Chennai Court December 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.
Saraswathi Ammal Vs. Arabusa Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad433; (1941)1MLJ296
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises questions under Madras Act IV of 1938 and arises out of an application under Section 19 of that Act.2. The lower Court held that an amount realised in execution of the decree after 1st October, 1937, could not be appropriated by the decree-holder to interest accruing due before 1st October, 1937, so as to nullify the effect of the application of Section 8(1) of the Act. The appellate Court took the view that when the decree-holder had appropriated to interest money received after 1st October, 1937, to re-adjust that money to principal after wiping off interest which accrued due on 1st October, 1937, would amount to the ordering of a refund which would be opposed to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 8. That decision is clearly erroneous in the light of the Bench decision in Suryanarayanamurthy v. Viranna : AIR1941Mad226 , and the decision of the District Munsif is correct on this point.3. The respondent however seeks to support the order o...
Tetali Surayya Vs. Karri Pedia Balakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ496
Horwill, J.1. Just before the marriage of Bulli Venkamma her father was given Rs. 800 by her prospective husband's father for the purchase of jewels and saree samans. Now that she is dead there are two sets of claimants for the property that was purchased with this Rs. 800. They are her husband, the first defendant, who claims as the heir of his son, the second defendant, who died pending suit and who in his turn claimed as the Stridhana heir of his mother. The other claimants are the plaintiffs, who are the brothers of Bulli Venkamma, who say that this property was sulka, in which case the brothers are the persons first in the list of those entitled to succeed to that particular kind of Stridhana property. Both the courts below found that the property was not sulka and that consequently it descended to her son in the way that Stridhana property ordinarily does....2. Mr. Raghava Rao relies on the definition of sulka in the Smriti Chandrika, in which it is defined as wealth received as ...
Raja Saheb Meharban I Dostan Sri Rajah Rao Venkata Kumara Mahipath Sur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad665; (1941)1MLJ635
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for compensation for water taken by the defendants from the source of the plaintiff. It was dismissed with costs. In appeal, it was urged by the defendants that no appeal lay. The plaintiff (appellant) admitted by implication that an appeal would not lie unless the suit were of the nature described in Articles 13 and 35 (i) and (it) of Schedule II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was held by the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit was not covered by either of these articles and he consequently held that an appeal did not lie. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. In the grounds of appeal to this Court, it was again contended that Articles 13 and 35 (i) and (ii) covered a suit of this kind. In view of my decision in S. A. No. 1067 of 1937 of the 25th September, 1940, this point was not pressed; but it is now argued that although the suit was of a Small Cause nature, an appeal did lie.2. The appellant's contention seems to be ...
Sreepathi Balaiah Alias Bala Gurumurthy and anr. Vs. Darsi Ramayya and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad706; (1941)1MLJ638
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed in the following circumstances. The respondents were the appellants before the District Judge and their appeal was preferred against an order decreeing the suit ex parte. The District Judge passed an order that on condition the appellants paid Rs. 15 within one month the appeal would stand allowed and that in default of payment of the sum of Rs. 15 as specified above the appeal would stand dismissed with costs. It would appear that when this judgment was pronounced neither side was present. In incorporating the result of, the judgment into the rough diary maintained by the Court, an unfortunate error was committed; instead of the sum of Rs. 15 the sum of Rs. 12 was inscribed. The respondents' advocate referring to the rough diary found that Rs. 12 had to be paid and without undue delay paid that sum to the petitioners' advocate. This payment was made two weeks after the judgment was pronounced. When the Court re...
Kausalai Ammal Vs. Sankaramuthiah Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad707; (1941)1MLJ815
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the widow of a person who was a member of a joint Hindu family. Her husband died some time before 1926, but the actual date does not appear in the record. On the 18th October, 1926, the appellant filed a suit to recover from Murugesam Pillai, the surviving member of the joint Hindu family, money by way of maintenance. She succeeded and the Court made the sums awarded to her under the decree a charge on certain immovable properties. On the 25th July, 1926, Murugesam Pillai mortgaged 'these properties to the respondent, who in 1931 filed in the Court of the District -Munsif of Cuddalore the suit out of which this appeal arises to enforce the mortgage. The appellant was made a party and she pleaded that her charge for maintenance took priority of the respondent's mortgage. The District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore on appeal upheld the appellant's contention, but the respondent appealed to this Court and Krishnaswami Aiyan...
Tetali Surayya Vs. Karri Peda Balakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad618
Horwill, J.1. Just before the marriage of Bulli Venkamma her father was given Rs. 800 by her prospective husband's father for the purchase of jewels and saree samans. Now that she is dead there are two sets of claimants for the property that was purchased with this Rs. 800. They are her husband, defendant l, who claims as the heir of his son, defendant 2, who died pending suit and who in his turn claimed as the stridhana heir of his mother. The other claimants are the plaintiffs, who are the brothers of Bulli Venkamma, who say that this property was sulka, in which case the brothers are the persons first in the list of those entitled to succeed to that particular kind of stridhana property. Both the Courts below found that the property was not sulka and that consequently it descended to her son in the way that stridhana property ordinarily does. Mr. Bagbava Rao relies on the definition of sulka in the Smriti Chandrika, in which it is defined as wealth received as the price of household...
Pechiyappa Chettiar Vs. Vazhukka Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ333
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question raised in this petition is whether Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938 applies in a case where there was no tenancy in existence in fasli 1347, that is during the year commencing from the 1st July, 1937, and ending with the 30th June, 1938. So much of the section as is relevant here reads as follows:All rent payable by an agriculturist to a landholder or an undertenure holder under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, or to a jenmi or intermediary under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, which has accrued for the fasli year 1345 and prior faslis and which is outstanding on the date of the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be discharged whether the rent be due as such or whether a decree has been obtained therefor;Provided that where the person liable to pay rent (hereinafter in this section referred to as 'tenant') does not, on or before the 30th September. 1939, pay up all arrears of rent accrued in respect of an...
K. Nagalinga Chetty Vs. O.K. Srinivasa Aiyangar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad477; (1941)1MLJ365
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the learned Principal Judge of the City Civil Court in E. P. No. 759 of 1938 in M. S. C. No. 7395 of 1925. The question is whether the execution is barred by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree in the small cause suit was passed on the 2nd February, 1926. The execution petition was filed on 27th October, 1938. It was a fresh application for execution. Prima facie Section 48 prevents the Court from passing any orders for execution on such application. The decree-holder's plea was that he was entitled to execute because subsequent to the decree passed by the Court of Small Causes he had filed a new trial application in 1926 and that when that failed he had filed a revision petition in the High Court (C.R.P. No. 127 of 1927). That revision petition was dismissed with costs on 7th March, 1928 and the decree-holder contended that the period of twelve years indicated in Section 48 should be calculated from 7th March, 1928. In th...
S. Subbaramayya Vs. Segu Pedda Subbiah (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad448; (1941)1MLJ466
Wadsworth, J.1. The order of the District Munsif cannot be sustained. The most that can be taken to have been established against the petitioner is that he was assessed on two properties one bearing a capital value of Rs. 3,000 and the other a capital value of Rs. 3,150. The assessment being on the basis of capital value, under the explanation to Section 3 (II) Proviso C to Madras Act IV of 1938, the rental value must be calculated at 5 per cent. of the capital value. It is not open to the Court to take evidence of actual rent paid, capitalise this on the 5 per cent, basis and hold that the capital value on which the assessment was based was not the actual figure adopted but the fictitious figure thus calculated. On the figures in the assessment registers the petitioner is clearly outside the exception in Proviso C. 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....
C. Kuppiah Chetty Vs. P. Saraswathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad769; (1941)2MLJ571
Wadsworth, J.1. These revision petitions both arise out of an order of a Bench of the Madras Small Cause Court directing a new trial under Section 38 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. A preliminary point has been raised in the following rather unusual circumstances. The application for a fresh trial was heard by the Chief Judge and the second judge, the third judge Mr. Padmanabha Aiyangar being then absent. The judgment as signed and issued purports to be a judgment of all the three judges of the Court. A report submitted by the learned Chief Judge makes it clear that the case was actually heard only by the Chief Judge and the second Judge and that these two judges alone were concerned with the preparation of the judgment and they signed it without reference to the third judge. By some regrettable error the judgment thus completed seems to have been placed before the third judge for signature and he also signed it though he had nothing whatever to do with the trial of the case....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »