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.
Chelikani Sitaramayya Vs. Koppula Pedda Venkanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-07-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ768
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In 1931 the appellant obtained a decree against the respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Peddapur for the payment of Rs. 2,948-15-8. The respondent appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Cocanada and was successful, the appellant's suit being dismissed with costs. While the appeal was pending, the appellant applied for the execution of the decree which he had obtained, but as the result of an arrangement with the respondent the application was dismissed on payment of costs. Apparently fearing that the appellant might institute further proceedings in execution, the respondent applied for a stay of execution. A stay was ordered on the condition that the respondent furnished security to the Court for the amount of the decree. It was not convenient for the respondent to furnish security in the form of immovable property and instead he deposited the sum of Rs. 2,948-15-8 in cash. On paying the money in, he asked the Court to direct that the decre...
The Panchayat Board, Razole by Its President Vs. Sait Amichand Dungarm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad686; (1941)1MLJ824
Burn, J.1. These revision petitions are brought from the decisions of the learned District Munsif of Razole in S.C.S. Nos. 625 etc., of 1937. The suits were filed by the respondents, residents within the limits of the Union Panchayat of Razole for the refund of sums of money collected from them in the shape of profession-tax. The learned District Munsif decreed the suits and the Panchayat Board has preferred these revision petitions. 2. The Panchayat Board alleged three main reasons why the suits should be dismissed. The first was a plea that the suits were barred by limitation under Section 225 of the Madras Local Boards Act, since they had been brought more than six months after the date on which the cause of action arose. The second was that payments had been made voluntarily and therefore the sums paid could not be recovered and the third was that the suits were barred by Section 228 (2) of the Local Boards Act.3. Mr. Viyanna for the petitioning Board has drawn my attention to the ...
K.L.K. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, a Firm of Bankers Carrying on Business ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ172
1. It seems to us clear with reference to the definitions in Section 3 of Madras Act IV of 1938 that a firm of money-lenders cannot be an agriculturist. If the application be treated as one by the individual member of the firm it must fail, for the individual member has been assessed to income-tax during the period specified in proviso C to Section 3(3), so that he cannot claim to be an agriculturist.2. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs....
Vattappa Kone and anr. Vs. Muthukaruppan Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad538; (1941)1MLJ200
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether a suit for damages for malicious prosecution would be maintainable when no summons was issued to the plaintiff on a verbal complaint made against him to a Village Magistrate charging him with the offence of robbery. The facts may be briefly stated. Defendants 1 and 2 were stated to have lost some sheep on the 8th of September, 1934. They went on the next day to the village Magistrate of Mudukulathur and made a statement to him that certain persons including the plaintiff had taken away their sheep by force. The facts stated. by the defendants would have made the persons charged liable to be prosecuted for robbery. The Village Magistrate sent a report on the same day to the police and to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate. The Magistrate appears to have ordered an enquiry by the police which made a report on the 15 th January, 1935 that the complaint made by the defendants 1 and 2 was false and that no-robbery ha...
S. Kasi Chettiar Vs. the Rt. Hon'ble the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad577; (1941)1MLJ531
Abdur Rahman, J.1. Ramaswami Chettiar applied to the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, on the 2nd November, 1931, to be declared an insolvent (I. P. No. 33 of 1931). He was adjudicated on the 7th July, 1932. While this application was pending a property of his was sold for arrears of income-tax and purchased by the second defendant on the 25th April, 1932. The sale was confirmed on the 4th June, of that year. The Official Receiver of the Ramnad District brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai for the cancellation of the sale (O.S. No. 27 of 1933) on the 6th February, 1933. The suit was dismissed and the decree passed by him was confirmed on appeal by the District Judge of Ramnad on the 13th February, 1937. The Official Receiver refused to prefer an appeal against that decree. One of the creditors, who is the present appellant in this Court, applied to this Court for leave to present an appeal. This was granted on the 25th October, 1937, but without issuing a notic...
Vasireddi Pitchayya Vs. Lavu Subbayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad611; (1941)1MLJ609
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal has been treated as a revision petition and the appellant will pay the deficient court-fee.2. The appellant applied under Sections 19 and 20 of Madras Act IV 1938 to scale of down a decree. The decree in question was based on a debt due by the appellant and others as members of a firm and the cause title treats the firm as the first defendant and the managing partners as defendants 2 to 9. The appellant is the seventh defendant. The lower Court has rejected the application on the ground that a firm is not a person under the definition in Section 3 (1) of the Act and therefore a debt incurred by a firm is not one which can be scaled down and if that debt is due from an agriculturist, he cannot get the benefits of the Act because, the debt was not incurred by him qua agriculturist. We are unable to accept this reasoning. A debt incurred by a partnership is really a debt incurred by the partners for which each of them is liable. This is recognised by the decree...
K.L.K.Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar, a Firm Vs. Seetharama Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad537
1. It seems to us clear with reference to the definitions in Section 3, Madras Act 4 of 1938 that a firm of money lenders cannot be an agriculturist. If the application be treated as one by the individual member of the firm it must fail, for the individual member has been assessed to income-tax during the period specified in proviso C to Section 3(2), so that he cannot claim to be an agriculturist. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs....
Yeddula Chinnabbi and ors. Vs. Yeddula Venkata Subbamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad507; (1941)1MLJ123
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal brought by the judgment-debtors from an order of the District Court of Cuddapah refusing to scale down the decree in O.S. No. 17 of 1936 on the file of that Court on the ground that the debt due to the respondents is excluded from the purview of the Agriculturists' Relief Act by Section 4, Clause (h) thereof. 2. The appellants contend that the exemption under that clause does not apply to the respondents as they own 'other property,' inasmuch as each of them is entitled under the decree in O.S. No. 20 of 1935 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Cuddapah to an allowance of Rs. 10 per mensem for her maintenance. The only question for determination is whether the right to receive this allowance can be regarded as 'property'.3. The respondents are the daughters by the second wife of one Chinna Venkatasubba Reddi who gave a third share of his properties by his will to his daughter by the first wife, and died intestate in respect of the re...
S. Ramasubbier and anr. Vs. P. Rama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad356; (1941)1MLJ39
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These are appeals preferred by decree-holders against orders scaling down their decrees under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The debts which had ripened into these decrees had their origin in a promissory note for Rs. 7,000 executed by one Pichumani Aiyar and two of his sons Rama Aiyar and Venkatachalam Aiyar on 14th August, 1922, in favour of Srinivasa Aiyar, the father of these decree-holders. After Srinivasa Aiyar died, there was a partition between the two sons on 15th May, 1925, at which the debt was divided between them and in pursuance of the division the debtors Rama Aiyar and Venkatachalam Aiyar executed on 19th August, 1925, a promissory note for Rs. 4,900 to the appellant in C. M. A. No. 101 and another promissory note for Rs. 2,600 to the appellant in C. M. A. No. 160, their father having died in the meantime. On 13th August, 1928, Rama Aiyar and Venkatachalam Aiyar and the other two sons of Pichumani Aiyar who did join in the execution of the e...
Ry. T.P. Vinayaka Rao Sahib Bhonsle Vs. the Junior Prince's Estate, re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-04-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ467
1. This appeal has been treated as a revision petition and the appellant will pay the deficient court-fee. The question whether the liability to make restitution is a debt is covered by the decision of Pandrang Row, J., in Vasantharao Sahib Bhonsle v. Narayanaswami Aiyar : AIR1940Mad95 , with which we are in respectful agreement. Such a liability is clearly a debt and it is no less a debt when due from the son of the original party by reason of his possession of family property after partition. The further question whether the insolvency of the father prevents the son from applying for the benefits of Act IV of 1938, by reason of Section 21, is also covered by the same decision which is followed by one of us in Suryanarayana v. Ramamma : AIR1940Mad808 . Clearly Section 21 only bars an application by the insolvent and not one by some other non-insolvent person liable for the same debt. The appeal, treated as a revision petition is allowed with costs from the estate and the application i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »