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.
M. Lakshmana Ayyar and anr. Vs. Aiyasami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad149
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 Ayyar J. in Midnapore Zamindari Co., Ltd. v. Muthuppudavan ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 195. 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 the question before a Pull Bench for dec...
Veerabhadra Pillai Vs. O.A. Narayanaswami Ayyar, Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad653
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 P.C. 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 Pro. Code, If the lower Court's action, as Oldfield J. said in Sundaram v. Mamsa Mavuthar A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 157 consisted in a refusal to deal with the judgment-debtor's petition, a non-exercise of their 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 intere...
M.T. Rajamanickam Chetty and anr. Vs. T.R. Abdul Halim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad389; (1941)1MLJ22
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the right to continue a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput has devolved upon the respondent. The suit was instituted by one T.S. Abdul Kuddus Sahib on the 9th March, 1934. The plaintiff asked for a decree for Rs. 15,000 as damages flowing from the wrongful termination of a lease in his favour and the entry upon the' leased premises of the defendants, who are the appellants. The lease was dated the 9th September, 1930 and was for a term of three years which commenced on the 15th of that month. The premises leased consisted of a building which was being used as a cinema theatre. The agreement between the parties was that the lessors and the lessee should share equally in the rents of certain shops which were on the premises and the moneys derived from the letting of the theatre for entertainments. The plaintiff averred that the lessors resented the fact that he was entitled to ha...
In Re: Vinaitheerthal Achi Alias Annapurani Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ774
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This is a reference made to me on the correct court-fee payable on the memorandum of appeal presented against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in O.S. No. 69 of 1939 on his file. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 18,897-0-9 from the defendant as a first charge from and out of the properties possessed by him, namely, the separate properties inherited from his father and the joint family properties which he and his father possessed and which on the death of his father he got by survivorship. The defendant is the minor son of the plaintiff. Her case was that her stridhanam property was entrusted by her father to her husband, the defendant's father, on trust, that he agreed to hold such property in trust for her, to improve it and return it to her when she was in need of it, that he mixed it with his own assets both separate and joint family and that therefore the defendant was bound to return her money from and out of the said assets ...
Maki Nanji Reddi and ors. Vs. Narasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad833
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The reference is accepted. The order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kadiri dated 16 February 1940 and made in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1940 is set aside and he is directed to return the complaint to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court....
Rama Pattar's son Parameswara Aiyar Vs. Kootallor Manakkal Moopil Stan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad432; (1941)1MLJ177
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition arises out of the dismissal of an application under Section 15(4) of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner, who is an agriculturist, obtained an . assignment of the land on which the rent was due on 1st June, 1938, that is to say, after the Act came into force. On the date of the commencement of the Act the tenant was his assignor. The latter is admittedly not an agriculturist. The petitioner claims the benefits of Section 15 of the Act on the ground that he is an agriculturist and has deposited into Court the arrears due for faslis 1346 and 1347. We are of opinion that this petition cannot succeed. We have already expressed the view in C. R. P. No. 1632 of 1938 Amad Koya v. Appu : AIR1941Mad201 , that Section 15(1) requires that there should be rent outstanding on the date of the commencement of the Act, which rent must be, as on that date, payable by an agriculturist. In that case we were dealing with a slightly different contention from that now urg...
Kuniyil Chandu Vs. Mathiledath Sankaran and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad558; (1941)1MLJ573
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant who is the owner of a paramba in South Malabar to evict the respondents from it. The paramba had been demised on kanom to the first respondent on the 31st May, 1927. A kychit of even date was executed by him and evidences the terms of the contract. The demise was for a period of 12 years, but was terminable earlier at the option of the appellant, on the happening of one or other of certain conditions mentioned in the kychit. Those conditions are found stated in it in the following words:If I keep the rent in arrears, or do any acts prejudicial to you or i you are in need of the plot or if I quarry stones from the plot without your written consent thereto, I shall an demand by you surrender the plot to you without raising any dispute whatever, or any plea as to the terms....2. On the 3rd August, 1931, the appellant served a notice on the respondents demanding surrender of the paramba on the ground t...
Nataraja Pillai and anr. Vs. Rangaswami Karamundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-21-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ682
Wadsworth, J.1. These three matters all arise out of the same order which raises a question under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. C.M.A. No. 325 and C.R.P. No. 1346 are alternative proceedings brought by the first defendant. C.M.A. No. 428 is an appeal against the same decision by the other defendants in the case.2. There was a decree passed on 31st January, 1934 for a sum of Rs. 10,000 and odd by the Tanjore Subordinate Judge's Court. In execution of that decree a sale was held under the orders of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam on 26th August, 1937 and the property was purchased by the decree-holder for Rs. 11,328, which was a little more than the amount due under the execution petition. He was given leave to bid and set off, so that there was no actual payment of cash. Within one month of the sale an application was filed by the defendants under Order 21, Rule 90 Civil Procedure Code to set aside the sale on the ground of irregularity etc. When that application was still pe...
In Re: Thandra Narasimhappadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad275
ORDER1. The crop was raised by the petitioner and it was harvested by him before possession was restored to the opposite party. There was therefore no disobedience of the order prohibiting the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the opposite party and the conviction under Section 188 (2), Penal Code, is unsustainable. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and his bail bonds will be cancelled....
In Re: Ramanuja Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ830
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner has been charged under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Defence of India Rules for doing a prejudicial act within the meaning of Rule 34(6)(e) and (k) and a report in writing of the facts has been made by a public servant as required by Rule 130(1). Section 3 of the Defence of India Act enacts that rules made for the arrest and trial of pensons contravening any of the rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other enactment and Section 1, Clause (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that nothing therein shall affect any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. That the prejudicial act might amount to sedition which according to Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be taken cognizance of by any Court unless upon the complaint made by order of or under the authority of the Provincial Government has therefore no bearing and the objection to the com...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »