Chennai Court August 1939 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rekanti Chinna Govinda Chettyar and ors. Vs. S. Varadappa Chettyar and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ809
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants for a declaration of their title to the wall existing between their house and the house belonging to the respondents and for an injunction restraining the respondents from letting the water from the terrace of their house into the appellants' property.2. The trial Court dismissed the suit and on appeal the parties filed a joint memo, agreeing to a certain arrangement regarding the disposal of the water falling from the terrace of the respondents' house and this arrangement was directed to be incorporated in the decree and no question now arises as to that part of the case. As regards the wall in dispute, the learned Subordinate Judge found that it belonged to the appellants and accordingly decreed that part of the appellants' claim. This was on the 23rd September, 1935. After the judgment was signed and the decree also was issued in accordance with the judgment, the respondents filed I.A. No. 63 of 1935 o...
Katachikandi Thiyyathikandi Abdulla Kaka Vs. Kadumandra K. Muthanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad45; (1940)2MLJ420
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the effect of a special rule promulgated by the Local Government of Coorg to govern the execution of decree in that province, upon the execution of such decrees, when transferred to a Court in British India. The appellant is the judgment-debtor. The subordinate Judge of Coorg passed a money decree against him and that decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the District Munsif of Cannanore. Under Section 67(2), Civil P.C., the Chief Commissioner of Coorg has promulgated a rule to the effect thatlands, houses and other buildings and all immovable property shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of decrees of Civil Courts in Coorg with the exception of such immovable property as shall have been mortgaged or otherwise specifically pledged as security for the debt which is the subject-matter of the decree sought to be executed.2. The argument of the appellant is that this rule must be read as restraining the exe...
Palanisami Goundar Vs. Kaliappa Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad77; (1940)1MLJ782
Wadsworth, J.1. C.M.A. No. 404 is an appeal against an order making absolute an attachment before judgment. C.M.A. No. 405 is an appeal against the dismissal of an application under Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Code for compensation for wrongful attachment. The trial Court heard together both the application to vacate the ad interim attachment and the application for compensation. In such circumstances it seems hardly fair to apply as against the appellant the rule embodied in Rama Mudali v. Marappa Goundan (1934) 67 M.L.J. 448 according to which an application for compensation for wrongful attachment would not lie until the attachment itself has been set aside. The trial Court had before it an application to set aside the attachment and abstained from passing orders on it until the hearing of the application for compensation was finished. Similarly in this Court I have before me both an appeal against the order confirming the attachment and an appeal against the dismissal of the ...
T.P. Vasantha Rao Sahib Bhonsle Vs. O.A. Narayanaswami Aiyar (Receiver ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad95; (1939)2MLJ745
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the District Judge of West Tanjore dated 27th October, 1938, on a petition presented under Section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act IV of 1938 praying for stay of execution of the decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1919. The suit was one known as the Tanjore Palace Estate suit which was last dealt with in this Court so far as the present controversy is concerned. In the case reported in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Pratapasimha Rajah Saheb (1930) 60 M.L.J. 79 at 80, the facts necessary for understanding the present' dispute are stated, at least, most of them. The present application under Section 20 of the new Act was made by the son of the twenty-ninth defendant in the suit. The twenty-ninth defendant belonged to one group of defendants to whom the preliminary decree in the suit passed on 1st July, 1918 (the suit had been originally instituted as O.S. No. 26 of 1912) awarded 3/4th share. In appeal, this share was reduced, but...
Balavenkatrama Chettiar and ors. Vs. Maruthamuthu Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad313; (1940)2MLJ946
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this reference is, what is the correct court-fee payable on the three memoranda of second appeals preferred against the decrees of the learaaed District Judge of Coimbatore in A.S. Nos. 290 and 291 of 1937 and 174 of 1938? The suits out of which these second appeals arise were brought on three promissory notes. The main defence was that the appellants were not liable on the notes as the amounts were borrowed for the benefit of Kannika Parameswari Amman Temple of Peria Nagamam by them as trustees thereof and that a decree ought to be passed against the properties of the said temple in their hands. The decision of the learned District Judge was that two of the promissory notes purported to be executed by them in their individual capacity and not as trustees on behalf of the said temple and though there was a reference to the trust in the body of the third promissory note, the executants did not sign the said note as trustees and theref...
D. Sundaravaradan Vs. R. Narasimhachari, Official Liquidator
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad266
ORDERGentle, J.1. (Application No. 8415 of 1939): In this application the Official Liquidator seeks directions of the Court in regard to matters set out in prayers 2 and 3. Shortly the points are these: whether a debtor in respect of whose debt there is a surety is entitled to set off against the money owing by the debtor to the company moneys due to the debtor from the company and whether the surety is entitled to set off in respect of his obligation to the company moneys owing to him from the company. The origin of the transactions is a liability which, arose in connexion with a chit fund scheme conducted by the company. Every contributory to a chit fund scheme agrees that he will each month for a specified period pay to the company an agreed amount; each month an auction is held and the successful bidder, being one of the subscribers, is entitled to receive from the company the total amount of all his subscriptions to the fund upon furnishing security by means of a surety and also a...
Anandam Minor by Guardian, the Official Trustee of Madras Vs. T.S. Mut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad52; (1939)2MLJ658
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition by the Official Trustee of Madras on behalf of a minor who is the judgment-debtor in the decree in O.S. No. 65 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif of Tiruvannamalai. That decree was obtained by the respondent on the strength of a promissory note executed on 19th February, 1933 and the decree itself is dated 2nd May, 1936. The petition is to revise the order of the District Munsif on an application under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists: Relief Act, IV of 1938, praying to amend the decree after scaling down the debt. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits conferred upon agriculturist debtors by the new A ct, and the Court below has actually amended the decree by scaling down the debt in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act treating the debt as one incurred after the 1st October, 1932, the suit promissory note being itself subsequent in date to the 1st of October, 1932.2. Th...
K. Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. K. Sampathkumaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad987; (1940)2MLJ319
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit filed on the Original Side of this Court against her husband, her two sons, and her grandson for possession of a house known as No. 9, Dewan Ramiengar Road, Vepery, Madras. She claimed that the house was her absolute property. The defence was that the house was built in part by monies belonging to the defendants and that they had an interest in it. During the pendency of the suit the husband died and subsequently the parties agreed to a compromise decree being passed. The agreement which was entered into comprised disputes 'relating to other matters. The terms agreed upon were embodied in a document and the sons filed an application asking for formal leave to compromise the suit and for a decree in the terms of the compromise so far as it related to the suit property. It was necessary for the Court to give formal leave as the grandson was a minor. Notice of this application was served upon the appellant, who re...
R.K. Thirumalai Chettiar Vs. K.N. Nanjayya Gowder and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad266
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order on an application to file an award as decree. The award proceeded on a reference to arbitration made outside the Court and the Court has on the application of the appellant passed a decree in terms of the award except for one stipulation which has been regarded as penal. The arbitration arose out of a dispute between partners and the reference was in the following terms:As we cannot conduct the said shop jointly, we have completed the accounts relating to the business in respect of the same from 1st April 1934 till 30th April 1935 and have delivered the same to the pinchayatdars. Only agreeing to abide wholeheartedly by the award which you, the panchayatdars, may pass directing the delivery of the said company to one of the partners and also the rules and regulations you may frame in connexion therewith, we have executed the muchilika signing hereunder.2. As a result of this reference the arbitrators passed an award determining the amo...
Edward H.M. Bower Vs. Lt.-col. A.M.V. Hesterlow and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Mad920; (1939)2MLJ714
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a decision on an originating summons issued under Order 45 of the rules of the Original Side of this Court. The summons was taken out by the appellant, the sole remaining trustee of a trust known as the Richmond Educational Trust. The appellant sought an order of the Court permitting a deviation from the trust deed and asked for the appointment of two new trustees. The appellant regarded the trust as a private one and relied on the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act. The matter came before Gentle, J., who dismissed the summons so far as it related to the prayer for permission to deviate from the trust deed, but granted the prayer for the appointment of additional trustees. The appellant has appealed against the first part of the order as he contends that the learned Judge erred in not sanctioning the deviation. The main question however, is whether this trust is to be regarded as being of a public or private nat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »