Chennai Court July 1939 Judgments
In Re: Balusu Subbaraidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ609
1. This being an order on an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938, made while no proceedings in execution were pending, is not appealable. It cannot be considered to be a question under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, in the absence of any execution proceedings.2. Moreover on the merits we think the learned Sub-Judge's decision was correct. This appeal is dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code....
Tag this Judgment!The District Board of West Tanjore Represented by Its President Vs. Po ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad231; (1939)2MLJ818
Mockett, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a nice question under Section 4, Clause (c) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act of 1938 read with certain provisions of the Madras Local Boards Act. The respondent has unfortunately not been represented but I have the advantage of hearing Mr. T.R. Venkatarama Sastriar who has placed before me all the relevant provisions of the Acts relating to the matter under consideration.2. The only facts that need be stated are that under Section 63 of the Madras Local Boards Act the administration of the Mukthambalpuram Chatram at Orathanad was made over by the Board of Revenue to the District Board. The defendant is a lessee of certain properties, part of the trust, and a decree has been obtained against him by the District Board of West Tanjore in respect of arrears due under the lease. The defendant calls in aid the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. It is conceded that he is an agriculturist within the meaning of that Act...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Manonmani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ33
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. There is no ground for dissent from the conclusion of the Magistrate that the house in question was a brothel and it is clear from the evidence of P.W. 2 that the second petitioner the lessee was keeping the brothel and living on the prostitution of the women found there on the night of the raid. He would therefore be guilty under Sections 5(1) and 8-A(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act but the first petitioner who is his sister was being used for prostitution and there is no evidence that she was jointly keeping or managing or acting or assisting in the management of the brothel. She cannot therefore be convicted under Section 5(1) of the Act and as rightly conceded it cannot be said that she was living on the earnings of the prostitution of another person. Her conviction under Section 8-A(1) of the Act is also unsustainable and she is entitled to an acquittal. The conviction and sentence of the first petitioner are therefore set aside and she is acq...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna, Minor by His Guardian Ad Litem Arkul Narayana Bhatta Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad876; (1939)2MLJ493
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is against an order making absolute an attachment of a vendor's lien in execution of a mortgage decree. The appellant is the transferee from the original vendee. There were three items sold two of which were covered by a mortgage. The vendee retained with himself a sum of money sufficient to discharge the mortgage and the interest thereon. He did not discharge the mortgage but sold the three properties to the present appellant, the transfer also reciting the fact that money had been retained for the discharge of the mortgage. The appellant also did not discharge the mortgage. Consequently the mortgagee has sued thereon arid in execution of his mortgage decree the two items actually covered by the mortgage have been sold. The mortgagee is now seeking to recover the balance due under the mortgage decree by attachment and sale of the original mortgagor's lien as vendor over the third item which was no part of the mortgaged property.2. It is contended that when ...
Tag this Judgment!P. Gopalachari Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ88
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The evidence justifies the conclusion of the Magistrate that the street in question is a private street, but particulars of the work to be carried out by the petitioner were not specified in the notice issued to him Under Section 218 of the City Municipal Act nor was it proved that the time within which, the work is to be carried out was specified in the notice served on him. The time was not specified in Ex. E, the copy of the notice on which his acknowledgment for service of notice, was obtained, and Ex. E-1, the Office copy of the notice which was produced and marked in evidence just before delivery of judgment does not by itself prove that any time was specified in the notice served on the petitioner. The supervisor (P.W. 1) does not say that to his knowledge the time was specified in the copy served on the petitioner, and it follows that the conviction under Section 357, Clause (1) of the City Municipal Act for failure to comply with a notice under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Swaminatha Odayar Vs. Srinivasa Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad942; (1939)2MLJ495
Burn, J.1. This appeal and this revision petition are both preferred from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur passed on E.A. No. 188 of 1938 in O.S. No. 30 of 1924 on the file of the Tanjore Sub-Court. The application was made to the learned Subordinate Judge by the appellant, who was the second defendant in the suit, under Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1938, for stay of execution of the decree. Section 20 of Madras Act IV of 1038 says that:Every Court executing a decree passed against a person entitled to the ! benefits of this Act shall, on application, stay the proceedings until the Court which passed the decree has passed orders on an application made or to be made under Section 19.2. Section 19 provides for an application by a judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist to the Court which passed the decree for scaling down the decree. The learned Subordinate Judge has held an inquiry in order to ascertain whether the second defendant who made the application under...
Tag this Judgment!Chelikani Kondayya Rao and ors. Vs. Vuppalapati Naganna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ778
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order returning a plaint for presentation in a Revenue Court. The land in respect of which this suit for rent arose is admittedly situated within a mukhasa village which according to the trial Court's judgment was admitted to be an 'estate' falling under Clause 2(d) of Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act. It is common ground that the land in question was formerly the kambattam land of the plaintiffs and that it was demised to the defendant in 1920 under Ex. A which is described as a 'permanent khat relating to the sale of kudivaram right for Rs. 33,492.' This instrument recites that the lands demised form part of the plaintiff's private kambattam land in which they have a permanent kudivaram right as well as melwaram right and that the plaintiff have sold to the defendant all the rights possessed by them in the lands excepting the melvaram right thereto, the consideration being the payment of a substantial cash premium and future paymen...
Tag this Judgment!M.L.N. Mahalingam Chettiar, Minor by Rao Sahib R. Krishna Aiyar, Iteri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad916; (1940)2MLJ422
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 20th March, 1887, the respondent's predecessor-in-title granted to the petitioner's predecessor-in-title a lease in perpetuity of five villages in the Sivaganga Zamindari in the Ramnad District at an annual rental of Rs. 5,000. The deed provided that the lessee should be liable for the road cess and the mahimai payable in respect of the villages. It contained the further provision that the lessee should 'deliver the account asked for as well as the tax, etc., levied from time to time by the Government.' At the time of; the execution of the document the only local tax was the road cess, but as the result of the passing of the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920, the District Board imposed an education-tax. The respondent was compelled by the local authority to pay this tax and he filed the suit out of which this revision application arises in the Court of the Subordinate Judge-of Sivaganga to recover from the petitioner what he had paid by way ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Chelikani Sitaramayya Vs. Koppula Pedda Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad15; (1939)2MLJ509
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for restitution made by a judgment-debtor, the decree against whom had been reversed in appeal. The appellant is the plaintiff whose decree was reversed. The full records of the proceedings after this decree are not before me and to a large extent I have had to rely upon statements of the learned Advocates on both sides the correctness of which I do not doubt. It is established that after the decree was passed the appellant took out execution but withdrew his petition on the respondent paying the amount of costs. After this execution petition had been withdrawn the respondent, presumably apprehending further steps in execution, though there was no overt act so far as we are aware by the decree-holder, applied to the Court to stay execution of the decree. This application was opposed and the Court appears to have ordered the respondent (judgment-debtor) to furnish security for the amount of the decree as a condition precedent to t...
Tag this Judgment!Parimi Sundarasivudu and ors. Vs. Balajipalli Adinarayana Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad909; (1939)2MLJ614
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned District Judge of Rajahmundry dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for possession of a house which is item 2 of Sett! A to the plaint. The plaintiffs claimed title to the property through one Surayya who was alleged to be the adopted son of one Subbarayadu. The adoption was said to have been made by the widow of Subbarayadu in pursuance of an authority given to her by her husband by his last will and testament dated 7th July, 1882. Both the factum and the validity of the adoption were denied in the lower Court, but during the trial the factum was not seriously disputed, but only the validity of the adoption was put in issue. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the adoption was invalid on the ground that it did not conform to the authority given by the husband. The substantial question for decision in this appeal is whether the view taken by the learned Judge is sound and this turns on the construction of th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »