Chennai Court August 1939 Judgments
Parasuram Mangacharyulu and ors. Vs. Parasuram Balarama Krishnamachary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad225; (1939)2MLJ872
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This is an application to revise an order made by the learned District Munsif of Tenali by which he -allowed a petition presented on behalf of the second respondent here that she may also be impleaded as a party to a suit O.S. No. 66 of 1935. The application was presented under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant portion of the rule is worded as follows:The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order... that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually, and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.2. It is obvious from this provision that the Court in making an order directing a new party to be added must be satisfied either that that party oug...
Tag this Judgment!Chimalakonda Ramasubbaraya Sastri and ors. Vs. Ganapathiraju Venkata A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad217; (1940)2MLJ1021
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for possession of a half share in certain immovable properties described in Schedule B to the plaint. The said property admittedly belonged to one Suryanarayanaraju and his son Venkatapatiraju. It is the plaintiffs' case that the said property was leased in 1868 by Suryanarayanaraju as the father and head of the joint, family consisting of himself and his son Venkatapatiraju for a period of fifty years, that subsequent to the said lease the said Suryanarayanaraju and Venkatapatiraju became divided in status, that Venkatapatiraju was entitled in severalty to a half share in the said property, and that on the death of his widow Butchi Bangarayya on 21st January, 1927, the first plaintiff became entitled to the said property as the next reversioner. The defendants trace their title to the entirety of the said property to the father Suryanar...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivassa Ayyangar Vs. Akayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad197
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question that I have been called upon to determine in this appeal is whether that portion of Ex. 4 which waives a certain amount of debt due on a mortgage bond is not hit by the provisions contained in Section 17, Registration Act. How this receipt came into existence would be clear by the following facts. Certain properties were mortgaged by defendants 1 and 2 in August 1921 with defendant 3. This was followed by a partition between defendants 1 and 2 under which the properties mentioned in Schedule A attached to the plaint fell to the share of defendant 2 and those described in Schedule B were allotted to that of the first one.2. The properties in Schedule A were sold by defendant 2 in April 1926 to defendant 5. On 26th February 1929, defendant 3, who was a mortgagee of the properties contained in Schedules A and B of the plaint, entered into an agreement with defendant 5 to the effect that the former would accept Rs. 1350 in full satisfaction of his claim...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhaneni Parandamayya Vs. Kosaraju Surayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad129; (1939)2MLJ786
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is a judgment-debtor and appeals against an order permitting execution without any fresh attachment, the learned District Judge having held that an attachment before judgment did not come to an end by the adjudication of the judgment-debtor as an insolvent which was subsequently annulled. In 1930 a decree was obtained against the appellant and there was an attachment before judgment which was enforced in an execution petition of 1931. Just before the date to which the sale was posted, the judgment-debtor was adjudged an insolvent and on this fact being intimated to the executing Court the order passed was 'judgment-debtor is adjudged insolvent, Sale stopped Dismissed'. The last word is not very clearly decipherable, but I accept the interpretation of the learned District Munsif's handwriting which has appeared correct to the Courts below. On 16th August, 1934, the adjudication was annulled. On 4th January, 1935, the decree-holder having died, his legal rep...
Tag this Judgment!Ramachandra Deo Vs. Kamoju Balaji and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ673
Stodart, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for rent under Section 77 of the Estates Land Act by the Zamindar of Bodo Khenidi. The suit proceeded on the footing that the land for which rent was claimed was S. No. 532 of Godogovindpur a village in the plaintiff's zamindari. The defendants are (1) a goldsmith of Godogovindpur, (2) a Brahmin describing himself as an inamdar of the neighbouring village on the west called Pattigovindpur which is outside plaintiff's zamindari, and (3) a Komati of Naupada, a village in the plaintiff's zamindari. The first defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the second and third defendants claiming that the field was an enfranchised pre-settlement inam land, that the first and third defendants had bought separate portions from the inamdars, and that the land formed part of Pattigovindpur village. It was also claimed that the defendants had held the land for long over the statutory period without paying rent to the zamindar.[Afte...
Tag this Judgment!P.N.M.M. Muthupalaniappa Chettiar Vs. N.A.R.R.M. Raman Chettiar and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad75
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the right of the insolvency Court, after property sold as the property of the insolvent has been delivered to the purchaser, to entertain an application for redelivery by a person alleged to have been dispossessed when holding adversely to the insolvent. The insolvency was one of 1931 in the Court of the District Judge of Amherst, Burma. The insolvency Court sent letters of request to the District Judge of Ramnad under Section 77, Provincial Insolvency Act, seeking the aid of the official receiver of Ramnad in realizing the property of the insolvent. On 28th August 1934, the official receiver, Ramnad, held a sale. A claim was preferred by the present petitioner in the Amherst Court to the property advertised for sale. The claim was based on a sale from his sister-in-law in March 1934, the petitioner having married a daughter of the insolvent. The District Judge, Amherst, asked the District Judge, Ramnad, to investigate this claim. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Gokuldoss Jamnadoss and Co. Vs. M. Lakshminarasimhalu Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ409
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. There are two questions raised in this appeal. The main question is whether certain immovable property has been dedicated absolutely for religious purposes or only made subject to a charge. The second question is whether the suit out of which the appeal arises is barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiffs in the suit were the first and second respondents, both of whom were minors at the time of the institution of the suit on the 23rd April, 1934. The first respondent attained majority soon after the plaint was filed. The grandfather of the first and second respondents one Munnalur Narasimhalu Chetti, was a resident of Madras and possessed three lots of immovable property within the City, namely, a house known as Nos. 101 and 102 in the Devaraja Mudali Street, seven houses and shops known as Nos. 133 to 139 in the same street, and a garden known as Nos. 27 and 28, Mundakanniamman Temple Street. The suit was filed to recover possession of the proper...
Tag this Judgment!S. Ratnasabapathi Pillai Vs. Gopala Aiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad876; (1940)2MLJ349
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The facts giving rise to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the connected Second Appeal No. 508 of 1936 are briefly these. One Sambasivan Pillai, the third respondent herein, brought the suit O.S. No. 268 of 1932 for recovery of the plaint mentioned property from the first respondent herein on the ground that it had been leased by him to one Vyasachariar who let the first respondent into possession as a sub-tenant and that the latter was bound to surrender possession as the lease to Vyasachariar had been terminated.2. The trial Court decreed the suit on 26th September, 1933, and the first respondent preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 7 of 1935, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Mayavaram. By that time, the first respondent had discovered that there had been a partition suit between the third respondent and his two sons and that a final decree had ,been passed therein on the 25th August, 1927, under which the suit property had been allotted to the sons of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A. Sundaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ630
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner applies to be readmitted as an advocate of this Court. In August 1930, he was suspended from practice for misappropriation of moneys belonging to a client. On the 9th February, 1931, his name was struck off the rolls as the result of further misappropriation of client's money. He was adjudicated an insolvent on the 29th October, 1925. His liabilities were Rs. 90,000 and he had no assets. On the 11th April, 1938, my learned brother, Mockett, J., granted him his discharge on the grounds that he would be condemned to insolvency for life if it were not granted. The petitioner had no prospects of being able to pay anything to his creditors and the discharge was unopposed. In 1933 the petitioner applied to the Court to review its order striking his name off the roll of advocates, but the application was dismissed on the 29th September, 1933, by a Full Bench composed of Beasley, C.J. and Sundaram Chetti and Stone, JJ. In support of that applica...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Jagannatha Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ632
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The name of the petitioner was struck off the roll of advocates of this Court on the 15th October, 1931, as it had been shown thathe had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,800 belonging to a client. The petitioner, who had considerable property, got into financial difficulties in 1927 and on the 14th February of that year he was adjudicated an insolvent. On the 25th April, 1927, he was suspended from practice. The delay in the passing of the order striking the petitioner's name off the rolls was due to the fact that the Court desired to know the position disclosed by the insolvent's public examination before arriving at a decision. The justice of the order of this Court striking the petitioner's name off the roll of advocates is not and could not be questioned. It is said, however, that during the twelve years that have elapsed since the petitioner was first suspended he has worked hard to rehabilitate himself and has succeeded in establishing an honourabl...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »