Chennai Court October 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.
Suddapalli Satyanarayana Vs. Chapalamadugu Rangayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad480; (1941)1MLJ469
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. In this civil miscellaneous appeal two points were urged by Mr. Rajah Aiyar on behalf of the appellant (1) that the application by the first respondent as transferee-decree-holder is incompetent on the ground that there was no decree in favour of the alleged assignors which could be transferred and (2) that the transfer is not binding on the appellant on the ground that it has not been proved to be for a valid necessity.2. In regard to the first contention there can be no doubt that the assignors of the first respondent were entitled to recover mesne profits in pursuance of the appellate decree in O.S. No. 72 of 1910 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bapatla. It is not disputed by Mr. Rajah Aiyar that they were competent to apply for recovery of mesne profits by way of restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code. If they were competent to do so, we do not see any reason why their assignee is incompetent to do so. The right to recover mesne profits which the ...
Kannoth Punnoron Krishnan (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kanoth Punnaran Thal ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad605; (1941)1MLJ508
King, J.1. In this appeal the question arises whether the provisions of Section 48 of the Madras Marumakkattayam Act of 1932 shall be applied to the partition of a certain item of property. The property was admittedly purchased in the year 1881 by the husband of one Manikkam in the name of Manikkam and their eldest daughter Choyichi. The first part of Section 48 reads:Where a person bequeaths or makes a gift of any property to, or purchases any property in the name of, his wife alone or his wife and one or more of his children by such wife together, such property shall, unless a contrary intention appears from the will or deed of gift or purchase or from the conduct of the parties, be taken as tavazhi property by the wife, her sons and daughters by such person and the lineal descendants of such daughters in the female line.2. The section Concludes with a proviso:Provided that, in the event of partition of the property taking place under Chapter VI, the property shall be divided on the ...
S. Venkiteswara Aiyer Vs. T.N. Ramasami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad403
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question of appropriation with reference to an application under Section 19, Madras Act, 4 of 1938. The appellant, who is the applicant in the Court below, was defendant 1 in this suit. The debt, so far as we need trace it back, starts with a principal of Rs. 7250 as on 27th April 1925 when a security bond was executed. Before the suit there were certain payments, the exact figure of which seems to be doubtful. The suit was filed in 1.928 for a sum of Rs. 11,500. It ended in a decree which, so far as defendants 3 to 5 were concerned was based on a compromise and the same decree was made applicable to defendants 1 and 2 who allowed the suit to proceed ex parte. The decree provided for a payment of Rs. 12,116 within four months or in default for payment of Rs. 14,116, with interest at six per cent. No payment was made. The hypotheca mortgaged under the security bond was sold and realized Rs. 5420 which was credited to the decree and part satisfaction ...
M. Lakshmana Aiyar and anr. Vs. Aiyasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ1
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which has been referred for decision is this:Does the expression 'defaulter' in the Madras Estates Land Act denote only the person who is the registered pattadar, or the heir of the registered pattadar, or the person whom the landholder has become bound to recognize as the ryot by reason of the provisions of Section 146, or does it also include a person who has been accepted by a landholder as his ryot and has defaulted in the payment of his rent.2. The reference arises under the unamended Act and has 'been occasioned by the definition of the word 'defaulter' given by Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in The Midnapore Zemindari Co., Ltd. v. Muthappudayan (1920) 40 M.L.J. 213 : I.L.R. 44 Mad. 534. When the appeal out of which the reference arises was before the Bench responsible for making the reference it was contended that the definition was too limited in its scope and as it appeared that there was foundation for this argument it was decided to place ...
In Re: Boya Polamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad225; (1941)1MLJ20
Horwill, J.1. Boya Polamma has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Kurnool of the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, but as the Judge felt towards the end of the trial that she was unable to understand the proceedings, he has referred this case to us under Section 341, Criminal Procedure Code. It has since been reported that there is no likelihood of her hearing improving.2. There is no doubt in our minds that the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting Boya Polamma of the offence with which she was charged. The prosecution story is that Boya Polamma was married to P. W. 8 and that just before this murder took place P. W. 8 took her and her children away to another village, and that he there renewed his intimacy with one Lakshmi, whom he was keeping as his concubine before he married Boya Polamma. She seems to have quarrelled with her husband for having resumed his relationship with Lakshmi in spite of his assurance that he would give up Laks...
Thondam Annamalai Mudali Vs. Tiruttani Ramasami Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad161; (1941)1MLJ45
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide two questions referred by Krishnaswami Aiyangar and Somayya, JJ., in a second appeal arising out of a suit for possession. The two questions are:1. Whether an application by a stranger auction-purchaser for delivery of possession as against the judgment-debtor or his representative is covered by Section 47(C. P. Code)?2. Whether Section 47 applies to a case where the dispute arises between a party and his own representative or between the two persons who both represent the same party?2. Before proceeding to discuss these questions I will state the circumstances under which they arise.3. One Kalathi Mudaliar obtained a money decree and on the 18th September, 1921, in execution of that decree attached certain immovable property. On the 26th September, 1921, the judgment-debtor's widow sold the property to defendants 1 to 3. On the 7th January, 1922, the property was sold by the Court in the execution proceed...
P.N. Krishna Pattar Vs. Kannambra Nayar Veettil Valia Amma Kutti Neith ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad394; (1941)1MLJ178
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of some difficulty and importance. The question is whether there can be a valid pledge of the shares of a company registered under the Indian Companies Act by the mere deposit of shares as a security for a debt. The question has arisen in this case thus. One Subramania Pattar was indebted to Ramakrishna Pattar on a promissory note dated 22nd March, 1931. This note was subsequently endorsed to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that when he demanded the amount due under the note, Subramania Pattar deposited the shares which he held in Parali Tile Works Ltd., as and by way of pledge. He therefore filed this suit for recovery of the debt by sale of the said shares. The main contesting defendant in the case is the fourth defendant who purchased the shares in Court auction in execution of a decree in S. C. No. 13 of 1934 on the file of the Palghat Sub-Court obtained by the third defendant against the said Subramania Patta...
Naraparaju Ramamurthy Vs. Parimi Venkatanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ190
Abdur Rahman, J.1. An order was passed by the President of the District Board of Guntur on the 7th February, 1939, appointing defendant 1 as temporary President to conduct an election of the President of the Panchayat Board of Inukollu (Ex. XXV). Notices to the members of the Panchayat Board intimating that the election of the President would be held on the 25th February, 1939, are stated to have been issued on the 16th February, 1939, Exs. XII to XXIII. It was alleged on behalf of the first and second defendants that certain proceedings took place on the date mentioned in which the second defendant was elected to be the President. An order was passed by the Government of Madras on the 12th May, 1939, G.O. No. 1879 (Ex. VIII), holding that the second defendant was validly elected. It is not necessary for me to refer to any more letters written by or on behalf of the Inspector of Municipal Councils subsequently. But before the election was held on the 25th February, 1939, a suit was ins...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Panchakarla Sooramma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad617; (1941)1MLJ716
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against the acquittal of respondent of an offence under Rules 27 and 29 framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act.2. The respondent, a golla woman, was selling milk near the Railway station and the Sanitary Inspector purchased half a seer of milk for sample. The milk was found to contain 14 per cent. of water and Rule 27 of the rules framed under Section 20 of the Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act provides that no person shall add any water to milk intended for sale or offer for sale milk to which any such addition has been made. Rule 29 makes a breach of that rule punishable with fine and the purity of the milk is immaterial. The respondent would there fore be guilty under Rules 27 and 29 and her acquittal on the ground that the milk was not otherwise adulterated is unsustainable. The. appeal is therefore allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. The respondent is convicted under R...
Veerabhadra Pillai Vs. O.A. Narayanaswami Aiyar, Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ831
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised that this revision is not competent. The petitioner made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. This has been refused by the lower Court on the ground that he has no locus standi to make the application. The order will show that the Court has not passed any order setting aside or refusing to set aside the sale and it is these orders alone which are appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. If the lower Court's . action, as Mr. Justice Oldfield said in Sundaram v. Mausa Mavuthar consisted in a refusal to deal with the judgment-debtor's petition, a non-exercise of the jurisdiction must be held to be revisable since the decision was not a conclusion of law or fact but one in which the question of jurisdiction was involved. I would therefore overrule the preliminary objection.2. The lower Court will report whether the entire property was sold in these proceedings or whether the melwaram in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »