Chennai Court February 1939 Judgments
The Dharapuram Janopakara Nidhi, Limited, by Its Present Secretary A. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad456; (1939)1MLJ802
Varadachariar, J.1. I his appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant, under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, to establish his right to attach and bring the suit properties to sale in execution of a decree for money which he had obtained in 1917 against one Syed Abdul Razak Sahib (since deceased). When, the suit properties were attached in execution of that decree in November, 1929, the respondent preferred a claim, which was allowed on the ground that he had been in possession of these properties in his own tight since 1911; the executing Court declined to go into the question of title. In this suit which was instituted in consequence of that order, the lower appellate Court has also found that though the properties in dispute belonged at one time to Syed Abdul Razak Saheb, he had agreed to sell them to the respondent, received the consideration and put him in possession in 1911 and that the respondent has ever since continued in possession. On this finding it woul...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Mullapudi Venkatarayudu, Zamindar Vs. President, District Board a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad689; (1939)2MLJ93
Somayya, J.1. These three Revision Petitions arise out of three Small Cause Suits decided by the District Munsif of Kowur, West Godavari District. In all the three suits, the plaintiff was the Zamindar and the plaints asked that the defendants should pay water-tax in respect of the water taken for the second crop to the suit lands. Of the three suits, the lands involved in Small Cause Suits Nos. 402 and 406 are Pre-settlement Inams and the land involved in Small Cause Suit No. 403 is a subsequent inam, that is, one granted subsequent to the Permanent Settlement. Decrees have been granted in all the three suits against the tenants who cultivated the lands and actually took the water from the plaintiff's tank. The first defendant in each suit is the Inamdar who is also sought to be made liable jointly with the cultivating tenants. The lower Court refused a decree against the first defendant in each suit and these Revision Petitions are directed against the exoneration of the first defend...
Tag this Judgment!Nallasivan Pillai and ors. Vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad633
Somayya, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in this second appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for establishing that he is the lawfully appointed dharma-kartha and entitled to manage and to be in possession of the property dedicated for certain charities. By two documents, Exs. A and B dated 27th November 1910 and 10th August 1911 respectively, the founder dedicated certain properties for the charities mentioned in the two documents m& directed that after her lifetime 'Ammaiyappa Mudaliar Avergal and after his lifetime his heirs should be the hereditary hukdars.' The documents also stated that the founder had no right whatever to cancel or alter this deed of settlement during the lifetime of the settlor. The present suit was filed after the settlor's death which took place on lOth August 1931. The plaintiff states that he is an heir of Ammaiyappa Mudaliar and therefore a hereditary dharma-kartha according to the express terms of Exs. A and B. This claim is defended on t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Villi Chinnu Alias Kandan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ617
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 457, 380 and 75, Indian Penal Code, and Section 23, Clause 1(b) of the Criminal Tribes Act and sentenced to the minimum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 457, Indian Penal Code, and Section 23, Clause 1(b) of the Criminal Tribes Act. He has also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 380 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.2. There was house-breaking by night and theft in the building of P.W. 1 on the night of 15th August, 1938, and the evidence is that the appellant was caught red-handed. The conviction under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code is therefore right and the appellant admitted his previous convictions. He would therefore be liable to enhanced punishment under Section 75, Indian Penal Code, and Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Tribes Act, but the last conviction was in 1923 when he...
Tag this Judgment!Ayanampudi Venkayya Vs. Lanka Rattayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad578; (1939)1MLJ724
Gentle, J.1. The decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1931 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Bezwada having been assigned to the respondent, he applied to the learned Subordinate Judge under Order 21, Rule 16 to be brought on record as the transferee decree-holder. Objection having been made by the petitioner, the respondent desired to call evidence in support of his application. In C.M.P. No. 392 of 1938, he applied for the issue of a commission warrant to the Small Causes Court, Calcutta, for the examination of two witnesses on interrogatories. This application was made under the provisions of Order 26, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application.2. The petitioner contends that this order was passed without jurisdiction as the provisions of the above order apply only to suits and do not apply to proceedings in execution. It is not disputed that the application under Order 21, Rule 16 is a proceeding in execution. The relevant provisions of Or...
Tag this Judgment!His Highness Sri Sri Sri Lieut-col. Sir Rajah Velugoti Govinda Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ831
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. This appeal raises the question of right of illegitimate sons of a member of a joint family of the Sudra caste to maintenance out of the family estate when it is impartible. The suit was filed by the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore to establish their status as illegitimate sons of Venugopal, the paternal uncle of the appellant, the Maharajah of Venkatagiri, and the right which they claimed to maintenance out of the Venkatagiri zemindari, the succession to which is governed by the law of primogeniture. They averred that they were entitled under a deed of family settlement, dated the 8th April, 1889, to an allowance of Rs. 1,000 per mensem from the death of their father, which occurred on the 20th June, 1920, but their claim did not rest on the deed alone. They said that irrespective of the deed they were entitled to an allowance for maintenance by custom and also under Hindu Law. The appellant refused to recognise the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Kannayya Reddi Vs. Muthu Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad508; (1939)1MLJ825
Pandrang Row, J.1. The point raised in this petition is whether the claim of the plaintiff, who is the petitioner in this Court, for contribution is not maintainable. This objection to the claim was not made in the trial Court which passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff; it was only in the lower appellate Court that for the first time it was contended that on the admission of the plaintiff in his evidence that the debt in respect of which a decree had been passed against the plaintiff and the defendant had been borrowed by himself and the defendant for the purpose of a partnership trade carried on by them, the claim for contribution was not maintainable. It is not possible to say that the admissions of the plaintiff clearly show that the borrowing itself was a partnership transaction. It is one thing to say that money was borrowed as it Was required for the partnership trade by both the partners, the borrowing itself not being a partnership transaction though the partners borrow...
Tag this Judgment!Calicut Bank Ltd., (In Liquidation) Through Manager P.C. Gopalan Vs. D ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad621
Leach, C.J.1. These appeals arise out of an order passed by Gentle J. rejecting a scheme put forward by the directors of the Calicut Bank Limited under Section 153, Companies Act, and directing the compulsory winding up of the company. It has been conceded here, as it was conceded below, that if the scheme is not one which the Court can sanction, a compulsory winding up order must necessarily follow. The appellants are the directors and they are supported by a number of creditors. The company was registered in 1908. Its head office was at Calicut and it had thirteen branches in British India, one at Cranganore in the State of Cochin and another at Colombo. Its issued capital was Rupees 2,77,280 divided into 27,728 fully paid up shares of Rs. 10 each. As the result of a run on the bank it was compelled to close its doors on 16th August last year. The day before the closing of the doors the directors filed a petition in this Court asking for the sanction of the scheme with which Appeal H...
Tag this Judgment!Katrapati Hanumayamma Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad749
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned District Judge of Guntur reversing an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of that place and holding that the charge created in the appellant's favour was not binding on the Official Receiver. A suit for maintenance was instituted by the appellant on 28th September 1932 in the District Munsif's Court at Guntur in which she had also prayed for the creation of a charge on certain immovable properties belonging to her husband Venkatanarayana (O.S. No. 463 of 1932). This was decreed on 20fch March 1933 but the charge was created by the Court only over one item of the property. Venkatanarayana had in the meantime applied for insolvency (I.P. No. 158 of 1932). This petition was presented on 11th October 1932 although he was not adjudicated until 9th September 1933. A year later, the Official Receiver made an application to the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, under Sections 4, 53 and 54, Provincial Insolvency Act, asking...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Duraisami Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1939
Reported in: (1939)1MLJ518
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a motor bus driver and he is alleged to have violated the condition of the 'G' permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Rules of 1923 regarding the maximum number of passengers that can be carried in the bus. The violation of the condition was made punishable by Rule 30(a)(1) of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules of 1923 which have been superseded by the Motor Vehicles Rules of 1938 and the driver is not mentioned in Rules 175 and 176 of the new rules which deal with issue of tickets and overloading. There is no rule in the Motor Vehicles Rules of 1938 corresponding to Rule 30(a)(1) of the Rules of 1923 making the driver liable for the offence of overloading and Rule 262 is only a saving clause which validates the 'G' permit issued under the old rules till its expiry. It cannot possibly be construed as a penal provision and the charge against the petitioner is unsustainable.2. The revision petition is therefore allowed and the proceedings against t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »