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.
Rao Bahadur K. Sambasiva Chettiar Vs. the Right Hon'ble the Secretary ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad703; (1940)1MLJ429
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order giving directions to the receiver appointed at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit on a simple mortgage to pay to the Collector a sum of money due by the mortgagor by way of the value of labour known as kudimaramath for which the mortgagor was obliged to pay under the Madras Compulsory Labour Act. The amount due from the mortgagor in respect of kudimaramath had accrued due before the appointment of the receiver. The Collector was, of course, not a party to the suit on the mortgage and he filed an application under Order 40, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, praying the Court to pay the money due to the Government out c f the amount in deposit or to direct the receiver to pay it. A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lies. It is contended that this is not in fact an order to the receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 but a mere order under Section 151 for payment out of Court at the instance of the Government. The answer to this con...
Visalakshi Ammal Vs. C. Krishnaveni Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad671; (1940)1MLJ561
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether an equitable mortgage is unenforceable by reason of the non-registration of a letter signed by the mortgagor at the time of the deposit of the title deeds. One P.M. Sadasiva Chetty, his sons Subramanian and Somasundaram (the third and fourth respondents), his brother Gangadhara Chetty and Gangadhara Chetty's son Thayamanava (the third defendant in the suit) constituted an undivided Hindu family. The family owned immovable property in Madras, 2-10 acres of land in Arasur village, Chingleput District and 42 acres of land and a rice mill in Ponneri village, which is also in the Chingleput District. The properties in Madras consisted of three houses and their sites, known as 16, Audiappa Chetti Street; 41, Guruvappa Chetty Street and 105, Egmore. High Road, respectively. On the 2nd August, 1930, Sadasiva, who was the manager of the family, borrowed from the first and second respondents Rs. 1,900 on a promissory note ...
V. Sreenivasachariar and anr. Vs. Krishniah Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad485; (1940)1MLJ860
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) and the two substantial reliefs prayed for are (1) that the sale of the property held in execution of the decree on 5th November, 1937, of lands forming Lot No. 2 of A schedule to the plaint be set aside and (2) that the mortgage debt be scaled down under the provisions' of the Act and satisfaction of the debt entered up. So far as the sale is concerned, it is agreed that it should be set aside and I accordingly set it aside.2. The main contest centred on the second relief to be given, to the judgment-debtors under the Act. By an order dated 22nd September, 1938, the matter was referred to the Official Referee to report on the following matters:(1) Whether the applicants are agriculturists within the meaning of the: Act;(2) The debts and the dates on which they were incurred and the amount of principal and interest agreed;(3) Amounts with dates of payments in respect of (a) principal...
Minor Narayanan Chetti and anr. Vs. Panchanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1939
Reported in: (1939)2MLJ758
1. We cannot accept the contention on behalf of the appellants, that they are decree-holders who can execute the decree without recognition by the Court which passed the decree of the devolution upon them of the decree. The appellants are not 'decree-holders' as defined in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their father was the sole decree-holder, and although the sons may well have been entitled along with him to the benefits of the decree a thing which has yet to be investigated - it is impossible to say that they were, or are 'decree-holders'. The decree has been transferred to them by operation of law on the death of their father and Order 21, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. With respect we are not able to agree with the learned Judge who decided the case of Ramsewak Prasad v. Saran Singh : AIR1937Pat607 . The decision of the learned District Judge on this point is in our opinion correct. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs....
Narayanan Chetti (Minor) and ors. Vs. Panchanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad89
1. We cannot accept the contention on behalf of the appellants that they are decree-holders who can execute the decree without recognition by the Court which passed the decree of the devolution upon them of the decree. The appellants are not 'decree-holders' as defined in Section 2, Civil P.C. Their father was the sole decree-holder, and although the sons may well have been entitled along with him to the benefits of the decree - a thing which has yet to be investigated - it is impossible to say that they were, or are 'decree-holders.' The decree has been transferred to them by operation of law on the death of their father and Order 21, Rule 16, Civil P.C., is applicable. With respect, we are not able to agree with the learned Judge who decided the case in Akhori Ramsewakprasad v. Saran Singh : AIR1937Pat607 . The decision of the learned District Judge on this point is in our opinion correct. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs....
Mythili Ammal Vs. Janaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad161
1. This appeal is against an order made in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 10 of 1924 on the file of the Sub-ordinate Judge's Court, Cuddalore. The subject of the petition is a house No. 40, South Car Street, Chidambaram. Mythili, the decree-holder, was entitled under the decree to recover Rs. 5,800 from her husband Mahadevan, the judgment-debtor. To realize this sum she attached the aforesaid house as belonging to her husband. Janaki Ammal, mother of Mahadevan, filed a claim praying that the attachment should be raised on the ground that the house was her own. This claim was tried by the learned District Judge, South Arcot, who held that the house did belong to Janaki. Hence this appeal by Mythili, the decree-holder. The learned District Judge chiefly addressed himself to the question whether the purchase money for the house which was purchased in Janaki's name came out of Mahadevan's estate or was furnished by Janaki. He held that, apart from the oral evidence of Janaki, there wa...
A.R.R.M. Somasundaram Chettiar Vs. P.P.A.R.R.M. Peria Karuppan Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Mad478
Pandrang Row, J.1. Since judgment was pronounced in this appeal, an application has been made on behalf of respondent 4 by his mother and guardian under Sections 7 and 8, Madras Agriculturists Belief Act, 4 of 1938, for scaling down the debt. The application has been opposed on the preliminary ground that no application of this description lies after a decree has been made. According to this contention, the only application that can be made for amendment of a decree is under Section 19 of the Act which applies only to cases where the decree was made before the commencement of the Act. As there is no other provision in the Act for amendment of decrees, it is contended that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code alone can apply. It is however not necessary to deal with these contentions in this particular case for the simple reason that in this case no decree has been actually drawn up and an application was made to stop the drafting of the decree pending the disposal of this applica...
Mythili Ammal Vs. Janaki Ammal and Another.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-01-1939
Reported in: [1939]7ITR657(Mad)
This appeal is against an order made in execution of the decree in O. S. No. 10 of 1924 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Cuddalore. The subject of the petition is a house No. 40, South Car Street, Chidambaram. Mythili, the decree holder was entitled under the decree to recover Rs. 5,800 from her husband Mahadevan, the judgment debtor. To realise this sum she attached the aforesaid house as belonging to her husband. Janaki Ammal, mother of Mahadevan, filed a claim praying that the attachment should be raised on the ground that the house was her own. This claim was tried by the learned District Judge, South Arcot, who held that the house did belong to Janaki. Hence this appeal by Mythili, the decree-holder.The learned District Judge chiefly addressed himself to the question whether the purchase money for the house -which was purchased in Janakis name - came out of Mahadevans estate or was furnished by Janaki. He held that, apart from the oral evidence of Janaki, there was no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›