Chennai Court August 1939 Judgments
Viswanthan Chettiar Vs. the Official Receiver of Coimbatore
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ708
Kunhi Raman, J.1. These petitions arise out of execution proceedings which were started by the petitioner in the Court of the District Munsif of Udumalpet. The petitioner had obtained a decree against one Madha Naicken and his son on the 8th July, 1935, the decree amount being Rs. 2,702-12-0. On the 21st October, 1935, he filed an execution petition for attachment of the immovable properties of the judgment-debtors. The attachment was ordered on the 1st November, 1935. Subsequently on the 6th November, 1935, Madha Naicken, the father who was one of the judgment-debtors filed I.P. No. 199 of 1935 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore for being adjudicated insolvent. On the 1st of September, 1936, he obtained an order of adjudication and the Official Receiver of Coimbatore was appointed interim receiver of his properties. Thereupon the Official Receiver in his capacity as interim receiver applied to the District Munsif on the 26th March, 1936, for stay of execution proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Maddali Tirumala Ananta Venkata Veeraraghavaswami Vs. Srimat Kilambi M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad90; (1939)2MLJ812
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The plaintiff is the petitioner. He claimed to be the beneficial owner of the amount for which a promissory note was executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant. The trial Court has disbelieved the plaintiff's case against the first defendant. The finding of the trial Court is recorded in these terms:I find disbelieving the evidence on behalf of plaintiff that the arrangement set up by plaintiff with reference to the suit pronote, Ex. B is not true, that first defendant had nothing to do with it, that she was not a trustee in respect thereof, and that she cannot be in any manner made liable for the amount due on the pronote Ex. B.2. This finding so far as the first defendant is concerned cannot be seriously questioned, seeing that it is a finding of fact which is based upon the evidence placed before the trial Court....3. At the trial, the plaintiff wanted a decree against the second defendant on this promissory note. The trial Court has held fol...
Tag this Judgment!Sornammal Vs. Thangavelu Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad412; (1940)1MLJ240
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. A mortgage was executed on the 24th April, 1915, by one Kandaswamy, father of defendants 1 and 2 in favour of Muthukumaraswami Pillai who died in 1918 leaving him surviving a widow and two daughters. The widow appears to have died shortly after her husband and we are not concerned with her in the present litigation. The money due under the mortgage was not paid and one of Muthukumaraswami's daughters brought the present suit in June, 1932, for the sale of mortgaged property but she did not implead the other daughter as a party. This led the third defendant, who had purchased the mortgaged property from Kandaswamy and undertaken to discharge the mortgage debt, to raise the objection that the plaintiff was 'not entitled solely and exclusively to sue on bond.="" various="" other="" defences="" also="" raised="" third="" defendant="" his="" minor="" son="" fourth="" defendant="...
Tag this Judgment!Pandit Shiva Rao and anr. Vs. D.A. Shanmughasundaraswami (Official Liq ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-18-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad140; (1940)1MLJ922
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants appeal against an order refusing to recognise them as secured creditors of the Lakshmi Forest Company Limited, which is now under liquidation under an order for compulsory winding up. On the 3rd September, 1932 by a registered deed the appellants conveyed to the Company certain lands in the village of Shedimane, South Kanara District and assigned the benefit of a mortgage decree, which they had obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara. The consideration was Rs. 80,000 payable in instalments. The deed purported to charge both the immovable property and the mortgage-decree for the due payment of the balance of the consideration. It was also provided that the vendors should remit a sum of Rs. 10,000 if the Company should pay the balance falling due before the 1st April, 1933 With interest from the 30th June, 1932. The right to rank as secured creditors was challenged by the liquidator, and the appellants took out a Jud...
Tag this Judgment!Mammilli Kunhi Raman Kitavu, Karnavan and Manager of the Thavazhi of K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad80; (1939)2MLJ757
Wadsworth, J.1. In the absence of evidence that the family possessed property with the income of which the new acquisition might have been made there is no presumption that the property acquired by the manager is family property - Vythianatha Aiyar v. Varadaraja Aiyar : AIR1938Mad841 . The fact that an item the character of which is in dispute is mortgaged along with another item proved to be family land will not raise a presumption that the disputed item was also family land unless it be shown that the mortgage itself was a borrowing for the benefit of the family. On both these points the evidence is lacking. The appeal has therefore to be dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Namasivaya Mudaliar and ors. Vs. A. Srinivasa Aiyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ782
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an, appeal against an order in execution of a mortgage decree. The mortgage covered three houses with ground attached thereto and in the property the present appellants were entitled to a half share. The appellate decree made the half share of the appellants liable only to the extent of a portion of the mortgage amount with interest theron, the half share of the other defendants being liable for the full amount of the mortgage decree. In execution of the decree the decree-holder sought to bring to sale the hypotheca and asked for leave to sell the whole property in one lot owing to the difficulty 0f selling an undivided share. Notice of this application was sent to the appellants and they filed a counter-affidavit in which they pleaded that the whole property could not be brought to sale for the total liability of all the defendants together, but that only their half share in the property should be brought to sale to recover the limited amount for which the appe...
Tag this Judgment!The Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company Limited Vs. P. Ranga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ911
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, J.1. The appellant company appeals against a decree passed for the payment of Rs. 2,987-3-7 in a suit instituted on the Original Side of this Court. The respondent was in the employ JJof the company as a station master and claimed damages for wrongful dismissal. About the middle of 1931, while the respondent was holding the position of station master at Narasaraopet, it was discovered that the assistant goods clerk had misappropriated monies collected by him in respect of freight charges. It is said that the misappropriations amounted to Rs. 15,000. 'The discovery was made as the result of an audit. On the defalcations being discovered the company made a written complaint to the police. The result was that the respondent, the assistant goods clerk and another employee of the company were arrested. They were all charged with criminal breach of trust and conspiracy under the provisions of Sections 408 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. On his arrest on the 24t...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Veerabhadraswami, Through Its Managers and Representatives, Subram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-17-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad681; (1939)2MLJ920
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The appellants brought the suit out of which this appeal arises on behalf of all the villagers of Samayanallore for a declaration that the suit property is Devadayam Inam land belonging to the temple of Veerabhadra Swami in that village, that certain othis thereof by the pujaries, defendants 3 to 10, in favour of the second defendant, another poojari, and a sub-mortgage by the latter in favour of the first defendant are void and not binding on the institution, for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from executing the decree obtained by him on foot of the sub-mortgage and bringing the suit property to sale and for other incidental reliefs. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal, though the learned Subordinate Judge found that the suit property belonged to the temple in question and that therefore the pujaries, defendants 3 to 10, had no right to alienate the property as if it was their-own private property, he held that the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Abubucker Ebrahim and anr. Vs. Maganlal K. Javeri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad683; (1940)1MLJ668
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants appeal from a decree passed by the Original Side of this Court awarding the respondent damages for malicious prosecution. The first appellant carries on business in edible oils in Bombay and has a branch office in Madras. The Madras branch was opened in the month of January, 1933 and the respondent was placed in charge of it. At the end of August, 1933, the respondent's services were dispensed with and on the 22nd October, 1933, the second appellant became the manager of the Madras branch. On the 31st October, 1933, the second appellant received a visit from one Subramaniam Chetty and a broker named Murthi. It is common ground that Murthi had acted as the broker in transactions with the first appellant's Madras branch during the period the respondent was in charge of it. Murthi represented to the second appellant that Subramaniam Chetty was a big merchant carrying on business in Mambalam, Madras, and on the strength of his recommendation...
Tag this Judgment!Madipalli Venkatachellam Vs. Madipalli Suryanarayanamurty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad129; (1940)2MLJ520
Mockett, J.1. Defendant 1 is the appellant. He is the son of one Chelamiah who died on 15fch October 1925 at a great age. Defendant 2 is the brother of defendant 1 and the plaintiff is the third brother. The following facts were stated from the bar and were accepted. In April or October 1917 - at this stage it is not necessary to be more precise about the date - the family became divided in status. In 1920, defendant 2 filed, but subsequently withdrew, a suit for partition, but on 22nd May 1921 there was a muchilika entered into between the parties with a view to dividing the property. On that there was a reference to arbitration by the plaintiff and the defendants and it is on that reference that this matter comes before this Court, having been first of all decided by the District Judge of East Godavari. That is all that is necessary at present with regard to the facts, because what is now being dealt with may be called a preliminary point. It can be shortly stated. Mr. V.V. Srinivasa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »