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.
S. Ramaswami Iyer Vs. Komalavalli Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad277
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 on the file of that Court was set aside under Section 23, Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, on the application of the respondent. 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 defendant 4 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 mortgagee to believe that the mortgagors had the right to mortgage the properties....
In Re: Nannapaneni Seshayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad120; (1940)2MLJ895
Mockett, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur of the murder of a little girl one Seetharamamma. The trial Court imposed a sentence of transportation for life and the learned Judge who perused the judgment of the trial Court ordered the issue of a notice to the prisoner to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced to a sentence of death. * * * *2. After dealing with the evidence His Lordship concludes.3. In our view the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and we have no reason to suppose that the evidence for the prosecution is other than true.4. This appeal will therefore be dismissed.5. In considering the question whether the sentence should be enhanced, it is well to remember that the appellant has been convicted of the murder of a little girl whom he was proved; to have taken from her house for reasons which have been shown to be false. He was never intending to take her to her grandfather. The moment the ...
Kuthiravattath Kongasseri Puthukulangare Ukkali Alias Pappi Alias Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad408; (1941)1MLJ113
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover arrears of michavaram under, a kychit Ex. A dated 17th August, 1931, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. What was sought to be recovered was 30 paras of paddy and one anna three pies payable for the year 1931-32. Ex. A purports to be a renewal of a prior kanom under which the michavaram payable was 10 paras 1 edangali of paddy and one anna three pies. The defendant pleaded that the provision for the payment of increased michavaram was inserted in Ex. A without his knowledge and by the fraud of plaintiff's kariasthans, that he had agreed to take a renewal only on the same terms as those contained in the previous kanom Ex. I, that the stipulation in Ex. A for payment of increased michavaram was unsupported by consideration and was also opposed to the provisions of the Malabar Tenancy Act and that therefore it was not enforceable. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that Ex. A was execut...
Kovvuri Subba Rao Vs. Venkatapuram Panchayat Board Represented by Its ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ216
King, J.1. The petitioner brought the present suit in 1936 against the Panchayat Board of Venkatapuram to recover from it the balance said to be due upon an alleged loan of Rs. 400 made by him to the Board in March, 1933, which was to carry interest at Re. 1-9-0 per cent. per mensem. It is admit-ed by the petitioner that the Board has not obtained any sanction from the Local Government to borrow the money, as it was bound to do under the rules framed by the Government under Section 4 of the Local Authorities Loans Act. The Board accordingly contended that the contract was void and no suit to enforce it would lie. Petitioner accepted this proposition of law, but pleaded that though he could not enforce the contract as such, he was entitled to the restoration of his money under' Section 65 of the Contract Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam refused to allow petitioner to amend his plaint so as to found his claim upon Section 65, and also held that, even if the plaint were...
Chilakamarri Lakshminarasimhacharyulu Vs. the MclaurIn High School, Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ270
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree dated 9th September, 1937, of the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada in O.S. No. 22 of 1935 on his file. The suit was for damages estimated at Rs. 10,000 for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff from his appointment as First Assistant in the defendant School, namely, The McLaurin High School, Cocanada, which is represented in the litigation by its manager. The suit was dismissed with costs by the Court below and the plaintiff is the appellant before us.2. Two questions arise for determination in this appeal, namely, whether there was a breach of contract by the defendant, or, in other words, whether the dismissal of the plaintiff by the manager of the school was wrongful and if so, what is the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.3. So far as the first question is concerned, a similar question arises in a connected appeal, Appeal No. 30 of 1939, in which the contract of service or employment is couched in similar language. ...
Al. Sp. Pl. Subramanian Chettiar by His Agent Narayanan Chettiar Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad528; (1941)1MLJ267
King, J.1. The appellant in this appeal obtained a decree for about Rs. 1600 ex parte against three defendants on 1st October, 1929. There was an application by the first defendant only to have this decree set aside and an order was passed in his favour that it would be set aside if he deposited a sum of Rs. 1100 and odd. Some of this money was deposited but not all and on 27th June, 1930, a revised decree was passed by the Court, in which due notice was taken, in calculating the amount due by the defendants, of the amount which had been so deposited and was to be withdrawn by the decree-holder. The decree-holder subsequently filed a number of execution applications beginning with 1932 and continuing until 1936 and in all these applications, he proceeded on the assumption that the liability of the defendants was that recorded in the original decree. In execution, the first defendant's properties were brought to sale in February, 1937, and an application was filed under Order 21, Rule 9...
T. Sundaram Pillai Vs. Kandaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad387; (1941)1MLJ140
King, J.1. The appellant in this case is the holder of a decree obtained in the Court of the District Munsif of Trivandrum against two defendants. The first defendant was married to the appellant's daughter and the appellant in filing his suit in Trivandrum alleged that he had furnished the money to pay for the expenses of this marriage. He alleged further' that both the first defendant and his elder brother the second defendant had promised to repay that money to him. The first defendant did not contest his plaint in Trivandrum. The second defendant after being first set ex parte had the ex parte order set aside and then filed a written statement in which he attacked the plaintiff's claim in a number of ways one of which was by questioning the jurisdiction of the Trivandrum Court. After filing the written statement however he withdrew from further opposition and the result was that a decree was passed in favour of the present appellant against both the defendants. In 1937 the appellan...
R. Arunagiri Mudaliar Vs. T.R. Radhakrishna Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad44; (1941)2MLJ520
Abdur Rahman, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,100 being the principal and interest due under a mortgage deed Ex. A dated the 12th February, 1916, executed by the first defendant (who died during the pendency of the suit) in favour of the plaintiff. Twenty two items of property were covered by the mortgage out of which items 1 to 3 belonged to the first defendant originally and items 4 to 22 belonged to another person--one Ramachandra Aiyar. Out of these nineteen items of property, seven items (that is, items 4 to 10) were mortgaged with a Venkateswara Aiyar. Ramachandra Aiyar sold all the items that he owned (that is, items 4 to 22) to the first defendant in 1912 subject to Venkateswara Aiyar's mortgage and the first defendant mortgaged all the properties which he owned (that is, items 1 to 22) for Rs. 5,000 with the plaintiff under Ex. A, A second mortgage for Rs. 2,500 in respect of the items 4 to 22 was created by the first defendant in favour of the...
Kota Ramayya and ors. Vs. Tummalapalli Peda Kotayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ557
Wadsworth, J.1. It seems to me clear that in Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938 the words 'property, in which an agriculturist had an interest has been sold' must refer to the state of affairs at the time of the sale and cannot cover a case in which the agriculturist had parted with his interest in the property sold long before the sale. Admittedly the property sold in the present case belonged solely to the non-agriculturist defendants. Section 23 has therefore no application. The petitions are dismissed with costs in Civil Revision Petition No. 1039 of 1939....
Chelikani Lakshmi Venkayamma Vs. Mandapati Venkatapathiraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad382; (1941)1MLJ25
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of the interpretation of Section 9 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner here was the plaintiff in the Court below. She sued on a promissory note for Rs. 600 dated 20th March, 1935, which carried interest at 15 per cent. per annum. The plaint alleged a series of payments totalling Rs. 165 towards interest and thereafter a payment of Rs. 212 towards interest and principal on 15th March, 1938. The lower Court assumed the truth of the assertion in the plaint that the payments were towards interest without recording any finding on the subject and concluded that the balance left over after crediting these payments towards the interest as scaled down under Section 9(1) of the Act would be available in reduction of the principal amount. It is contended that this interpretation of the section is wrong.2. Section 9(1) stipulates that interest shall be calculated up to the commencement of the Act at the contract rate or at 5 per c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »