Chennai Court July 1939 Judgments
A.R.A.N Thyagarajan Chettiar, Trustee of Sri Koppudayanayagi Amman Tem ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad940; (1939)2MLJ801
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the trustee of the Sri Koppudayanayagi Amman temple, Karaikudi. In front of this temple and vested in the Municipal Council of Karaikudi is a tank, measuring 266 feet by 272 feet. The tank was in an insanitary condition and the cost of putting it into a proper condition and of so maintaining it was said to be too costly. Consequently the Municipal Council decided to reduce the size of the tank to 125 feet by 125 feet. The petitioner objected, and moved the Provincial Government to interfere under the powers conferred upon it by Section 36 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. He asked for a direction that the tank be maintained at its original size. As the result of the petitioner's representations the Government decided that the Municipal Council should only reduce the size of the tank to218 feet by 208 feet. The Municipal Council had not been given an opportunity of stating its case and it applied to the Government to rev...
Tag this Judgment!K. Munisami Chetti (Died) and ors. Vs. Chenchu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ216
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether an award under Rule 15 of the rules under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act may, after it has been filed in the Civil Court for enforcement under Rule 15(7)(c) be executed on the application of an assignee from the person in whose favour the award was made. No authorities have been cited. The rule itself says that the 'Court shall enforce the award as if it was a decree of the Court'. If it were a decree, an assignee could under Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply for execution. I see no reason why this provision should not apply to a co-operative award which is enforceable as if it were a decree. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Haji Muhammad Shadak Koyi Sahib Vs. Burra Venkata Komaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad810; (1940)2MLJ433
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decree of this High Court made in Appeal No. 330 of 1936 on the 14th February, 1939. That decree merely confirmed the decree of the trial Court, the finding of both the Courts being concurrent on the main question in the suit, namely, whether there was gross negligence on the part of the Court guardian appointed to defend the suit in which a decree had been passed against the minor, the present litigation being one to have that decree set aside as against the minor. The entire litigation proceeded in the trial Court as well as in this Court on the basis that gross negligence, if proved, would be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to have the earlier decree set aside, and neither in the grounds of appeal in this Court nor during the arguments at the hearing of the appeal was it stated that gross negligence by itself would not be sufficient in the absence of fraud and collusion; But it is th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad98
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application by a subscriber to a chit conducted by the Travancore National Subsidiary Co. Ltd., for payment of a sum of Rs. 820 standing to the credit of the applicant in the accounts of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., in preference to the ordinary creditors of the bank. She is a subscriber to a B class chit. According to Rule 1(a) of the rules governing the chit she had to subscribe at the rate of Rs. 40 each month for 25 successive months as the chit amount is Rs. 1000. She subscribed to the chit on 17th January 1938 and on the same day she deposited with the Mylapore Branch of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank a sum of Rs. 990. Her case is that the said amount of Rs. 990 was deposited for the specific purpose of paying the subscriptions-to the chit every month as and when they fell due and the Bank undertook to pay the-same as and when they fell due and therefore as the amount was received by the Bank for the said specific ...
Tag this Judgment!Karankattil Haji Thambilava Ismal Rowthen's son Chinnappayan alias Muh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad59; (1940)1MLJ143
Wadsworth, J.1. These appeals arise out of an order allowing the execution of a decree for arrears of rent obtained by a usufructuary mortgagee against his mortgagor who is the lessee of the hypotheca. In the execution petition the mortgagee sought to bring to sale the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property in order to realise the decree for arrears of rent. An objection, which was disallowed in the lower appellate Court, was based on Order 34, Rule 14, Civil Procedure Code, to the effect that the decree was in fact a decree for payment of money in satisfaction of a claim arising under the mortgage and that therefore the decree-holder was not entitled to bring the mortgaged property to sale otherwise than by a suit for sale in enforcement of the mortgage.2. The appellant (mortgagor-lessee) mortgaged his property usufructuarily to the respondent by a deed dated 30th November, 1930 and by another deed dated 1st December, 1930, the mortgagee leased the property back to the mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Oonna Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ215
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The offences disclosed are triabel by a Second Class Magistrate and it is not stated that he cannot adequately deal with them. That the case is counter to Preliminary Register Case No. 4 of 1938 which has to be committed to the Sessions is not a sufficient reason for treating it also as a Preliminary Register case. Vide In re Mounaguruswami Naicker (1932) 64 M.L.J. 150 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 159 , and the order of the Sub-Magistrate converting the case into a Preliminary Register case cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the case will be dealt with as a Calender Case....
Tag this Judgment!Mooriantakath Ammoo Vs. Matathankandy Vatakkayil Pokkan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad817; (1940)2MLJ311
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the decree-holder against the dismissal of his petition for the execution of a compromise decree. The decree is dated 10th December, 1931 and it arose out of a suit for the eviction of a tenant under a Malabar Marupat. The terms of the compromise decree may be summarised as follows: The amount due from the defendant for arrears of rent was fixed at Rs. 89-3-5, the plaintiff agreeing to relinquish the balance of h s claim. The amount settled as due from the plaintiff for the value of improvements was Rs. 25-11-5. It was agreed that on the plaintiff depositing in Court before the 31st August, 1932, the sum of Rs. 236-8-0 (that is, Rs. 325-11-5 - Rs. 89-3-5) the defendant should surrender the property and should thereafter up to the date of surrender pay rent at a stipulated rate; any arrears of rent to be adjusted against the amount due for improvements. There was also a term regarding the settlement of a promissory note dispute between the par...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.K. Kochu Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad813
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Moplah Range, Palghat and the acts constituting the offence were done by him in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Grown before the relevant date under Section 270, Clause (1), Government of India Act, 1935. No proceedings can therefore be instituted against him in respect of the acts except with the consent of the Governor of the Province of Madras and the present proceedings were not instituted with the consent of the Governor of Madras. The proceedings against the petitioner are therefore quashed, and his conviction and sentence are set aside....
Tag this Judgment!K. Chinnaswami Udayar and ors. Vs. Narasimha Bhattar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad28; (1939)2MLJ661
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal involves a consideration of the effect of a decree in a suit of 1896 wherein the holder of the archaka office in the suit temple obtained a declaration that he was entitled both to the office of archaka and paricharaka and to appoint fit and proper persons to the office of paricharaka, and to dismiss them and generally control the paricharaka so appointed in the temple during his term. By virtue of this decree the first respondent (the archaka) appointed an individual as paricharaka. The appellants, trustees, were dissatisfied with the conduct of this paricharaka and ejected him from office. Thereupon the first respondent brought an application, claiming that the appellants should be punished for disobedience to the decree of 1896. When the application was actually heard, the only relief claimed actually was a recognition of the first respondent's right under the decree and costs. Both the Courts below have held that by virtue of the decree of 1896 the archa...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Pillai and ors. Vs. Govindam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad969; (1939)2MLJ475
Burn, J.1. This is an application to revise the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly on 5th October, 1938, in O.S. No. 32 of 1913. The suit was a. scheme suit in which a scheme was framed for the Sri Kailasanathaswami temple at Tirumanur. Under the scheme the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly is entrusted with the duty of appointing trustees to fill vacancies as they arise. The order of the lower Court shows that three vacancies arose in the office of trustee and the learned Subordinate Judge was moved to fill up the vacancies. The matter was posted for hearing to the 28th July, 1938, and on that date the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order appointing the present petitioners a& trustees. The order, however, was not issued from the office. On the 1st August, 1938, an application was made by one Manikkam Pillai who had been a candidate for the office of trustee to the Subordinate Judge praying that the order of the 28th July appointing the three trustees sh...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »