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.
Ramakrishna Reddi and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver of Bellary and an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ932
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of an application for modifying an order passed under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, vesting the properties of the quondam insolvent whose adjudication has been annulled. The facts are rather unusual. The insolvent was in jail as the result of a criminal conviction and he died in jail without applying 'for his discharge. His minor son applied for the annulment of the adjudication basing the application on two grounds (1) that no application had been made for discharge within time allowed and (2) that the debts had all been satisfied. The records show that notice was ordered to a vakil, apparently appearing for the only active creditor, and a report was called for from the Official Receiver. Thereafter the District Judge passed an order annulling the adjudication under Section 43 and directing that the property should vest with the Receiver until payment of the debt of Lakshmipathi - presumably the active creditor. Th...
Suryadevara Subbayya Minor by Next Friend Tatineni Venkataramayya Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ924
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order in the execution of a mortgage decree. The mortgage instrument is not before me, but from the recital in the preliminary decree it would appear that it provided for the payment of the amount due in ten annual instalments, with a default clause that if two consecutive instalments were in arrears, the mortgagee could claim the whole. In fact the mortgagee elected to sue only on ihe two instalments which were in arrears and he got a mortgage decree for the payment of these amounts. He must therefore be taken to have waived his right to enforce the default clause. When the hypolheca was put up for sale an objection was raised which is not very clearly stated, but appears to have been directed to two points, firstly, that more of the property was sold than was necessary to realise the arrears and secondly, that the sale could not be held subject to the remaining instalments of the mortgage debt in respect of which no suit had been filed. In...
Khaji Muhammad HussaIn Sahib Vs. the Masjiday Mahmood Jamait Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1939
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ436
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned City Civil Judge restraining the defendant by a perpetual injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's right of management, control and possession of the mosque, Masjiday Mahmood Jamait, situate in Pudupet, Madras. The facts relating to the suit out of which this appeal arises may be briefly stated. The said mosque was founded aboul-85 years ago. It is the plaintiff's case that it was built out of public subscriptions collected from the residents of Pudupet and was primarily intended for the benefit of the residents of the said locality. The defendant's case is that it was built by one Gulam Mohammad, but there is no reliable evidence in support thereof except some evidence of tradition. But it is immaterial who founded it because the evidence establishes that it was the Mohammadan residents of the locality who were taking interest in the said mosque and contributing to its upkeep. There is no dee...
M.M. Shahul Hameed Marakayar and ors. Vs. Kazi Mohammad HussaIn Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1941Mad42; (1940)2MLJ446
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by respondent 1 for an injunction restraining the defendants (appellants) from interfering with him in performing his services as peish imam in the Masjiday Mohmood, Pudupet, Madras. He also prayed for damages. The suit was docreed and the defendants appeal. We are this day passing judgment in a connected appeal (C.C.C. A. No. 36 of 1935) from a suit brought by the present defendants against the present plaintiff for an injunction restraining him from interfering with the defendants' management of the same mosque and from collecting subscriptions in the guise of mutwalli of that mosque. It is alleged that the Pudupet mosque was founded by one Ghulam Mohammad in 1849 and has been financed from its inception by public subscriptions. It was founded to serve the needs of the Mahomedans living in the neighbourhood of Pudupet. The first mutwalli was the maternal grandfather of the plaintiff. The plaintiff bases his title to the offices...
Doraikannu Ammal Vs. T. Ramaswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad32; (1939)2MLJ773
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment granting the respondent a mandatory injunction for the removal of certain buildings on land leased to the appellant. The land belongs to the Sri Kasi Viswanatha Devasthanam, G.T., Madras, of which the respondent is the trustee. Before 1920 the land was leased to one Chinna Venkatesa Devar, who on the 27th September, 1920, transferred his interest therein to P.L. Natesa Mudaliar. After he had acquired the interest of Chinna Venkatesa Devar, Natesa Mudaliar entered into an agreement with the then trustee of the temple for a new lease. The agreement was executed on the 19th February, 1921 and was duly registered. It stated:I have agreed to pay you a rent of Rs. 2 (Rupees Two) per month for laying out a flower garden in the said land, and paid you this day an advance of Rs. 25 (Rupees Twenty-five). As I have taken on lease the said land for a period of 30 years from this date, myself o...
In Re: Last Will of Hajee Sir Ismail Sait, Kt., Late of Essex Lodge, E ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1939
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ273
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Hajee Sir Ismail Sait, a member of the Cutchi Memon community and a resident of Bangalore, died on the 24th April, 1934, in the tuberculosis sanitarium at Arogyavaram, Chittoor District. He was survived by a widow, five sons (the appellant and respondents 1 to 4) and a daughter (the fifth respondent). He had sixteen grandchildren, who are respondents 6 to 21. He left a will dated 19th March, 1934, and the present appeal arises out of an application which was made by the executor for the grant of probate. By his will the testator provided for the education of his grandsons. For some of them he made special provisions with regard to their education and maintenance. While he was in the Sanitarium he decided to fix the allowance which his sons and daughter were to receive under his will and he directed his solicitors, Messrs. Moresby and Thomas, Madras, to draw up a codicil to give effect to his intentions in this respect. The instructions to draft the cod...
Abdul Hameed Vs. Mohammed Yoonus and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad153
Leach, C.J.1. Hajee Sir Ismail Sait, a member of the Cutchi Memon community and a resident of Bangalore, died on 24th April 1934 in the Tuberculosis Sanitorium at Arogyavaram, Chittoor District. He was survived by a widow, five sons (the appellant and respondents 1 to 4) and a daughter (respondent 5). He had sixteen grandchildren, who are respondents 6 to 21. He left a will dated 19th March 1934, and the present appeal arises out of an application which was made by the executor for the grant of probate. By his will the testator provided for the education of his grandsons. For some of them he made special provisions with regard to their education and maintenance. 'While he was in the Sanitorium he decided to fix the allowance which his sons and daughter were to receive under his will and he directed his solicitors, Messrs. Moresby and Thomas, Madras to draw up a codicil to give effect to his intentions in this respect. The instructions to draft the codicil were embodied in a letter date...
Juluri Venkataratnam and ors. Vs. Balabhadruni Chennayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad214
1. The decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is, we think, clearly wrong. It is opposed to the decision in Modali Ademma v. Venkatasubbayya A.I.R. (1933) Mad. 627. With respect, we are unable to agree with the decision in Devi Dial Sahu v. Moharaj Singh (1895) 22 Cal. 764. Rules 5 and 8 of Order 21, Civil P.C., are distinct and independent. Under Section 39, Civil P.C., the Court which passed the decree may send it for execution 'to another Court.' The Court which passed the decree in this case had power to send the decree for execution to the Sub-Court, Vizagapatam and in fact that was the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Guntur, on 29th August 1936. The decree, under Rule 5, Order 21 had to be sent to the District Court, Vizagapatam, for mere transmission to the Sub-Court, Vizagapatam: vide C.E.P. No. 139 which forbids the decree-holder to make any application to the District Court. Rule 8 of Order 21 applies only to those cases in which the decree is sent for execu...
In Re: Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad58; (1939)2MLJ609a
Somayya, J.1. There was a mortgage decree against a third party and before the sale of the hypotheca, the petitioner's father and some others purchased the property 'mortgaged. They then executed the suit promissory note in satisfaction of the mortgage decree.2. The petitioner claimed relief under explanation to Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The lower Court rejected his petition and this C.R.P. is filed against the said order.3. The question is whether the case comes within the Explanation to Section 8.The explanation runs thus:Where a debt is renewed or included in a fresh document in favour of the same creditor.4. The explanation speaks first of a renewal which is obviously by the same debtor. Then come the words 'or included in a fresh document'. This is obviously to provide for a case where a debtor instead of merely executing a new document for the exact sum owing under the previous one, takes a fresh loan, and executes the document both for the sum due under the original do...
B. Veeranna Sha and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver of Secunderabad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad47; (1939)2MLJ859
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question of private international law. In C.S. No. 420 of 1922 of the Original Side of this Court three members of a joint Hindu family sued for partition of the family estate. One of the plaintiffs died and the other two were adjudicated insolvents by an order of the District Judge of Secunderabad, dated the 15th October, 1C)28, on an application filed on the 27th August, 1928. Secunderabad is not part of British India and the adjudication was therefore in law an adjudication by a foreign Court. On the 5th December, 1922, a preliminary decree was passed in the partition suit. On the 15th June, 1926, a Bombay creditor of the plaintiffs obtained a decree against them in the Bombay High Court and the decree was transferred to this Court for execution. In the execution proceedings which followed the Bombay creditor on the 20th December, 1926, attached the preliminary decree which the plaintiffs had obtained in the partition suit. Othe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »