Chennai Court January 1940 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.
Rm. L.M.L.V. Alagammai Achi and anr. Vs. Vr. Pl. M. Palaniappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad580; (1940)1MLJ469
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 5,982-14-9 from defendants 1 to 3 personally and from the family properties of all the defendants. The first defendant is the father of defendants 2 to 4 and the fifth defendant is the son of the first defendant's deceased brother. The defendants constitute a joint Hindu family of which the first defendant is the manager. The defendants are Nattukottai Chetties and were carrying money lending and banking business under their family vilasam V.R. Pl. M. at Rangoon and other places in Burma. The amount claimed is said to be the stridhanam money of the first plaintiff deposited by her father the second plaintiff with the first defendant. The Court below decreed the claim against the first defendant personally and against the family properties of all the defendants as it was a debt contracted by the first defendant in the course of the family business. Not satisfied with this decree, the pla...
Bava C. Gopalaswami Mudaliar Vs. the Annadhana Kattalai of Sri Tyagara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad719; (1940)1MLJ547
Horwill, J.1. The appellant brought a suit on two promissory notes for amounts advanced to the Annadhana kattalai for the necessary performance of the duties imposed on the trust. The first defendant was the trustee of the kattalai and the second defendant was the receiver of the kattalai property, who has since been replaced by the executive officer of the temple. It appears from the plaint that the money was not advanced direct to the kattalai. The plaintiff, who had received a power of attorney from the trustee, was managing the kattalai on the first defendant's behalf, receiving income from the property, and making purchases; and the sum claimed is that admitted by the first defendant to be due to the plaintiff on account of provisions and other necessaries supplied to the kattalai in excess of the income. The defendants contended that some of the alleged items of expenditure were not true; but it was found that the plaintiff had properly accounted for the money mentioned in the pr...
Mannicheenntavita Cheria Mammu Vs. Katavath Teyyil Payankavil Seyina a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad577
Stodart, J.1. This is a suit from North Malabar and it is concerned with a Malabar tenancy. The land is jenm property and in 1907 it was demised on kanom tenure to the predecessors-in-title of defendants 1 and 2. According to the custom of the country that tenancy expired in 1919 but the kanomdars did not apply for renewal of the term. Since then therefore they have been holding land on yearly tenancy. On 5th September 1933, the jenmi granted to the present plain, tiff what is called a melcherth. A melcherth as defined in the Malabar Tenancy Act, 14 of 1930, meansthe transfer by the landlord of part of his interest in any land held by his tenant by which the transferee is entitled to evict such tenant.2. The jenmi's title to evict accrues under Section 20(3) of the Act, namely on the ground that the period of the kanom tenancy has expired and no renewal has been obtained. This suit, the subject of the present appeal, was to evict defendants 1 and 2. The learned District Munsif of Badag...
The Corporation of Madras Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad653; (1940)1MLJ576
Gentle, J.1. The plaintiff, the Corporation of Madras, was the owner of 21 steam rollers which were used in connection with the discharge of the duty of making, repairing and maintaining roads within the city. Acting through the Commissioner of Police, the defendant (hereinafter called 'the local Government') required the plaintiff to pay the sum of Rs. 16,170 as the amount of tax alleged to be leviable upon these steam rollers under the provisions of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 (hereinafter called 'the local Act') for the period from 1st April, 1931 to 30th April, 1934. The plaintiff contended that these rollers were not motor vehicles within the meaning of the local Act and that no tax was leviable upon them. Correspondence took place between the plaintiff and the local Government eventuating in 1936 by a letter addressed to the Corporation informing it that if payment of the sum of Rs. 16,170 was not made, the local Government would adjust this sum by an equivalent ...
Sevadappa Goundar Vs. K.V. Narayanaswami Aiyar, Special Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ647
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a mortgage-deed executed by a person who subsequently became an insolvent. The date of the mortgage is 9th December, 1927 and the mortgagor was adjudicated insolvent in October, 1930. The appellant is the mortgagee. In June, 1931, he sued on his mortgage in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. In August, 1931, the Official Receiver applied in Insolvency before the same Judge under Sections 4 and 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to have the mortgage set aside. In October, 1934, the Subordinate Judge decreed the appellant's suit and dismissed the application of the Official Receiver. Against the decree, no appeal was filed by the Official Receiver who contented himself with filing an appeal against the order of dismissal under the Provincial Insolvency Act. That appeal was heard by the learned District Judge of Coimbatore who reversed the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge and under Section 4 of the Act held that the ...
In Re: A.V. Jones and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad572; (1940)1MLJ533
Sidney Burn, Officiating C.J.1. Under Section 106(1)(a) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act it is quite clear that where an insolvent's estate has been ordered to be administered in a summary manner, no appeal lies from any order of the Court except by leave of the Court. The proviso to Section 106(1) is concerned solely with the provisions of the Act relating to the discharge of the insolvent and has no bearing on the question of appealability of orders passed. In this case no leave has been obtained. This appeal therefore cannot be entertained and it is rejected....
Manthiri Goundan Vs. Arunachalam Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad569; (1940)1MLJ711
Pandrang Row, J.1. These appeals are connected. One is from an order dismissing the application of the appellant to restore to file the petition to set aside a sale presented by him which had been dismissed for default; and the other is an appeal from the order dismissing the petition to set aside the sale. The appellant who was the first defendant in O.S. No. 18 of 1934 had been adjudicated an insolvent and the application, was made by him to set aside the sale on various grounds. That application was dismissed for default on the 9th December, 1937. An application to restore the petition to file was made on the next day and that also was dismissed. As a result we have two appeals from the two orders which were passed against the appellant. So far as the application made on the 10th December, 1937, to restore the petition to file is concerned it is not seriously argued that such a petition was competent. The learned Subordinate Judge relied on the Full Bench decision in Arunachalam v. ...
In Re: Boya Lingadu Alias Dubbodu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad509; (1940)1MLJ428
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Anantapur in respect of a verdict of not guilty returned by the jury on a charge of theft and in the alternative of retention of stolen property knowing it to be stolen. The case was a very simple one. The only evidence incriminating the accused was that certain articles were produced by the accused before the Police Officer, who investigated the case, and another witness. The ownership of the articles was proved by the persons in whose houses the thefts had taken place. The suggestion in the cross-examination of the Police Officer was that the articles said to have been produced by the accused were really handed over to the Police by the complainants themselves, and it is possible that the jury thought there was some truth in this suggestion. The jury's verdict was unanimous, and it cannot be said that simply because there is no reason to be found in the record for disbelieving the evidence of these two witnesses the...
N.K.R.M.N. Nagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Raja Srimanthu Muthu Vijaya R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad532; (1940)1MLJ442
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Wadsworth, J., who confirmed on second appeal the decision of the District Judge, Ramnad, reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah in O.S. No. 131 of 1929 on his file. The suit had been instituted by the trustees and hukhdars of three temples in the village of Naganathapuram, for a declaration that the boundaries fixed by the survey authorities between the village of Veeriyanandal belonging to the temples, and the adjacent village of Senjai belonging to the zamindar of Sivaganga were wrong and for the rectification of those boundaries in accordance with the true lights of the parties. At the time of the survey and at the date of the suit the Sivaganga zamindari was under the management of the Court of Wards and the latter were accordingly joined as the first defendant in the suit. The Court of Wards however dropped out of the litigation after the disposal of the suit in cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›