of contract between the mortgagee and the fifth defendant as purchaser. The fifth defendant gave to the mortgagee (plaintiff) a promissory note for Rs. 340 in 1924 and subsequently made a small payment of Rs. 105. In order to enforce the ...
Tag this Judgment!Penubolu Seshiah and Vs. Ayitha Ramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ742
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition arises out, of, the execution of a Small Cause decree against, the assets pf a dead man. In the suit the first defendant was his widow and defendants 5 to 8 were certain intermeddlers with the estate of the deceased after his death. They appear to have taken possession of the stocks in-trade of the deceased, and distributed it rateably amongst certain creditors without including the present petitioner as one of those creditors. There are also other defendants, who were exonerated. The trial Court found on the strength of Narayanasami Pillai v. Abbayi Sait I.L.R.(1905) 28 Mad. 351 that defendants 5 to 8 must be regarded as executors de son tort to whom the plea of plene administravit was not open, they having paid off their own debts without paying the debts, of others. The result of the suit was a decree against the ,assets of the deceased, in the hands of the first defendant and also against 'such assets of their value is have been in the possession' of d...
Tag this Judgment!James C.P. Fernandez and anr. Vs. Ramakrishna Marthoba Rao Kesbekar an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad21
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of rent and also for recovery of possession of the suit property in the occupation of the defendants as mulgeni tenants under the plaintiff. The suit properties formed a portion of the estate called Kudru which was granted on mulgeni in favour of three persons by a deed dated 13th April 1842. Within half a century from the date of the grant both the muli right and the tenant right became split up and came to be enjoyed by a number of persons. One-seventh portion of the muli right became vested in the present, plaintiff and one Fernandez, the plaintiff, being entitled to six-sevenths thereof and Fernandez being entitled to the remaining one-seventh. Fernandez was also a mulgeni tenant in respect of the six-seventh share under the plaintiff. Fernandez died leaving a will and appointing defendant 1 as sole executor. Defendant 1 after obtaining probate of the will distributed the estate among the devisees under a ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Vuppalapaty Venkatappala Narasimharaju Garu Vs. Official Receiver ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad737
Varadachariar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Official Receiver, East Godavari, as receiver of the estate of defendant 2, for the recovery of money due from defendant 1 to defendant 2 under a promissory note Ex. A, dated 20th February 1931. This note was executed in settlement of prior accounts between the parties and was for a sum of Rs. 4338-12-6 and it provided for payment of compound interest at 12 annas per cent, per month with annual rests. Defendant 1 admitted execution of the note but pleaded that he was not liable for interest; he also relied upon a letter, Ex. I dated 2nd March 1931, said to have been given to him by defendant 2, as amounting to a remission or discharge of the suit debt to the extent of Rs. 3500. Issues (ii) and (iii) related to the truth of the letter, Ex. 1 and its effect as against the Official Receiver. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed defendant 1's objection as to interest to some extent. On issues (ii) and (iii) he found ag...
Tag this Judgment!Noone Varadarajan Chetty Vs. Vutukuri Kanakiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ791
Burn, J.1. In my opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct.2. Secondary evidence of the contents of the Income-tax return is admissible, according to the contention of earned Counsel for the petitioner, under Section 65(a) of the Evidence Act. I am however unable to agree that the Income-tax Officer is 'not subject to the process of the Court'. On the contrary he is subject to every process of the Court, but under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, the Court cannot require him to produce before it any of the documents mentioned in that section. Section 54 of the Income-tax Act lays a prohibition on the Court; it does not confer any exemption on the Income-tax Officer.3. There is no other provision of law under which secondary evidence would be admissible.4. This petition is accordingly dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kesavalu Chetty and anr. Vs. S.P. Perumal Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad722; (1939)1MLJ820
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court in O.S. No. 774 of 1935. The plaintiffs are the two sons of one Chinna Ramiah Chetty who was the owner of a house in Selvavihayakaf Koil Street, Madras City. He sold this house on the 30th of August, 1911, to the defendant S.P. Perumal Chettiar. The purchase price was fixed at Rs. 2,600 and out of this sum, Rs. 800 was left with the vendee on condition that he should keep it until Kondal Chetty, a minor illegitimate son of the vendor, should attain his majority. The defendant undertook at the same time to pay interest at the rate of 14 annas per cent, per mensem on the amount of Rs. 800. Chinna Ramiah Chetty, the vendor, died in 1920 and his illegitimate son Kondal Chetty is said to have disappeared shortly afterwards. In 1930 the plaintiffs who are the legitimate sons of Chinna Ramiah Chetty demanded payment of the Rs. 800 to them with interest at the rate of 10i per cent, per annum from June...
Tag this Judgment!Hajee Mohammad Kadir Sheriff Vs. Rahimatullah Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad230
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The facts alleged do not constitute an offence under Section 171(g), I.P.C., and the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate is unsustainable. It is therefore set ' aside and there will be further inquiry into the complaint in accordance with law....
Tag this Judgment!The Chairman, Municipal Council and anr. Vs. Sri Rajah Vyricherla Nara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad946; (1939)2MLJ304
Gentle, J.1. In the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, the respondent sued the first appellant and the Secretary of State for India in Council claiming the sum of Rs. 4,141-0-8 representing the difference between the amount which he alleged he was liable to pay for property tax during the years 1929-1930 and 1930-1931 in respect of his interest in the Anakapalli estate within the precincts of the Municipality and the amount which in fact he had paid. The learned Subordinate Judge decided in his favour and passed a decree for the repayment by the Municipality to the respondent of the above sum together with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum. Against this decision the first appellant filed this appeal and later the Municipality of Anakapalli was joined as the second appellant. Other claims were made in the suit to which it is unnecessary to refer, as no contest arises in regard to them in this appeal.2. The respondent is the Zamindar of Chemudu and proprietor of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »