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.
In Re: Guru Subramania Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad181; (1940)2MLJ1016
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was a resident of Tiruvattiyur and a complaint of criminal breach of trust was received against him. He was arrested by the Sub-Inspector of Tiruvattiyur at Bangalore (Civil and Military Station) without a warrant on 27th December, 1939, and produced before the First Class Magistrate there on 28th December. The Magistrate remanded him to the custody of the Sub-Inspector for production before the Sub-Magistrate of Saidapet on 30th December, and he was produced before the Sub-Magistrate of Saidapet on 30th December. The Sub-Magistrate remanded him for ten days to enable the police to complete the investigation, and an application for bail was moved the next day. The petitioner was released on bail on 31st December, and he returned to Bangalore. The chargesheet was filed on 5th March, 1940, and a summons was issued for the appearance of the petitioner on 20th March. The petitioner appeared on 20th March and the case was adjourned to 30th March for i...
Gaffar Khan Vs. Syed Noor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad391; (1941)1MLJ27
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law relating to limitation. The appellant posed as a Doctor, but he had no qualifications. On the 25th February, 1934, the respondent had the misfortune to consult him and underwent an examination at the appellant's consulting room in Yunus Ali Street in Triplicane. He had with him at the time a wallet, containing Rs. 1,500 in currency notes. The wallet was in one of the pockets of the respondent's coat. For the purpose of the examination he had to take off the coat and he hung it up on a nail in the wall. The appellant took the opportunity to steal the wallet and the respondent did not discover the loss until the next day. When he did so he laid a complaint against the appellant. This led to the latter's arrest and conviction. The appellant was found guilty of the theft on the 24th July, 1934 and sentenced to a period of six months' imprisonment. On the 6th August, 1937, more than three years after the con...
Pachigolla Satyanarayanamurthi Vs. Satti Gangisetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad497; (1941)1MLJ223
Wadsworth, J.1. The first two cases are alternative one to the other, being an appeal and a revision against an order scaling down a decree under Section 19 of Madras Act 4 of 1938. C.M.A. No. 119 of 1939 arises out of the same decree and is preferred against an order declining to implead the purchaser as a party to the final decree. The facts are simple. In 1936 there was a preliminary decree on a mortgage of 1930. On 3rd February 1937 a portion of the hypotheca was sold and the sale proceeds were paid to the mortgagee who released that part of the hypotheca. On 19th March 1937, there was a final decree for sale of the balance of hypotheca. On 9th October 1937 there was a further private sale by the mortgagor comprising the greater portion of his remaining interest and the purchaser paid us. 25,000 out of the sale price to the mortgagee, the balance of the sale price being retained for future payment. In this state of affairs, when the mortgagor retained his interest in only a few ite...
Minor Ramachandra by Next Friend K.L. Bhandary, Vakil Vs. Minor Shanta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ77
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise the decree of the Court of the District Munsif of Kundapur dismissing the petitioner's small cause suit No. 381 of 1936 as barred by limitation.2. The suit was brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note executed by the first respondent's father on 30th September, 1926. After his- death in 1932, the first respondent's guardian executed a mortgage on 20th December, 1932, in favour of the second respondent's husband who was directed to discharge the suit debt as part of the consideration for the mortgage. The mortgagee made payments for interest on 29th May, 1933, and 16th July, 1934, which were duly endorsed on the promissory note, but failed to pay the balance of the debt. The suit was instituted in 1936 for the recovery of such balance and it was not disputed that it would be in time if the second payment of interest referred to above satisfied the requirements of Section 20 of the Limitation Act. The Court below held that...
A. Sabapathi Mudaliar Vs. Rajarathna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ302
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against a decision under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. We have been asked to treat the appeal as a civil revision petition and it has been heard on that footing. The appellant will pay the deficient court-fee.2. The petitioner (appellant) sought to scale down the decree on a mortgage (Ex. A) dated the 27th June, 1933. This mortgage was the result of a long series of prior transactions. Firstly, there were three successive promissory notes executed by the petitioner's father Arunachalam, who is still living, in favour of the father of respondents 1 and 2. Then in 1919 the debt was split into two promissory notes (Exs. C and C-l) executed by the same Arunachalam, one in favour of the first respondent and the other in favour of the second respondent, the respondents family being undivided. In July, 1920 there was a partition in the debtor's family between the petitioner and his father Arunachalam. And in 1921 the father A...
A. Sabhapathi Mudaliar Vs. Rajarathna Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad495
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against a decision under Section 19 of Madras Act, 4 of 1938. We have been asked to treat the appeal as a civil revision petition and it has been heard on that footing. The appellant will pay the deficient court-fee. The petitioner (appellant) sought to scale down the decree on a mortgage (EX. A) dated 27th June 1933. This mortgage was the result of a long series of prior transactions. Firstly, there were three successive promissory notes executed by the petitioner's father Arunachalam, who is still living, in favour of the father of respondents 1 and 2. Then in 1919 the debt was split into two promissory notes (Exs. C and C-1) executed by the same Arunachalam, one in favour of respondent 1 and the other in favour of respondent 2, the respondents' family being undivided. In July 1920 there was a partition in the debtor's family between the petitioner and his father Arunachalam. And in 1921 the father Arunachalam executed a mo...
Kodali Venkayamma Vs. Mamidipaka Ramakotayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad479; (1941)1MLJ316
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition arises out of an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner was the debtor. The transactions between the parties started with a promissory note for Rs. 200 in 1925. In 1928 there was a payment which cleared off all outstanding interest and a small portion of the principal and a fresh note was executed for Rs. 197-7-3. On 23rd August, 1931, there having been no further payment, a third promissory note was executed for Rs. 259-9-6. Towards this note there was a payment of Rs. 150 on 9th October, 1932, which was not expressly appropriated at that time towards principal or interest. On 17th August, 1934, the suit promissory note was executed for Rs. 162-10-0. This figure was arrived at by allowing counter interest on the payment of Rs. 150 and subtracting this payment and the interest thereon from the total amount due on the third note with interest up to the date of the renewal. The decree passed on this promissory note has been sca...
Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Ottu Veeru Goundar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ658
Wadsworth, J.1. This matter has been brought before us as a civil miscellaneous appeal but owing to the doubt regarding the existence of a right of appeal against an order under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 we have treated the appeal as a revision petition.2. The appellant was the decree-holder in a suit on a promissory note. There were five defendants. Defendants 1 and 2 were impleaded as promisors. Defendants 3 to 5 were implead-ed as liable under a letter of guarantee. The date of the promissory note was 4th January, 1931. The date of the letter of guarantee was 7th August, 1933. The suit ended in a compromise decree whereunder an amount of Rs. 5,000 and odd was agreed to be due for the debt including interest and costs. There were two applications before the lower Court, one by the first defendant and the other by the fifth defendant. There were no applications by defendants 2 to 4 nor was any evidence adduced that they were entitled to the benefits of the Act. The plaintiff...
In Re: Ardhanari Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad835
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The view of the District Magistrate is opposed to the language of Section 43, Madras Forest' Act, and the Public Prosecutor does not support the reference. The records will therefore be returned....
S. Ramaswami Aiyar Vs. Komalavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ1055
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram whereby the sale held on 17th March, 1938, in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1933 dh the file of that Court was set aside under Section 23 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act on the application of the respondent.2. The petitioner obtained the decree on foot of a mortgage executed in his favour by the respondent's brothers. The mortgage comprised in addition to certain other properties the six items of immovable property here in question to which the respondent claimed title under a will of her deceased father which is marked Ex. A in these proceedings. The respondent was impleaded as the fourth defendant in the suit and her claim to have these properties exonerated from liability failed as she was held estopped from setting up her own title to them by reason of having attested the mortgage, thereby leading the mortgage to believe that the mortgagors had the right-to mortgag...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »