Chennai Court December 1940 Judgments
Doraisami Naicken Vs. Peru Su Aru Periakaruppan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad475; (1941)1MLJ388
1. Two questions relating to the law of limitation have been argued in this appeal. On the 8th April, 1926 the appellant obtained in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore a preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 4,772 with interest and costs, amounting altogether to Rs. 5,856--6--6, against one Muthu Goundan and his two sons, a period of six months being allowed for redemption. The respondent was impleaded as the fifth defendant in the suit. He had obtained a money decree against the mortgagors and had attached the equity of redemption of the mortgaged properties. The attachment was continuing at the time of the passing of the preliminary decree on the 8th April, 1926. In the month of July 1926 the mortgagors conveyed the mortgaged properties to the appellant in satisfaction of the mortgage debt. Thereupon the appellant went into possession of the properties and remained in possession until 1932 when he was dispossessed by the respondent, who had caused them to be sold in execu...
Tag this Judgment!Sivagurunatha Pillai Vs. Padmavathi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad417; (1941)1MLJ441
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal has been placed before a Full Bench of five judges as its decision calls for the settlement of a conflict which exists in the decisions of Koneti Naicker v. Gopala Aiyar : (1913)25MLJ425 and Satyanarayana v. Mallayya (1934) 68 M.L.J. 540 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 735 each of which was decided by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court. Stated broadly the question is whether the Court can look into the surrounding circumstances when deciding whether the maker' of a promissory note has executed it as the agent or the representative of another. In Koneti Naicker v. Gopala Aiyar : (1913)25MLJ425 , the Court held that the surrounding circumstances could not be inquired into. The question of liability could only be decided on the reading of the instrument. In Satyanarayana v. Mallayya (1934) 68 M.L.J. 540 : I.L.R. 58 Mad. 735 , it was, however, said that one could look at all the surrounding circumstances in inferring the intention of the maker.2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.G. Subramania Aiyar Vs. Ulagalumperumal Sethurayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ586
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to a decree against the estate of Urkad to which the 3rd respondent has been held entitled to succeed.2. The appellant advanced a loan of Rs. 5,000 to the first respondent who executed a promissory note (Ex. A) for the amount. The sum was borrowed for the purpose of paying the peishkush which fell due in respect of the Zamindari when it was under the management of the first respondent as receiver appointed by the Court during the pendency of a succession suit relating to the Zamindari. That suit (O.S. No. 93 of 1929 in the lower court) was instituted by the 3rd respondent as the widow of the late Zamindar for recovery of the estate from the first respondent who had taken possession thereof asserting title thereto as the step-brother of the deceased. The suit ended in a decree in favour of the third respondent and the first respondent preferred an appeal to this Court. During t...
Tag this Judgment!B. Nagaraja Rao and ors. Vs. Koothappan-son of Tippurahalli Goundan an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad602; (1941)1MLJ759
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an appellate judgment confirming the decision of the District Munsif that a suit filed for rent on certain land situate within an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act is one of which the Civil Courts cannot take cognizance.2. The appellants who are the plaintiffs held the estate as successors to an ijaradar or lessee from the original landholder. The lands in question have for many years been held under a rather curious tenure known as arakandacharam the feature of which is that in addition to the ordinary rent which has to be paid by an ordinary ryot, the tenant is also required to pay a quarter of the produce to the landholder. The plaintiffs' case was that this tenure is an indication that the land is not ryoti land, but homefarm land belonging to the Zamindar and that a suit for the rent thereof accordingly lies in a Civil Court and not in the Revenue Court. Under Section 185 of the Estates Land Act, the burden lies upo...
Tag this Judgment!Thayyita Kalliani Vs. Nherakkayyil Kanaran and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad436
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The basis of the decision of the lower Court is erroneous. There appears to be no reason why an agriculturist tenant should not get the benefit of Act, 4 of 1938, by paying the rent on the holding for Faslis 1346 and 1347, merely because there is a cotenant who is not an agriculturist. But there is an obstacle to the petitioner's success which was raised, though not decided by the lower Court. It appears that the landlord in this case is a melcharthdar and if so he is not a jenmi or intermediary and the rent cannot be scaled down as against him. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Sheku Sahib Vs. Venkatararamanayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad799
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The property was attached by the amin in execution of a decree at the instance of the petitioner and the fact that the claim petition of the complainant was allowed does not warrant the conviction of the petitioner under Section 879 read with Section 114, Penal Code. The conviction is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Mettu Subba Reddi Vs. Challa Venkatappa Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad596; (1941)1MLJ313
1. The decree was obtained by a man on a promissory note debt which at least since 1935 has stood in the name of men. It is not permissible in such circumstances' for the decree-holder to adduce evidence that the debt is really owed to a woman in order to invoke Section 4(h) of Act IV of 1938. Possibly the decree-holder may himself be liable to pay the realisations to a woman, but the liability of the judgment-debtor is to the decree-holder and to no one else. The revision petition is allowed with costs and the application is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal in the light of this judgment....
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Ramabhadran, Liquidator Vs. T.S. Manickkam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad565; (1941)1MLJ369
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the liquidator of the Mahalakshmi Studios Limited, which went into voluntary liquidation on the 5th of November, 1939. The appellant, as it was his duty to do, settled a list of contributories, and, as nineteen of the persons on the list did not comply with the calls made upon them, he applied to this Court for an order under Section 216 of the Indian Companies Act. Of the nineteen respondents, respondents 1 to Sand the father of the nineteenth respondent signed the memorandum of association in respect of the shares subscribed for by them, but had not paid for their shares. The other respondents to the petition were not signatories to the memorandum of association, but had not paid what was due by them on the allotment of their shares. The application was heard by Mockett, J., who refused to make any order against the respondents and directed the liquidator to file suits to recover the amounts which he claimed. In dismissing the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Marina Ammayi Vs. Mirza Bakhar Beg Saheb and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad557; (1941)1MLJ547
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to scale down a preliminary decree for redemption passed by the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry.2. The plaintiffs 2, 3, 4 and 6 were the petitioners in the Court below and are respondents here. They had executed a mortgage in 1914 and in a suit to redeem the mortgage the Court has passed the preliminary decree declaring that the amount due to the mortgagee calculated up to the 30th March, 1937, the date fixed for redemption, was Rs. 16,245-6-3. On the application of the respondents to scale down the decree, the Court below has found that they are agriculturists and that the amount already paid to the decree-holder (petitioner herein) was more than twice the principal sum payable by the respondents under the mortgage. The Court has therefore ordered under Section 19 read with Section 8 of the Act that full satisfaction of the decree as a whole be entered, holding that th...
Tag this Judgment!Kallam Narasareddi and anr. Vs. Thummuru Ranga Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad550; (1941)1MLJ216
Wadsworth, J.1. On 1st July, 1933, the petitioner executed the suit promissory note for Rs. 391-15-1 which was in renewal of an earlier promissory note for Rs. 255-15-0. On 4th September, 1934, the petitioner made a payment of Rs. 26-5-2 towards the interest and Rs. 110-2-10 towards the principal of the suit promissory note. The plaint was filed on 4th September, 1937. On the basis of the Bench decisions, the appropriations made on 4th September, 1934 cannot be undone. The result is that as on this date the principal of the suit note is reduced to Rs. 281-12-3. This principal is made up of Rs. 255-15-0 being the principal originally advanced and Rs. 25-13-3 interest. Under Section 8(explanation) of Act IV of 1938 the principal of the renewed promissory note will be Rs. 255-15-0 and the interest outstanding on 1st October, 1937, will be cancelled. It is not possible for the defendants to prove either that the appropriation towards the principal of the suit note was really towards that p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »