Chennai Court March 1939 Judgments
Kuppainethu Guruvappa Naicker Vs. M. Mounaguruswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad742; (1939)2MLJ36a
ORDER1. This is an application for a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council. The facts as stated at the Bar are shortly these. The petitioner and the respondent are co-owners of a village in the Madura District, the petitioner owning one-third and the respondent two-thirds of the property. Through the village lands run two water channels, which have been referred to as A and B. Originally the wet cultivation of the village lands covered 200 kulis, roughly 110 acres. Of the 200 kulis the petitioner had 50 kulis and the respondent 150 kulis. In 1908 the petitioner brought under wet cultivation by means of Channel B an additional 14 kulis, which resulted in a suit being filed against him by the respondent for an injunction restraining him from using the channel for this purpose. The suit was compromised and the agreement arrived at was embodied in the decree. Under the decree the petitioner was allowed to cultivate, the 14 kulis, but according to the respondent he was ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Rm. St. Subramania Chettier Vs. Felix Joseph Sarprasadam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad817; (1939)2MLJ316
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Santhanathammal, the grandmother of the first, second and third respondents died on the 17th August, 1928, leaving a will by which she bequeathed her properties to her grandsons and others. She appointed the fourth respondent, who is her daughter-in-law and the mother of the first, second and third respondents, her executrix. On the 6th March, 1929, the fourth respondent and her mother, Kanikaimari Ammal, who was the fifth defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises, borrowed from the appellant a sum of Rs. 1,700 for the purpose of taking out probate of the will. A promissory note was executed by the fourth respondent and her mother for this amount and the instrument stated the purpose for which the money was borrowed. The fourth respondent executed the promissory note in her capacity as executrix and as guardian of her sons. The probate was obtained, but the fourth respondent failed to repay to the appellant the money which she had borrowed ...
Tag this Judgment!Kunhibi Alias Beebi Umma Vs. Kalliani Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad881; (1939)2MLJ463
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover money alleged to be due on a mortgage executed by second defendant, the mother of the first defendant who was then a minor. Defendants 1 and 2 are Muhammadans and second defendant purported to execute the mortgage as the guardian of the first defendant. The mortgage contains a personal covenant by the second defendant, both on behalf of herself and on behalf of the minor. The property bound by the mortgage belonged originally to second defendant's husband, who in 1917 shortly before his death transferred it to the second defendant as guardian of the minor, directing her to discharge the mortgage then subsisting and waiving in favour of the minor the receipt of the balance of consideration. In substance this assignment (Ex. D) is a gift to the daughter, the mother being empowered to accept the gift on behalf of the minor daughter.2. The then mortgagee and the jenmi both got decrees against the minor and to pay off these decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaraswami Pillai and anr. Vs. Thiruvengadatha Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad613; (1939)2MLJ308
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. 1. A decree having been passed against the petitioners, the decree-holder applied for execution to the Court of the District Munsif, Thiruvarur. The petitioners then applied for a stay under the provisions of Section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, in order that they might prefer an application under Section 19 to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur, for the scaling down of the debt. On the 11th April, 1938, the District Munsif granted a stay. Section 20 contains the following proviso:Provided that where within sixty days after the application for stay has been granted the judgment-debtor does not apply to the Court which passed the decree for relief under Section 19 or where an application has been so made and is rejected, the decree shall be executed as it stands, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act to the contrary.2. The petitioners had therefore sixty days in which to apply to the Subordinate Judge. The Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Srimath Kachi Chinna Nallappa Kalakka Thola Udayar Avergal, Zamindar o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad8; (1939)2MLJ437
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the proprietor of the Udayarpalayam Zamindari. The respondents are the ryots of the village of Kaduvatankurichi which forms part of the Zamindari. They applied under Section 40 of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, to the Deputy Collector, Ariyalur, for an order commuting the rent payable to the petitioner to a definite money rent. The respondents have for many years paid rent in cash but the amount has varied according to the nature of the crops raised. The petitioner contended that the application did not lie as Section 40 only had in view cases where rents were paid partly in kind. The Deputy Collector held that the application did not come within the section and accordingly dismissed it. An appeal followed to the Collector, who disagreed with the Deputy Collector and reversed his decision. The petitioner has now applied to this Court to reinstate the order of the Deputy Collector under the powers of revision conferred upon it by S...
Tag this Judgment!Rakapalli Vira Raghavulu Naidu Vs. Dhara China Rajalingam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad846; (1939)2MLJ531
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Kistna dated 12th April, 1935, in O.S. No. 15 of 1933, a suit to recover the amount due on a promissory note Ex. A, dated 12th February, 1930, executed by the first defendant in favour of the late Mallikarjuna Rao, the father of the plaintiff's indorsers. The suit was directed not merely against the maker of the note, the first defendant, but also against his father, the second defendant, and his son, the third defendant. It may be mentioned in this connection that the first defendant became insolvent and the Official Receiver of Vizagapatam was brought on record as the fourth defendant. The learned District Judge passed a decree only as against defendants 1 and 4, that is to say, as against the estate of the first defendant, and dismissed the suit as against defendants 2 and 3. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal from the decree of the Court below dismissing the suit against defendants 2 and 3, and the o...
Tag this Judgment!Valia Maliyakkal Sayid Muhammad Jiffiri Attakoya Thangal and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad877; (1939)2MLJ579
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent's predecessors-in-title obtained an inam grant from Tippu Sultan. The grant was confirmed in 1866 at the time of the Inam Settlement. The validity of the grant had, however, been recognised for many years before that. The land in respect of which the respondent holds the grant is situate in Malabar. In 1932 he filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Quilandy to recover from the appellants, who are in possession, a sum of Rs. 450-4-11 made up of land revenue and amounts paid by him in respect of land cess and education tax over a period of 12 years. He also claimed interest. With regard to the land cess and education tax the respondent's case was that he had been compelled to pay the amounts to Government and therefore Was entitled to recover them from the occupiers of the land. The appellants denied that the respondent was entitled to recover anything from them. The District Munsif held that the respondent had the right to re...
Tag this Judgment!Rahmat Bi Saheba and ors. Vs. R. Krishna Doss Lala
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad641
Somayya, J.1. Defendants 1 to 4 are the appellants in this appeal which is directed against the decree of the City Civil Judge in O.S. No. 728 of 1935. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to eject the defendants from the land and superstructure bearing Door No. 46, Fakir Sahib Second Lane, Triplicane. The suit was originally filed against defendant 1 only on the footing that she alone was the tenant of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 2. The plaint averred that the tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 9th March 1935 in which the plaintiff offered compensation for the value of the superstructure under the provisions of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act. Defendant 1 filed a written statement pleading that she was not interested in the property in suit and that three other persons, who were later on added as defendants 2, 3 and 4, were the persons entitled to the suit property as tenants. She stated that under a sale deed dated 10th June 1912, she, her husband, the late...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Karumuthu Thiagarajan, Managing Agent and Director of the Sri M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad589; (1939)2MLJ97
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the managing agent and director of the Sri Meenakshi Mills, Ltd., Madura, and the petition is to revise his conviction under Section 140(3) of the Indian Companies Act for refusal to produce the books and documents of the Company before the Inspector appointed under Section 138 of the Act.2. The refusal to produce the books and documents of the Company was not disputed in this Court but the Inspector was appointed by the Provincial Government by order dated 18th August, 1937, subsequent to the transfer of the functions of the Local Government under Section 138 of the Indian Companies Act to the Central Government by the new Act and these functions were not entrusted to the Provincial Government by the Governor-General under Section 124(1) of the Government of India Act till 1st April, 1938. Paragraph 8(2) of the India and Burma (Transitory Provisions) Order, 1937, empowers the Governor and not the Provincial Government to continue to discharge...
Tag this Judgment!K.A.V. Karuppanna Nadar Vs. M.K. Mathalai Karuppa Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad776; (1939)2MLJ226
Somayya, J.1. Two questions arise for discussion m this Revision Petition. One is as to proper court-fee payable on the plaint and the second is whether the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is above Rs. 3,000 in which case the suit cannot be entertained by the District Munsif's Court.2. These two questions form the subject-matter of issues 8 and 9.3. Issue 8 raises the question whether the suit is properly valued and whether proper court-fee is paid.4. Issue 9 raises the question whether that Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.5. The District Munsif of Manamadura before whom the suit was filed, tried these two issues as preliminary issues and held that the suit was properly valued, that proper court-fee was not paid and that he had jurisdiction to try the suit.6. The dispute between the parties is with regard to an Educational Institution known as Illupaiyur Nadar Kshatriya Vidya Sala situate in the village of Illupaiyur in Pallimadam Taluk of the Ramnad District.7...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »