Chennai Court May 1939 Judgments
Vanjiappa Goundan Vs. N.P.V.L.R. Annamalai Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad69; (1939)2MLJ551
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Court below refusing to strike out the petitioner's name from the plaint. The petitioner who is the second plaintiff in the suit sold to the first plaintiff the first respondent herein a certain village called Puducottah which, along with certain other villages belonging to the defendants in the suit some of whom are the other respondents here, was charged with the payment of a certain annuity. In execution of a decree obtained for the recovery of such annuity, the petitioner's village was sold but the sale was set aside under Order 21, Rule 89 on the petitioner depositing Rs. 7,976-9-6 in Court. The petitioner alone having thus paid the entire amount which was payable from out of all the villages charged with such payment, he claimed to be entitled to recover Rs. 2,514 by way of contribution from the owners of the other villages. Subsequently, the petitioner sold the village of Puducottah to the first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Alapati Bulli Venkanna Vs. Kantamani Ramanna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad776; (1940)2MLJ27
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal raises a question of marshalling. The appellant is the purchaser of one of several items mortgaged' in favour of the plaintiff in the suit, namely item 3, under the suit mortgage, Ex. A, dated 24th August, 1921. This item was purchased by the eighth defendant in 1925 for a sum of Rs. 13,000. The appellant wanted that his property, namely, item 3, should be sold last after exhausting all the properties covered not only by the suit mortgage, Ex. A, but also the suit mortgage Ex. B of April, 1926, and even the properties in another District namely, Vizag mortgaged under Ex. C in 1930. This claim Was disallowed by the Court below and the eighth defendant appeals.2. So far as the properties covered by Ex. C are concerned, the appellant's property, item 3 of A Schedule, is not included in it, and it is conceded before us that the appellant will not be entitled under Section 56 of the Transfer of Property Act to claim the right of marshalling as against Ex. C pr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad184
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application on behalf of East Tanjore Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., Employees' Provident Fund Institution, Trichinopoly, hereinafter called the Corporation, for the payment of a sum of Rs. 500 in preference to the ordinary creditors of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, hereinafter called the Bank. The ground on which the application is made is that the said amount is the provident fund moneys of the employees of the Corporation standing to the credit of the Savings Bank Account No. 489-8 in the Trichinopoly branch of the Bank and therefore trust money and that the Bank was aware of this fact. The contention is thus put in para. 5 of the affidavit in support of the application:I am also advised that under Section 282-B(2), Companies Act, 1913, all moneys contributed to the Provident Fund shall be invested only in securities mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) of Section 20, Trusts Act, 1882. I say therefore that this amount of Rs. 500 is tru...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Mekala Venkatappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad755
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 510, I.P.C., and it is not an offence involving a breach of the peace. The order for security under Section 106, Criminal P.C., is therefore unsustainable and it is set aside. Otherwise] these petitions are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Rathnammal Alias Rajamani Ammal Vs. the Secretary of State for India i ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad963; (1939)2MLJ380
1. This appeal raises the question whether the Revenue authorities of the Province have the power to impose a penalty under the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, when water is taken without permission during the second crop season for the purpose of irrigating land classified as 'single crop wet' and the source from which the water is taken is the source authorised for the irrigation of one crop. One Krishnammal was the pattadar of lands in the village of Sulur, Coimbatore District. The lands, which are registered as Survey Nos. 182 and 269, are single crop wet lands. For many years betel leaves have been grown on Survey No. 182 and cocoanut trees on Survey No. 269. The surrounding lands are all registered as double crop wet lands. On 1st February, 1928, Krishnammal applied to the Collector for permission to convert her lands into double crop wet lands, but she died before her application could be considered. Her daughter Venkatalakshmi Ammal then made a similar application, but she wa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P. Ramanujachariar, Advocate
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad772; (1939)2MLJ320
1. The respondent is an advocate practising in this Court. He was charged with professional misconduct. Five charges were framed against him and these were investigated by a Tribunal constituted under the Indian Bar Councils Act. The Tribunal has reported favourably to the respondent on all the charges. We accept the report except so far as it concerns the second charge. We consider that in this case the charge has been substantiated.2. The complainant is the brother of one Manickammal who instituted in 1932 a suit on the Original Side of this Court in which she asked for a decree for maintenance as a Hindu widow. She sued as a pauper. She claimed that she was entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per mensem and to a sum of Rs. 52,000 as arrears of the allowance. Through her brother she engaged various advocates to conduct her suit, but subsequently withdrew her instructions. In July, 1933, the complainant approached the respondent with a view to the respondent acting for his ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantharao Ammannamma Vs. Vijiapurapu Venkata Kodanda Rao Panthulu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad210; (1940)1MLJ188
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for determination in this appeal is, what is the nature of the interest taken by the plaintiff and by her sons under the will of her father Maddirala Buchi Sundara Rao Pantulu Garu dated 26th July, 1899. It is the case of the plaintiff that she took an absolute estate in the properties bequeathed to her. It is the case of the first defendant that she took only a life interest and there was a vested remainder in favour of her sons defendants 2 and 3 and her deceased son Bayanna Pantulu whose sons are defendants 4 to 6. The seventh defendant is the son of the third defendant. The suit itself was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff got an absolute estate in the said properties and that the attachment effected by the first defendant of the interest of defendants 2 to 7 in the property in execution of a decree obtained by him in O.S. No. 36 of 1930 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Vizagapatam is invalid. The learned Subordinate Judg...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›