Chennai Court November 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.
Nagasundaram Pillai Vs. Mathurbootham Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad556; (1941)1MLJ218
Wadsworth, J.1. In the light of the subsequent events this appeal is now only of importance so far as the question of costs is concerned. The appellant was the second defendant in a suit on a mortgage. The mortgage was executed by an individual of whom the appellant is one of the heirs. After the decree there were two applications to scale down the decree under Section 19 of the Madras Act IV of 1938, one by the ninth defendant, a stranger, and the other by the fourth defendant who is a co-heir with the appellant, but not a co-parcener. There was a dispute as to whether the appellant was or was not duly served with notice of these applications. For the sake of argument we will assume that he was served. The lower Court has held, quoting the decision in Gaja Gopi Reddi v. Pulla Rami Reddi : AIR1939Mad500 , that the appellant cannot move under Section 20 of the Act by reason of his failure to apply for scaling down at the time when the other co-defendants filed applications. It seems to ...
K.V. Narayanaswami Aiyar Vs. Sevadappa Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ932
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the case falls within the Full Bench decision of this Court in Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial (1905) 16 M.L.J. 63 : I.L.R. 29 Mad. 333 . The appeal is under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of King, J. The learned Judge considered that the case did not fall within that decision, but gave a certificate permitting the filing of this appeal. After a careful consideration of the facts and the judgment in Panchanada Velan v. Vaithinatha Sastrial (1905) 16 M.L.J. 63 : I.L.R. 29 Mad. 333 , we are of the opinion that this appeal should be allowed.2. The facts are these. On the 25th October, 1930, one Sengoda Mudaliar was adjudicated an insolvent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbalore. On the 9th December, 1927 the insolvent mortgaged certain immoveable property belonging to him to the respondent to secure a sum of Rs, 7,000. On the 23rd June, 1931, the mortgagee instituted a suit in t...
Alampalli Athmaramayya Vs. S. Seshappaiyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad409; (1941)1MLJ173
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit on a promissory note dated the 17th July, 1933 and on that promissory note were acknowledgments up to the 26th February, 1934. The plaint was filed on the 1st December, 1937, which was more than three years after the last acknowledgment endorsed on the promissory note. To save limitation, the petitioner relied on two postcards dated the 14th January, 1935 and the 25th March, 1935. The District Munsif of Kollegal, in whose Court the plaint was presented, rejected the plaint on the ground that the postcards of the 14th January, 1935 and the 25th March, 1935 did not acknowledge this particular debt.2. It is true that on the face of these two postcards it cannot be said that they necessarily refer to the suit debt; but the plaintiff's only contention here is that the plaint should not have been rejected in limine; and that he should have been given an opportunity after the plaint was admitted to prove by evidence that these postcards related to the...
The Standard Type Foundry by the Proprietor, A. Thiruvengada Mudaliar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad589; (1941)1MLJ540
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsif of Rajahmundry made on 6th December, 1937, in I. A. No. 934 of 1937 in O. P. No. 33 of 1937. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit--No. 1103 of 1936--on the file of the Second Panchayat Court, Rajahmundry governed. with respect to its jurisdiction and procedure by the provisions of the Madras Village Courts Act, 1888. The respondent instituted the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 24-10-6 alleged to be due to him on dealings. The petitioner entered a defence alleging, firstly, that the Panchayat Court had no jurisdiction, and, secondly, that the money claimed was not due. He however failed to appear on the date of the hearing with the result that an ex parte decree was passed against him on 4th February, 1937. On the 3rd August, 1937, the petitioner moved the District Munsif, Rajahmundry in O. P. No. 33 of 1937, for an order setting aside the decree passed by the Panchayat Court on the gr...
In Re: S. Yegnanarayaniah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ256
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The tax was enhanced by the Special Officer under Rule 24 of Schedule IV of the Madras Local Boards Act and the rule does not require any notice before the tax is enhanced. The notice of demand was duly served and the evidence shows that the son of the petitioner prevented the distraint of his properties. There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction and the revision petition is dismissed....
In Re: S. Yegnanarayanaih
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad800
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The tax was enhanced by the special officer under Rule 24 of Schedule 4, Madras Local Boards Act, and the rule does not require any notice before the tax is enhanced. The notice of demand was duly served and the evidence shows that the son of the petitioner prevented the distraint of his properties. There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction and the revision petition is dismissed....
Damaraju Venkatarayudu Vs. T. Narayanayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad430; (1941)1MLJ349
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. One Venkatanarasimhayya died in 1887, leaving him surviving his widow Lakshmamma who succeeded to his properties for a limited estate under Hindu Law. In 1923, Lakshmamma executed a deed of surrender by which she relinquished in favour of the then nearest reversioners, the entire estate inherited by her from her husband. The reversioners were Veeraraghavayya and Narayanayya. The deed recites that she had previously received from the reversioners a sum of Rs. 200, for necessary purposes. She also received for her maintenance a further sum of Rs. 300 from one of them--Veeraraghavayya at the time of the registration of the deed. Of the several properties included in the surrender, the suit property was one, though at the time the title to it was under dispute in a suit then pending between Veeraraghavayya on the one side and the widow and Narayanayya on the other. In that suit Veeraraghavayya denied that it formed part of Venkatanarasimhayya's estate and assert...
Ganta Bangarigadu and ors. Vs. Paltheru Atchutaramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad572; (1941)1MLJ384
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 16th September, 1928 the first respondent was granted a patta by the second respondent for land situate within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court of Parvatipur. The land covered by the patta admittedly forms part of an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The appellants were in possession of the land at the time, but they were trespassers. The first respondent did not take steps immediately to evict them and in fact allowed them to continue in possession of the land until the 30th September, 1929, when he filed the present suit in the District Munsif's Court for their eviction. The defence of the appellants was successful. The District Munsif held that the first respondent was not entitled to maintain the suit as his patta had expired when the plaint was filed and the landholder had not been made a party.2. On appeal by the first respondent the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam concurred in the decision of ...
In Re: Pichumani Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad281
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The plea of the petitioner was misunderstood and the conviction cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and there will be a retrial in accordance with law. The fine if levied will be refunded....
Ambujammal Vs. P. Thangavelu Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad399; (1941)1MLJ193
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition challenges the correctness of an order confirming a sale when the decree upon which the sale was based had been set aside in appeal in the interval between the holding of the sale and the passing of the order of confirmation. Under this decree there were two sales. At the first the decree holder was the purchaser and the sale was set aside. On 11th December, 1939, there was a fresh sale and the present respondent, a stranger, purchased the property. Against this sale also there was an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. That application was dismissed on 25th January, 1940; but for some reason the sale was not immediately confirmed. On 30th January, 1940, the defendant's appeal succeeded and the suit was dismissed. On the following day the executing Court was appraised of this result and the matter of the confirmation of the sale was adjourned. Meanwhile a review application was filed against the dismissal of the application ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »