Chennai Court September 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.
Gopu China Jogayya and Seshavatharam Firm Vs. Mamidi Satyanarayana and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad151; (1939)2MLJ753
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This is an appeal from the order made by the learned District Judge of Kistna in I.A. No. 1864 of 1935 in I.P. No. 15 of 1935 on the file of his Court.2. The facts are briefly as follows. On a petition presented by the first respondent, the second respondent was adjudicated insolvent on the 17th October, 1935. Then the appellant who is one of the creditors of the insolvent applied on 7th November, 1935, for annulling the adjudication under Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The ground alleged in the petition before the District Judge was that the debt mentioned in the petitioning creditor's application was a bogus debt and that consequently there was abuse of the process of the Court. The learned District Judge dismissed the petition for a reason which cannot be supported. The order is worded as follows:The petitioner is practically trying to make me review the order of the District Judge who adjudicated the respondent insolvent. I do not think he can be all...
Chebrolu Latchayya Vs. Kucherlapati Venkatapatiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad201; (1939)2MLJ836
Patanjali Sartri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for redemption of a mortgage and recovery of possession of the mortgaged properties from respondents 1 to 13 who were alleged to be in possession thereof as mortgagees and for other incidental reliefs. The suit was dismissed by both the Courts below on the preliminary ground that the question of the appellant's title to redeem is foreclosed as res judicata by reason of the decision in A.S. No. 62 of 1928 of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Narsapur. Hence the appeal.2. The facts giving rise to this plea of res judicata may be briefly stated. The properties in question originally belonged to one Seshayya who died without issue in 1877. He executed the mortgage now sought to be redeemed in favour of one Subbaraju whose descendants are respondents 1 to 13. Seshayya's widow who succeeded to his properties died in April, 1921. In March, 1925, the appellant purchased the properties in suit from respondent...
Raja Inuganti Venkata Rayanim Varu Vs. Alluri China Bapanna, Represent ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad213; (1939)2MLJ926
1. It is of course desirable that all Courts should observe the mandatory provision in Order 5, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, and 'either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such further service as it thinks fit.' But we do not think that the absence of such an express declaration will involve as a necessary consequence a rinding that a summons has not been duly served. In the present case no less than four summonses were taken out to the appellant and they were all returned with reports that the copies had been affixed because the appellant was absent in some place or other. After the fourth return of the kind, the Court said on 24th March, 1933, 'defendant 7 affixed on 15th March, 1933, said to have gone to Tirupattur by the inmates of the house. Called absent. Defendant 7 ex parte.' In the circumstances of this case we see no difficulty in saying that there is here an implied, though not an express, declaration of sufficiency of service on the seventh defendant. ...
Koka Adinarayana Rao Naidu Vs. Koka Kothandaramayya Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad538; (1940)1MLJ310
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition is filed against an order passed in April, 1937, amending under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code, a decree of April, 1919. The judgment, from which this decree proceeds, was passed on the consent of the lawyers representing both parties. The Judge who passed the decree and the leading counsel who represented both sides are all said to be dead. The facts are a little complicated but the essential points may be summarised briefly.2. The petitioner here was the first defendant in a partition suit and the preliminary decree declared the petitioner and the respondent each to be entitled to half of the family properties. At the final decree stage there were difficulties in working out what were the rights and liabilities of the parties. The trial Court passed its final decree on the report of a commissioner who amongst other things found that the first defendant was liable for four sums making up a total of Rs. 1,888-14-10 in respect of debts due to th...
Sri Sri Sri Nandakishore Ananga Bhima Dev Kesari Gajapathi, Zamindar o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad850; (1940)2MLJ47
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question of restitution and has been referred to me on a difference of opinion between Burn and Stodart, JJ., on two points.2. (1) The question of the, applicability of Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, and (2) the question of the liability of the defendant's legal representative (first respondent herein) to make a restitution, if Section 144, Civil Procedure Code, applies.3. The facts of the case have been fully set forth in the judgments of my learned brothers and it is unnecessary to repeat them at length. The essential points are that the plaintiff sued for possession of his estate from the husband of the present first respondent and in the Subordinate Judge's Court, he succeeded, the decree being dated 20th December, 1922. The defendant appealed to the High Court and in that appeal, a Receiver was appointed who took charge of the estate in April, 1923, the plaintiff not having got possession meanwhile. The defendant died in 1925 and his widow ...
In Re: Muthu Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad216; 87Ind.Cas.418
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The cart-track in question lies in the patta land of the petitioners, who claim a right to close it, and the proper course would be to proceed against them under Section 133, Criminal P.C. The conviction of the petitioners under Section 283, I.P.C., is therefore set aside and the fines if levied will be refunded....
Muna Ravanna, Muna Muhammad Kassim Sahib Vs. Ana, Runa, Suna, Subraman ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad444
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by a defeated claimant on the dismissal of his petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P.C., raising objections to the attachment of a property purchased by him from one Syed Ibrahim under a sale deed Ex. B executed on 22nd May 1928. The property was attached in execution of a decree passed in favour of the Ceylon Holland Trading Society against a firm of which the said Syed Ibrahim was a partner in respect of certain dealings which had taken place in 1929. The decree was assigned by the Trading Society to the defendant in the present suit and the attachment was effected at the latter's instance. The objection raised by the plaintiff was fully investigated by the execution Court and was dismissed on the ground that the judgment debtor was found to be in possession of the property on his own behalf and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was not bona fide or for consideration. Aggrieved by this order the pla...
G.R. Naidu and ors. Vs. Yerramsetti Venkataswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad215; (1939)2MLJ864
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal deals with a question of limitation in execution. The decree was dated 10th October, 1925. The last execution petition about which there was no dispute was dismissed on 28th June, 1930. On 19th June, 1933, an execution petition was presented bearing the wrong number of the suit and it was returned for rectification with the endorsement 'suit number is wrong; names of parties do not tally. 'Seven days' time was allowed, the date of the return being 5th July, 1933. This execution petition was not re-presented at all until 29th August, 1935, when a fresh execution petition was filed and along with it the returned execution petition was re-presented with the suit number corrected, but the endorsement resubmitting the execution petition was unsigned and there was no application to excuse the delay, nor was there any explanation for the delay. On this the order was passed on 9th September,. 1935 'Fresh Execution Petition filed. Vakil has not signed. Dismissed.' Th...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Narayana Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad173
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The respondent is an hotel-keeper and the ghee stored by him for service to his customers with their meal was found to be adulterated. The price of the ghee is necessarily included in the price of the meal, and ghee, as defined in Section 2, Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act (Act 3 of 1918), means ghee prepared exclusively from butter made from cows, or buffaloes' milk or cream or both. The article stored was not therefore what it purported to be, and the respondent would be guilty of the offence of storing for sale adulterated ghee under Section 5(1)(b) and Rule 28 framed under Section 20(2) of the Act. The ignorance of the respondent of the nature or quality of the article is no defence to a prosecution under Section 5 (1)(b) of the Act and his acquittal on the ground 'that it cannot be said that the ghee is sold to the customers' is untenable. The order of acquittal is therefore set aside and the respondent is convicted under Section 5(1)(b), Prevention of Ad...
Chadalavada Anandaramayya Vs. Chadalavada Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad901; (1940)2MLJ353
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of the execution of a decree in a partition suit whereunder the appellant was required to pay a sum not exceeding Rs. 1,000 towards his share of the marriage expenses of each of his sisters. The youngest sister was married on 7th March, 1935, and it was admitted by the father (the respondent) that he had the marriage celebrated within the Hyderabad State because it would have been illegal under the Child Marriage Restraint Act (XIX of 1929) had it been performed in British India. There is no suggestion that any of the parties belonged to or was domiciled in Hyderabad. The appellant objects to pay the amount due under the decree towards this marriage firstly because the marriage was one opposed to public policy and secondly because he was not given notice of the marriage.2. As to the second point the trial Court rejects the respondent's assertion that he sent an invitation to the appellant for the wedding. It is, of course, not unlikely that the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »