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.
Coimbatore Venkataramana Vilas Co. Ltd. Vs. Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad30
Leach, C.J.1. One Kandaswami Pillai died in 1923 leaving a considerable amount of property, but large debts. He was survived by two widows and seven sons, of whom only two were majors. The eldest son was Sivagurunatha. On 16th January 1924 the second son Chidambaram, and the widows purporting to act as the guardians of their respective sons, granted a power of attorney to Sivagurunatha to administer the estate of the deceased. Why it was necessary to execute this power of attorney is not apparent. Sivagurunatha was under Hindu law the manager of the family and' lawful guardian of the minors. On 18th January 1924 Sivagurunatha sold certain* immovable property belonging to the estate and five days later sold other estate property. On 22nd February 1924 a creditor applied for his adjudication in insolvency on the ground that the two transfers which he had effected in the previous month constituted fraudulent preferences under the insolvency law. The application was filed in. the District ...
Kanujnakkal Thayikkandiyil Moossan Kunhi Kalandan Vs. Kaniyarakkal Tha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad85; (1939)2MLJ760
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The third defendant is the petitioner. He was the payee of the suit promissory note and he had endorsed the note to the plaintiff. The suit note was executed by defen-dants 1 and 2 in favour of the third defendant on the 22nd September, 1932. An endorsement of payment of Rs. 5, which appears on the suit promissory note and which bears date 15th September, 1935, was relied on for saving limitation as against defendants 1 and 2. The date of endorsement of the suit promissory note by the third defendant to the plaintiff was 9th December, 1935. The learned District Munsif who tried the case has held that the endorsement of payment of Rs. 5 which was relied on for saving limitation was fabricated by the third defendant and that the suit was barred by limitation as against defendants 1 and 2. Regarding the third defendant the trial Court has held that he is liable because he has admittedly endorsed the promissory note to the plaintiff and it was not shown at the trial how h...
Dasari Ammanna Vs. Mirtivada Raja Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad160; (1940)1MLJ177
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a mortgage of property situated within the East Godavari District. It is conceded that none of the property covered by the mortgage is situated within the Agency tracts. A preliminary objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge with reference to the terms of Section 5 of the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfers Act (I of 1917) which runs as follows:Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, every suit against a member of a hill tribe instituted after the commencement of this Act shall be instituted in the Courts of the Agency tracts.2. It is conceded that the defendants are members of a notified hill tribe and ordinarily resident in the Agency, so that they come within the definition of 'hill tribe' in the Act. Reading Section 5 in its literal sense it would therefore appear that Courts other than the Agency Courts have no jurisdiction to deal with any suit against them whatever is the su...
Kannappa Mudali and anr. Vs. Varadachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad38; (1939)2MLJ596
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to which an award by a Registrar under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act has been transmitted for execution, to recognise an assignment under Order 21, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code. In a very recent case (C.M.S.A. No. 188 of 1936) I held that an assignee could apply under Order 21, Rule 16 for execution. But that decision was not based on any specific argument regarding the forum in which an application for assignment should be made in the first instance. The argument now put forward is that if there is any power in the assignee to execute an award under the Co-operative Societies Act the assignment must first be recognised by the Court which passed the decree, which is in effect not the Civil Court, but the Court of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.2. The award in the present case was in favour of a cooperative bank and it was transferred to the Civil Court at the instance of the bank and...
Krushnacharana Padhi, Minor by Next Friend Chinna Padhiyani Vs. Gouroc ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad62; (1939)2MLJ686
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted on the basis of a promissory note dated the 15th October, 1928, executed by the defendant-respondent in favour of one Brojo Padhi who died shortly after its execution leaving him surviving an adopted minor son the plaintiff-appellant in this case. A sum of Rs. 10 seems to have been paid by the defendant on the 12th October, 1931. This payment was endorsed on the back of the promissory note and the endorsement was duly signed by the defendant. The suit was instituted on the 22nd October, 1934, while the plaintiff-appellant was a minor. It appears however that two dates in the promissory note were altered before the suit was brought. The first alteration was that the figure '1' in 15, that is, the date on which the promissory note was executed was altered into 2 and thus the promissory note would now read as if it was executed on the 25th October, 1928, and not on the 15th October. The second alteration was that the figure '1...
Alagiri Chetty and anr. Vs. Muthuswami Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad102
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for partition and separate possession of the appellant's share of a certain house in Salem Town of which this appeal is concerned only with the eastern portion measuring 10 ankanams which is hereinafter referred to as the house. The facts so far as they are material for the determination of this appeal are briefly these : The house belonged to one Servaraya Chetti who died some time before 1891 leaving him surviving his widow, Minakshi who died in that year. At the time of her death the nearest reversionary heir was one Alagiri Chetti who was the elder brother of Servaraya Chetti and the paternal grand-father of the present appellants. Alagiri Chetti died in 1900 leaving behind five sons of whom respondent 1 herein who has throughout been in occupation of the house is one.2. The appellant's ease was that Minakshi left a registered will by which she devised the house to the five sons of Alagiri Chetti in equal s...
S. Soundararajan and ors. Vs. Khaka Mahomed Ismail Saheb of Messrs. Ro ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad42
Leach, C.J.1. In pursuance of an order passed by Gentle J. in a partition suit on the Original Side of this Court a public auction of the estate properties was held on 13th September 1937. One of the properties offered for sale was a house and its site known as Napier's Gardens. A reserve price of Rs. 1,10,000 was fixed and the members of the family were allowed to bid and set off the values of their respective shares. Appellant 1, who is a defendant in the suit and a member of the family, bid for this property, but when the reserve price was reached he refused to bid further. There were higher bids by others and the property was eventually knocked down to the respondent for Rs. 1,12,500. The condition of the sale required that the sale should be confirmed by the Court. The commissioners who conducted the sale reported the result to the Court and the sale came before Gentle J. for confirmation on 7th April 1938. Appellant 1 informed the Court that he would like to have the property for...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›