Chennai Court April 1939 Judgments
S. Narayanachari Vs. T.V.A.K.T. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad61; (1939)2MLJ225
Newsam, J.1. The petitioner was a puisne usufructuary mortgagee. In a suit by the first mortgagee he was impleaded and the suit was decreed. Petitioner, though in terms directed to redeem, that is, to discharge the first mortgage, was in reality merely granted a privilege - the privilege of freeing his own security and preserving his possession. In no sense of the word is he a debtor. The decree is not against him for a debt payable by him, but in his favour allowed him a right in equity to redeem the first mortgage. To use the language of Section 3(iii) of the Debt Relief Act, petitioner is under no liability under the decree. His is not a debt.2. The learned District Munsif of Tirupathi has in my judgment rightly dismissed his petition under Section 20 of the Debt Relief Act. I dismiss the revision petition with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Noor Mahomed Mohideen Pillai Taragan and anr. Vs. Pechi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad793; (1939)2MLJ375
ORDERBurn, J.1. I must refuse to allow the appellants to raise at this stage the contention that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to attach because of some infirmity in the notice issued on 17th February, 1932. That plea has never yet been advanced and it is too late to advance it now.2. The other question is whether any attachment was in fact validly effected on 1st March, 1932. From the learned District Munsif's judgment it does not appear that this question was discussed before him. But it was discussed before the learned Subordinate Judge and it is important. Ex. A does not purport to be an order for the attachment of anything. It is apparently part of Form 5, Appendix F of the Code of Civil Procedure, translated into Tamil. Attachment of immovable property can only be made by means of prohibitory orders of which Form 24, Appendix E of the Code of Civil Procedure is a specimen. Were any such prohibitory orders ever issued in this case? The learned Subordinate Judge says they...
Tag this Judgment!Seeni Madar Sahib Vs. Abdur Rahman Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad792; (1939)2MLJ435
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case was a candidate at the election held on the 28th June, 1938, of members to the Tiruvallur Panchayat Board. For the sixth ward of the Board two candidates were to be elected. One of the seats was reserved for the Muhammadan community; the other was a general seat. There were two candidates for each seat and the petitioner was one of the candidates for the reserved seat. He was unsuccessful and he filed a petition in which he asked that both elections should be set aside. The successful candidates are the respondents to this petition. Before the Election Commissioner a preliminary objection was taken to the validity of the petition. It was said that in as much as the petitioner was asking that the election in respect of the reserved seat and the election in respect of the general seat be set aside he should have filed two petitions. The Election Commissioner accepted this contention and gave the petitioner the option of treati...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnammai Nadathi Vs. the Tinnevelly Swami Nelliappar and Sri Kanthima ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad918; (1939)2MLJ440
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the jurisdiction of a Revenue Court to deal with a claim by a landholder to recover under the Madras Estates Land Act a sum of money paid to the Government on account of water cess payable by the ryot to the Government. The appellant is the defendant who is a ryot. The suit was one of a large batch, in which various contentions were raised with which we are not concerned. For the purpose of the present appeal the essential facts are that the defendant had rendered himself liable to water cess for irregular irrigation of his land with water taken from a Government source. Under Section 1-A of the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, the Government on 22nd April, 1914, issued a notification the effect of which is that irrigation cess due in respect of regular irrigation shall be recovered from the landlord, whereas irrigation cess due in respect of irregular irrigation shall be recovered from the ryot to whose holding water is taken irregularly. ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S.P.L.P. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. Murugesam Pillai Minor and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad841; (1939)2MLJ671
Burn, J.1. The only point in this appeal is one of limitation. The appellant's father got a decree in O.S. No. 157 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly on the 29th of June, 1925. The appellant is his adopted son. He presented his petition in execution (E.P. No. 216 of 1936) on the 27th of June, 1936, and the learned Subordinate Judge has held that it was barred by limitation on the ground that it was not presented within three years after the final order passed on a previous application made in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution or to take some step-in-aid of execution - Article 182(5) of the Limitation Act.2. The execution petition presented on the 27th of June, 1936, is the fifth of the execution petitions presented by this decree-holder. The first was filed on the 3rd of November, 1927, praying for arrest of the defendant; it was dismissed on the 7th of January, 1928, as the judgment-debtor was not found for arrest. The second execution pet...
Tag this Judgment!Muthukrishna Raja and anr. Vs. Viswalinga Kadavarayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad893
Somayya, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam in A.S. No. 18 of 1935 by which he confirmed the order of the District Munsif passed in E.P. No. 620 of 1933 in O.S. No. 113 of 1921. O.S. No. 113 of 1921 was filed by three plaintiffs who were all minors on that date represented by their mother as next friend. The suit was to recover a sum of Rs. 2468-14-9 on a charge of the plaint properties. It appears that the amount was claimed as being the balance of the purchase money due to the plaintiffs. There was a compromise on foot of which there was a consent decree passed on 31st March 1922. The decree, which merely embodied the terms of the compromise, provided that a sum of Rs. 1700 with interest at six per cent, per annum from the date of plaint to date of the compromise should be paid within six months from the date of the decree and that in default execution was to be taken against the properties and against the person of the defendant and the a...
Tag this Judgment!S. Viswanatha Aiyar and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ398
1. We uphold the preliminary objection that no appeal lies from the order under Section 23 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. This is not a question relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Moreover, on the merits, the appellants have no case. They had no interest in the 8th item of property sold, either at the time of the sale or even at the time the suit was filed. They had parted with all their interest in the 8th item in 1931, at least five years before the suit was filed.3. This appeal is dismissed with costs of the respondents (two sets).4. We are asked to treat this as a Civil Revision Petition but there is no question of jurisdiction and we are unable to accede to this request....
Tag this Judgment!Dinshaw Dadabhai Italia Vs. Mohamad Mohamad and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad922; (1940)1MLJ655
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed on the Original Side of this Court by the first, second and third respondents for the administration of the estate of their grandfather, one Hussain Mean, who died in the month of December, 1919, leaving a large estate. The deceased had for many years traded in partnership with his two brothers, Mohammad Jaffar and M. Shamsuddin, and by his will he directed that the business should be carried on by his executors after his death until all his children had attained majority. The executors were Mohammad Jaffar, who is now dead, and his eldest son, Mohammad Yusuf, the fourth respondent, who was the second defendant in the suit. A decree for administration of the estate under the directions of the Court was passed, but before the suit came on for hearing Ananthakrishna Aiyar, J., added as defendants the appellant and the twenty-second respondent who is in the position of an appellant, having filed a memorandum of objec...
Tag this Judgment!P.S. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar by Agent Sivaraman Chettiar Vs. Offi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad733
Somayya, J.1. The appellant in this second appeal is a creditor who filed O.S. No. 1375 of 1926 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirupur against one Konappa Naicken and his four sons. Konappa Naicken was defendant 1 and his sons were defendants 2 to 5. An application for attachment before judgment was ordered on 14th October 1926 and the attachment was duly effected. The suit was decreed on 7th June 1927. Thereafter the father, defendant 1, filed I.P. No. 157 of 1927 on 14th July 1927 and he was adjudicated on 24th September 1927. The decree-holder applied for execution of his decree in E.P. No. 2226 of 1929 on 1st July 1929. By that date the father was dead and the sons alone were added as parties; and the Official Receiver who had been appointed in I.P. No. 157 of 1927 was not made a party. Before this execution application came on for final orders, the Official Receiver sold the entire property including the son's shares on 6th February 1930 and there was a sum of Rs. 2510 repr...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Vatchavaya Venkata Suryanarayana Jagapathiraju Bahadur Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad819
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the Revenue Court by the appellant, a zamindar, to recover cesses paid by him under the Local Boards Act for Faslis 1338 to 1343. The defendants are Darmilla inamdars, that is to say, under-tenure holders within the zamindari, Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff suing under the Madras Estates Land Acts by virtue of the provisions of Sections 88 and 89, Madras Local Boards Act, is bound by the rule of limitation laid down in the Madras Estates Land Act and cannot claim more than arrears for the three faslis immediately preceding the suit. The relevant provisions of law may be briefly summarized. Section 88, Madras Local Boards Act, gives to the landholder who has paid a cess power to recover from an under-tenure holder within his estate the proportionate amount of cess due on the latter's holding and gives to the under-tenure holder a similar power to re-cover from the cultivating tenants. Section 89 provides tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »