Chennai Court September 1939 Judgments
Patnam Sidda Reddi and ors. Vs. Ambati Venkata Girianna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad65
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. There is no ground for interference with the order directing further inquiry but it is not permissible under Section 436, Criminal P.C., to direct the Magistrate to frame a charge and dispose of the cage. The direction of the Sessions Judge to frame al charge under Section 147 is therefore set aside and otherwise this petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Sanam Narayanamurthi and anr. Vs. Manapalli Nageswara Rao Representing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad108
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the return of the purchase money-paid by the plaintiff in respect of a contract for sale and delivery of 600 bags of paddy by the defendants to the plaintiff. The contract was entered into on 28th October 1929 and is evidenced by Ex. D. The price per bag was fixed at Rs. 8-1-6. An advance of Rs. 200 was paid on the said day and later a sum of Rs. 1110 was advanced. In all, the plaintiff paid Rs. 1310 towards the purchase money. The date of performance was 8th November 1929. No delivery took place on that day. The case for the plaintiff is that the defendants committed default in the delivery of the bags and therefore he was entitled to sue for the return of the purchase money. The case for the defendants is that though the contract Ex. D does not mention what bags they were to deliver it was stipulated between them that those bags were the bags which the defendants had pledged with the Imperial Bank of India, that the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambara thevar Vs. R. Swaminatha Rao Peshwa (Dead) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad426; (1940)1MLJ248
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises the question of the effect of Section 119, Transfer of Property Act, as it stood before the amendment introduced in 1929. The facts are simple. The plaintiff was the owner of the land in A schedule. The first defendant was the owner of the land in B schedule. On 20th February, 1916, under Ex. A they effected an exchange whereby the plaintiff got schedule B and the first defendant got schedule A. In the deed of exchange each of them describes himself as the owner of the land given in exchange and there are no special covenants excluding the operation of Section 119, Transfer of Property Act. On 24th May, 1916, the first defendant sold the A schedule land which he had got by the exchange to one Nagammal, who on 6th July, 1922, sold the same land to the brother of the second defendant, who is the appellant here. Actually the plaintiff found that part of the B schedule land which he had got by the exchange was included in a big mortgage and the mortgagee ...
Tag this Judgment!T.V. Duraiswami Pillai Vs. P. Venkata Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad233
Leach, C.J.1. In order to appreciate the questions which arise in this appeal it is necessary to set out the course of events preceding the suit. The appellant is a mittadar in the North Arcot District. On 27th February 1875 his predecessor-in-title mortgaged a village in the mitta to the respondent's predecessor-in-title to secure a loan of Rs. 9000. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage and the deed provided that the mortgagee should pay annually to Government Rs. 170-13-2, the amount of the peshkush. In the year 1914 the appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore for the redemption of the mortgage, and obtained a preliminary decree. The respondent was dissatisfied with the terms of the decree and appealed to this Court which modified it in certain respects which do not call for mention. It is sufficient to say that the preliminary decree was allowed to stand with further directions with regard to the taking of the account. 1st July 1924 was the date f...
Tag this Judgment!H. Chennana Gowd and ors. Vs. Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad241
Stodart, J.1. This is an appeal against an order in insolvency by which the learned District Judge, Bellary, adjudicated seven persons insolvent. The first five of these are brothers, the sons of Ayyanna Gowd, deceased. The sixth and seventh are sons of another brother Mallanna Gowd who died in 1915. The first and third do not appeal. They had already filed an insolvency petition when the present petition was filed. The others are the appellants in this appeal. The petition was filed on 29th July 1936 by four creditors. The admitted facts are that Ayyanna Gowd had a shop in Bellary and that was a family business carried on for the benefit of the joint family consisting of himself and his sons; and on his death this shop was continued by the first and second sons Ranganna Gowd and Narasanna Gowd trading under the name of Ranganna Gowd and brothers. The four petitioning creditors based their right to file this petition on debts due to them by this firm. They alleged that the other three ...
Tag this Judgment!Jonnalagadda Ramaswami Chetti Vs. T.K. Ramachandra Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ789
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner filed the application before us for the issue of a writ of certiorari against the Debt Conciliation Board of Dhone, Kurnool District, and for the quashing of an order of the Board dated the 28th May, 1939. A rule nisi was issued, and we have heard the arguments. It is clear that the rule must be made absolute. The facts are these. On the 6th February, 1939, the respondent, who claims to be an agriculturist filed an application purporing to be an application to the Debt Conciliation Board under Section 4(1) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1935. In this petition the respondent set out three debts all of which were shown to be due to the petitioner. The respondent apparently had only one creditor. Having set out the debts payable to the petitioner the respondent's petition proceeded as follows:I hereby declare that I am an agriculturist and the debts shown above are liable to be scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!Visalakshi Ammal Vs. Gokuldas Dayal Sait (Deceased) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad423; (1940)1MLJ155
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the District Munsif of Salem for a declaration that a drain adjoining the eastern wall of her house was her private property and that the defendant-respondent was not entitled to let into the drain sewage from his house. The appellant is the owner of a house which fronts a main road within the Municipal area of Salem. The respondent has also built a house fronting the same road. His property is separated from the appellant's property by a public lane. The respondent applied to the Municipal Council for permission to carry two channels across this public lane and connect them with the drain on the appellant's property. Permission was granted and as the result connections with the appellant's drain were made. The appellant objected, but the work having been carried out she instituted the present suit. The respondent filed a written statement in which he averred that the drain on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. T.R. Manjula Bai Vs. K. Janoji Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad510; (1940)1MLJ210
Mockett, J.1. This is a wife's petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. She filed O.M.S. No. 17 of 1937 claiming the same relief on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. The learned Judge, on the 6th September, 1938, refused a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground that adultery had not been proved. But he allowed the petitioner to amend her petition by adding a prayer for an order for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty which had been proved. The petitioner before me relies so far as cruelty is concerned on the decree and judgment of Gentle, J., and so far as adultery is concerned has brought evidence to show that since November of last year the respondent, her husband, has been living with another woman at Trichinopoly. No evidence of cruelty was called before me. Is this procedure correct? I think the petitioner was entitled to adopt this course. Under Section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, the Courts in India act and give relief o...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Rajah Bommadevara Venkatarayulu Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu Vs. Ko ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad913; (1940)2MLJ611
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal has been preferred under rather peculiar circumstances. There was a suit instituted in 1930 (O.S. No. 9 of 1930) on the file of the District Court of Kistna which was subsequently transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Masulipatam for disposal in which the plaintiffs four in number sued for a declaration of their right to certain property as against the defendants five in number and also for recovery of possession thereof from defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 in case the Court found that the plaintiffs were not in possession and also for mesne profits as against all the five defendants. The third defendant was the zamindar under whom the plaintiffs claimed to hold the properties as part of their holding. Defendants 1 and 2 obtained a patta from the third defendant in respect of the plaint property and they were found to have been in possession of the property along with their sub-tenants defendants 4 and 5. The suit was not resisted by the third defendan...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: J.S. Dhas and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-26-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad155
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. Appellant 1 was the ledger clerk of the Tea Licensing Oommittee at Coonoor and appellant 2 is the proprietor of the Kudikadu Estate. Both have been convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I. P. 0., of the offence of conspiracy to cheat and obtain tea export quotas of the value of Rs. 22,523-15-0 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The Tea Licensing Committee was constituted in 1933 for regulating the export of tea from India to foreign countries, and the Office of the Committee for Southern India was located at Coonoor. It consisted of P.W. 5, the joint controller, and P.W. 7, the assistant joint controller, with an establishment, and it was the function of the committee to distribute the right of exporting the quantity allotted to Southern India to the various estates in Southern India according to productive capacity, and issue licenses to export the tea. Sales of export quota rights were permitted and it was part of the duty of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »