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.
P. Venkatasubbiah Chetty and ors. Vs. the Jumma Mosque, by Its Muttava ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad666; (1941)1MLJ754
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The suit out of which it arises was filed in the City Civil Court by the trustees of the Jumma Masjid in Cutchery Road, Mylapore, Madras for the redemption of four mortgages. The mortgaged properties consisted of two blocks. The first block was mortgaged by a deed executed on the 14th February, 1873. A part of the second block was mortgaged on the 9th February, 1850, another part on the 28th January, 1860, and the remainder of the block on the 19th December, 1864, The City Civil Court Judge held that the trustees had not proved that the properties belonged to the mosque. He also held that the suit was barred by the law of limitation in so far as it concerned the mortgage of the properties in the first block. The result was that the suit was dismissed with costs. The trustees appealed to this Court and their appeal was heard by Patanjali Sastri, J., who disagreed with the trial Court on the questi...
Chithuri Ramamohana Rao Vs. Peteti Raghavamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ471
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are petitions to revise the orders of the District Judge of Kistna dated the 30th March, 19-39 allowing two persons to be impleaded as respondents in an appeal which had come on for hearing and in which an objection had been taken by the only respondent in the appeal till then that the appeal itself was liable to be dismissed in limine in view of the omission to implead one of those persons as a respondent, namely, the second defendant in the suit. The application to implead the second defendant was made by the appellants. The other application was made by the third defendant herself to be impleaded as a respondent. Both the applications were allowed by the Court below in very short orders which merely were to the effect that the persons in question were to be added as respondents subject to objections that might be made regarding amendment of the grounds of appeal.2. So far as C. R. P. No. 746 of 1939 is concerned, it relates to the application by the third de...
Rajah Saheb Meharban I Dosthan Sree Rajah Ravu Venkatakumara Mahipathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ781
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the dismissal of a suit filed for mesne profits alleged to be due on land admittedly ryoti, situated within an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, forming part of a holding which has been sold for arrears of rent. The facts are not very clear, but from the plaint it appears that defendants 1 to 8 in the suit were the pattadars and that there was a default and the plaintiff applied for sale and bought the land in revenue Court auction in two sales, one on 12th September, 1931, and the other on 3rd June, 1932. From the date of the sales defendants 9 to 17 were alleged to be cultivating the land and it is stated that this cultivation was without permission from the plaintiff. The landlord got possession of part of the land on 25th April, 1933, and of the rest on 20th June, 1933. Having got possession, the plaintiff waited for approximately three years and then filed the present suit in the civil Court claiming mesne profits* from ...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. S. Venkatasubramanyam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad358; (1941)1MLJ34
Burn, J. 1. The learned Public Prosecutor has brought up in revision the order passed by the learned Sessions judge of Chittoor in S. C. No. 14 of 1940. In that case the accused Venkatasubramanyam was charged with abetment of murder (Ss. 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code). The assessors unanimously expressed the opinion that he was guilty and the learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Sections 302 and 114 but the learned Judge, instead of passing any sentence upon the accused, has reported the case to Government for orders under Section 27 of the Madras Children Act (IV of 1920). Pending the orders of the Government the learned Judge has ordered the accused to be detained in the Senior Certified School at Chingleput.2. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is based upon the fact that the accused was under 16 years on the 8th of February, 1940, when this dreadful crime, as the learned Judge properly calls it, was committed. The learned Judge says that the accused was a 'youn...
C.S. Jagannatha Aiyangar Vs. Senniveera Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad487; (1941)1MLJ197
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant in this case is an insolvent who applied to the Insolvency Court under Sections 8 and 9 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to scale down the amount due on a mortgage. The mortgage in question is Ex. I dated 15th July, 1931, for a principal sum of Rs. 10,650, made up of four items of consideration. One is a prior mortgage on which Rs. 7000 was due for principal and Rs. 1858-8-0 was due for interest. Ex. I stipulates that the properties shall be enjoyed by the mortgagee for two years in lieu of interest, that on the expiry of two years, the mortgagor shall pay the amount due and if he fails to do so, the mortgagee shall retain the right to enjoy the , usufruct of the properties and shall also be entitled to interest at three per cent per annum in addition to the usufruct. The Courts below have held that this provision for interest is to be regarded as a penalty and that for the purposes of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act it may be ignored and the mortgage treated as a pos...
Muthuswami Chettiar Vs. Narayanaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad710; (1941)1MLJ626
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition arises out of an order dismissing an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to add the petitioner as party to a mortgage suit. The mortgagee was a deceased person whose property was claimed by an alleged adopted son. The present petitioner challenged the validity of the adoption and claimed himself to be entitled to the properties of the deceased mortgagee. There was a suit to declare that the adoption was invalid. This suit was compromised in 1934, the result being that the right of the present petitioner was recognised as to one half of the properties and the right of the adopted son to the other half. There was also a subsequent partition suit to divide the properties as a result of which the present mortgage was to be shared equally between the two. However, in 1936 the adopted son purported to assign the suit mortgage to the plaintiff as if he was solely entitled thereto. The plaintiff brought a suit on the mortgage ignoring...
M.F.R. D'Cruz Vs. K.N. Viswanathan (The Official Liquidator)
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-15-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ94
Gentle, J.1. The capital of the company was Rs. 50,00,000 divided into 1,50,000 7 1/2 per cent. preference shares of Rs. 10 each and 3,50,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10 each. Of these, 702 preference shares were issued and held by 46 persons representing in the aggregate issued capital of Rs. 7,020 and 13,245 ordinary shares were issued and held by 105 persons representing issued ordinary share capital of Rs. 1,32,450. 68 of the ordinary shares have been fully paid and the remainder are partly paid. The matters which now require decision are as follows:1. Whether the holders of the preference shares are entitled to be repaid the amount of their capital out of the calls made upon the ordinary shareholders in respect of the unpaid portion of their share money, and2. Whether, in addition, the preference shareholders are entitled to a cumulative dividend at 7 1/2 per cent. upon each preference share.2. Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Association, which deals with capital, is as follows:The sa...
T.V. Bashyakar and ors. Vs. the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Boar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad510; (1941)1MLJ250
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal and the Civil Revision Petition which is filed in the alternative challenge the correctness of the decision of the District Judge of Chingleput on an application to set aside an order of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board declaring the temple of Sri Devarajaswami at Conjeeveram to be an excepted temple on the ground that the right of succession to the office of trustee has been hereditary. The learned District Judge agreed with the view of the Board that the temple was an excepted temple within the definition in Section 9(5) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.2. A preliminary objection raises the question whether the appeal is maintainable and if not whether there are any grounds which justify interference in revision. In our opinion, there is no right of appeal against the order of the Court under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. So much was decided by the Full Bench which heard the case of Rajagopala Chettiar v. Hindu...
Nanjappa Chetty Vs. Perumal Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ408
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem. The Subordinate Judge held that the appellant's claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This decision was concurred in by the District Judge of Salem to whom the appellant appealed. The appellant then filed a second appeal to this Court. The appeal was heard by Patanjali Sastri, J., who without hesitation agreed with the District Judge. The learned Judge having given a certificate under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent this Court is called upon to give the question further consideration. We also have no hesitation in rejecting the appeal, and we are bound to say that it is regrettable that this question which presents no difficulty should have occupied so much judicial time and involved the expenditure of so much money.2. The facts are these. The appellant, the first respondent and the third respondent are brothers who were joint until 1925....
P.R.M.P.L.R.M. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. K. Periaswami Konar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad885; (1941)2MLJ447
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the mortgage deed sued upon contains a personal covenant on the part of the mortgagor enforceable by the mortgagee. On the 9th October, 1926 the first respondent executed in favour of the appellant a deed of othi (usufructuary mortgage) for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 received by the mortgagor. The 2nd respondent is the purchaser of the suit property subject to the mortgage. The document contains the following covenants:Therefore, in lieu of interest for the said amount, you shall enter upon the undermentioned properties and enjoy the same for a period of seven years from this date, under the right of usufructuary mortgage with possession being entitled to both the varams. In any year after the expiry of the stipulated period I shall redeem by giving notice in Panguni, and paying money in Chitrai.2. The appellant instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for enforcing th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »