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.V. Ramalingam Chettiar Vs. the Debt Conciliation Board and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad385; (1941)1MLJ108
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for the quashing of an order passed by the Debt Conciliation Board of Dharmapuri on the 4th February, 1940. It is abundantly clear that the order of the Board was one which was passed without jurisdiction, but the main question is whether the petitioner has by his conduct forfeited his claim to have the rule nisi which has been issued made absolute.2. On the 19th July, 1939, the second respondent applied to the Board for the settlement of his debts under the provisions of Section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. His application shows that the petitioner was his only creditor and according to the second respondent he owed him two sums of Rs. 200 each under bonds which he had executed. Notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 10(1) and the 4th October, 1939, was fixed by the Board for the furnishing of the statement required from him by Section 10(1). On that date the petitioner appeared before the Board a...
Cheriyath Manayil Paru Amma (Dead) and anr. Vs. Kannamkot Kelu Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ484
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage created on the 25th January, 1894 by the respondent's predecessor-in-title in favour of the appellant's predecessor-in-title. The respondent's predecessor-in-title was the lessee of certain agricultural lands situate in the District of North Malabar. The mortgage was of the lessee's interest in the land. The sum advanced by the mortgagee was Rs. 164, which was to be repaid at the end of three years. The deed provided that the mortgagee should remain in possession of the property and enjoy the profits in lieu of interest, but he was to pay the rent due to the lessor. At the end of the three years the mortgagor was to regain possession of the property merely on the repayment of the principal amount of Rs. 164. The lessor appears to have been a most complacent landlord because he allowed the rent to fall into arrears for 17 years, but then he filed a suit for the recovery of th...
V. Ramaswami Aiyar and anr. Vs. Veerarayan Raja Alias Kuttunni, the Pr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad711; (1941)1MLJ629
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The second appellant is the karnavan of a Malabar tarwad.2. On the 8th January, 1906, the jenmi, who is now represented by the first respondent, executed in favour of the tarwad of the appellant a kanom mortgage in respect of 58 parcels of agricultural land. On the 6th January, 1925, the jenmi executed a melcharth in favour of the second respondent, who on the 4th February, 1929, filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut to enforce the redemption of the kanom. There were 136 defendants, the karnavan, 22 other members of the tarwad and 113 tenants. The contesting defendants pleaded that the Subordinate Court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff had overvalued the property and that on a true valuation it should be filed in. the Court of the District Munsif of Chowghat. After inquiry the Subordinate Judge held that the allegation of overvaluation was well founded and by an order dated the 4th March, 1930, directed that the plaint ...
Cheriyath Manayil Paru Amma and anr. Vs. Kannamot Kelu Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad549
Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage created on 25th January 1894 by the respondent's predecessor-in-title in favour of the appellant's predecessor-in-title. The respondent's predecessor-in-title was the lessee of certain agricultural lands situate in the district of North Malabar. The mortgage was of the lessee's interest in the land. The sum advanced by the mortgagee was Rs. 164 which was to be repaid at the end of three years. The deed provided that the mortgagee should remain in possession of the property and enjoy the profits in lieu of interest, but he was to pay the rent due to the lessor. At the end of the three years the mortgagor was to regain possession of the property merely on the repayment of the prinqcipal amount of Rs. 164, The lessor appears to have been a most complacent landlord because he allowed the rent to fall into arrears for 17 years, but then he filed a suit for the recovery of the possession of the prope...
Gourochandra Dyano Sumanto Vs. Krishnacharana Padhi, Minor by Next Fri ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ153
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the holder of a promissory note is affected by a material alteration in the instrument when the alteration has been made by a stranger and there has been no fraud or laches on the part of the holder. On the 15th October, 1928, the appellant executed a promissory note in favour of the adoptive father of the respondent who is a minor. The father died in 1929, being survived by his wife in addition to the respondent, who continued to live with his adoptive mother who is his legal guardian. On the 12th October, 1931, the appellant paid Rs. 10 on account of the debt due on the instrument and the fact of payment was endorsed on the instrument. On the 22nd October, 1934, the respondent, through his mother filed a suit to enforce payment of the amount then due. It was pleaded by the appellant that there were two material alterations in the note, and it is now accepted by the respondent that the plea was justified. ...
Gourochandro Dyano Sumanto Vs. Krushnacharana Padhi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad383
Leach, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the holder of a promissory note is affected by a material alteration in the instrument when the alteration has been made by a stranger and there has been no fraud or laches on the part of the holder. On 15th October 1928, the appellant executed a promissory note in favour of the adoptive father of the respondent who is a minor. The father died in 1929, being survived by his wife in addition to the respondent, who continued to live with his adoptive mother who is his legal guardian. On 12th October 1931 the appellant paid Rs. 10 on account of the debt due on the instrument and the fact of payment was endorsed on the instrument. On 22nd October 1934 the respondent, through his mother, filed a suit to enforce payment of the amount then due. It was pleaded by the appellant that there were two material alterations in the note and it is now accepted by the respondent that the plea was justified. The alterations consisted in the chan...
Chidella Veerayya Vs. Kallam Kotireddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad588; (1941)1MLJ537
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the District Court, Guntur, whereby it modified on appeal the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, rejecting an application for review. The petitioner obtained a decree for Rs. 700 against certain persons who were subsequently adjudicated insolvents by the Subordinate Judge. As the insolvents did not apply for their discharge within the period specified by the Court in that behalf, the adjudication was annulled on 31st August. 1936. On the 1st of October, 1936, the first respondent herein claiming to be one of the creditors of the insolvents applied for a review of the order of annulment with a view to have the properties of the debtors revested in the Official Receiver under Section 37 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Subordinate Judge on objection by the petitioner rejected the application holding that the circumstances of the case did not justify the vesting of the properties in the Official Receiver at...
Haji Abdul Kuthus Sahib (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Inayathulla Sahib and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad620; (1941)1MLJ565
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question of the effect of Section 44 of 'the Provincial Insolvency Act. The first appellant was adjudicated an insolvent by the District Munsif of Trivellore on the 26th March, 1927 on a petition which had been presented on the 2nd October, 1926. The appellant apparently had no assets and as so often happens his creditors took no interest in the proceedings after the adjudication order had been obtained. The result was that when he applied for his discharge his application was not opposed and it was granted on the 8th February, 1928. The first appellant was indebted to the estate of one Habibulla Sahib, who is now represented by the respondents in this appeal. Habibulla Sahib had obtained a decree against the first appellant and on the 21st February, 1923, he attached a house as property belonging to the first appellant. As a matter of fact this property was the property of the appellant's wife, Maimoona Bi Bi. It had belonged to...
Syed Ghouse Sahib and ors. Vs. G. Mohamood Khan Sahib (Deceased) and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad567; (1941)1MLJ550
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question to determine in this appeal relates to the maintainability of the suit instituted under Section 56 of the Estates Land Act when pattas were not tendered to all the ryots who were in possession of a joint holding. The facts which led to this appeal are simple and may be briefly stated.2. A patta was tendered on behalf of the plaintiff landholder to defendant 1; but he declined to accept the same. A suit S. S. No. 65 of 1931 was therefore brought by the landholder under Section 56 to enforce the acceptance of the patta against the first defendant alone. The suit was defended on various grounds, one of which related to the maintainability of the suit. It was contended that the land in respect of which the patta was being attempted to be enforced was a joint holding held by the first defendant along with certain other persons and that the suit could not proceed in their absence. This contention prevailed arid the suit was dismissed by the Deputy Collect...
Maruthuvamalai Moopanar Vs. Avadaiachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad662; (1941)1MLJ641
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order in execution of a maintenance decree. The decree was dated 30th September, 1935. It directed the first defendant to pay maintenance at a certain rate to the plaintiff and also directed the first defendant to pay Rs. 166-11-0 towards her costs. It directed the plaintiff to pay Rs. 282-12-0 as costs to the first defendant and to pay Rs. 739-15-0 as court-fee due to Government and the plaintiff's charge for maintenance was burdened with a charge in favour of the Government for the amount of this Court-fee. The Government in 1936 executed the decree for the latter amount. In order to save the properties the first defendant paid into Court the balance due to the plaintiff after deducting the amount of his decree for costs. Apparently, it was objected on behalf of the Government that the Government's charge should be over the whole amount of the maintenance decree and not over the net amount and the first defendant, on 30th June, 1936 paid u...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »