Chennai Court February 1940 Judgments
Madina Bibi Sahiba Vs. the Ismail Durga Association Through Its Presen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad789; (1940)1MLJ872
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the wife of the second respondent. In 1931 the respondent association obtained two money decrees against the second respondent for an aggregate sum of Rs. 894. In 1934, in execution of these decrees the association attached five houses in Madura as property belonging to the judgment-debtor. The appellant objected to the attachment and her objection was successful. The appellant claimed title to the houses and other properties under a deed of sale executed in her favour by her husband on the 16th of September, 1932. As the result of the removal of the attachment the association filed in the Court of the Subordinate judge of Madura the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the deed of sale was executed in fraud of creditors 'nominally and colourably'. In the meantime the second respondent had been adjudicated an insolvent and permission of the Official Receiver was sought, and granted, for the institution of the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Vemuri Ramjee Rao Vs. the Municipal Council Represented by Its Commiss ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad956; (1940)2MLJ469
Horwill, J.1. The only question that arises in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who had paid property tax to the defendant municipality upon demand in a wrong belief that he was bound to pay that tax, is entitled to have it refunded. Both the lower Courts held that as the payment was a voluntary one, he is not entitled to have any such refund. His suit was therefore dismissed and his appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, was also dismissed.2. Mr. Raghava Rao, in his very able argument, has put forward two contentions. They are that under Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of money paid by mistake of law and that even though Section 72 would debar a person from recovering money paid under a. mistake of law in a quasi-contract, there would still be open to such a person the equitable relief that a Court can give to a person who has wrongly parted with money independently of any contract.3. Municipal Council, Dindigul v. Bombay Co., Lt...
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rajah Vasireddi Balachandrasekhara Varaprasad Bahadur Manne Sulta ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad9691; (1940)1MLJ820
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Kistna in a suit upon a mortgage dated 19th September, 1929, executed by the first defendant for himself and as guardian of his son, the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The third defendant is another son of the first defendant born subsequent to the date of the mortgage. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 2,500 payable with compound interest at Re. 0-14-6 per cent, per month. The plaint alleged that there was a payment of Rs. 600 on 9th November, 1930 and that the said payment was made by one Kasibotla Suryanarayanamurti on behalf of the defendants. The defendants denied that the said sum of Rs. 600 was paid as alleged in the plaint and the first defendant pleaded; that he was not personally liable on the ground that the personal remedy was barred by limitation, the suit having been instituted on 16th March, 1936, more than six years from the date of the mortgage. Defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Koraka Kannayya Naidu Vs. Rayapureddi Appala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad954; (1940)2MLJ369
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on the basis of a promissory note executed by one R. Appala Naidu in favour of the plaintiff on the 8th August, 1930 (Ex. A) for Rs. 680-2-9. Several defences were raised to this suit. But the main defence, with which we are now concerned, is that of limitation. The lower Court held the suit to be barred by time and dismissed it. The plaintiff appeals.2. Since the suit was instituted more than three years after the execution of the promissory note it would ordinarily be barred by limitation. But it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that a payment of Rs. 145 which was made on the 23rd July, 1933, on behalf of the executant of the promissory note by his father brings the suit within time. As there is an endorsement of payment of Rs. 145 on the back of the promissory note signed by the defendant's father on the 23rd July, 1933, it has to be conceded that this payment was made by him in respect of the promissory note in suit...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nandivada Ganganna Dhora
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad744; (1940)1MLJ758
King, J.1. The appellant was the third accused in S.C. No. 52 of 1939 before the learned Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam. The three accused in that case were charged with the murder of one Pendyala Ramalingam, Village Munsif of Kondasekharapalli and with the murder of Pantala Appayya, a bandy driver and with causing hurt with a dangerous weapon to two of the witnesses in the case, P.Ws. 14 and 15. The evidence in the case established the fact that the deceased Ramalingam and the two witnesses started in Appayya's bandy from Kondasekharapalli on the night of the 20th June, last to go to Parvatipur and that they were attacked by three men about half way on their journey. Ramalingam was killed immediately but Appayya survived until the 22nd when he died in hospital and the two witnesses received minor injuries. The evidence in the case was twofold; firstly, the evidence of identification and secondly, evidence based upon the confession made by the appellant. The evidence of identification w...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Represented by the Collect ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad788; (1940)2MLJ13
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff held a tree patta from the Government for five tamarind trees standing on a house site, Section No. 848. That site had admittedly been vacant for some years; but five or six years ago defendants 2 to 6 came and settled there. Section No. 848 was a site reserved for the houses of Madigas. In accordance with the policy of the Government, set out in Board's Standing Order No. 18, the tree patta to the plaintiff was cancelled when defendants 2 to 6 came to settle on the site and the trees were offered to them. As they could not afford to purchase them, the tree patta was granted to them. The plaintiff was aggrieved at losing his tree patta and has brought this suit for a declaration of his right to enjoy the tamarind trees on his paying tree tax as usual and for recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The Government, as the first defendant, contended that the trees belonged to them and that they had a perfect right to grant the trees to whomsoever they ple...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.N.S.P. Subramanian Chettiar Vs. R.M.P.L.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar (De ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ817
Horwill, J.1. On the 26th October, 1900, one Subbayyar executed a registered will, Ex. A. He left the property for her life to his widow Gomati and made provision that after her death it should be enjoyed by his daughter's son Ramaswami. Ramaswami predeceased Gomati and she, after Ramaswami's death, mortgaged the property to the second respondent. Later, she sold the same property to Muthukaruppan, he undertaking to discharge this mortgage. As he failed to do so, the second respondent filed a suit on his mortgage, impleading Muthukaruppan and his sons and the widow of Ramaswami. He obtained a decree; and in execution of his decree brought the property to sale and purchased it himself. In attempting to obtain possession of the property, he was resisted by the present appellant, who was then in possession and claimed a right to remain in possession as a purchaser from Subbayyar's heirs. The claim petition of the appellant was allowed, and so the mortgagee-purchaser was constrained to bri...
Tag this Judgment!Vajjula Alias Hanumanthavajjula Suryanarayanamurthy Vs. Hanumanthavajj ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad950; (1940)1MLJ779
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondents have not appeared to oppose this appeal but as the Court has decided to allow it the reasons must be stated. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry for a declaration that the adoption of the first respondent by the second respondent was invalid. The second respondent is the widow of one Jagappa, alias. Jagannatha Sastrulu, who died on the 11th December, 1868. The adoption took place on the 4th July, 1929, nearly 61 years after the death of the husband of the second respondent. The second respondent was a very young girl when her husband died and was still under the guardianship of her father. There were two defences set up. It was said that the appellant and other sapindas had given their consent to the adoption and that the widow was given power to adopt by a will executed by her deceased husband. The Subordinate Judge held that the appellant was the only ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Munirathna Gurukkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
Reported in: (1940)1MLJ935
Horwill, J.1. There can be no doubt that after 1904, the villagers have been actively managing the suit institution. The presumption is, therefore, that even before that year they had the right of Management - or the petitioners would not have acquiesced in the loss of their authority. Moreover, the petitioners have on more than one occasion described themselves only as archakas, and have allowed others to be called dharmakarthas.2. The villagers, by allowing the archakas for some years before 1904 to manage the small property of the temple, did not lose their right of management of the institution, or even of its property.3. This petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Muniratna Gurukkal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad312
ORDERHorwill, J.1. There can be no doubt that after 1904, the villagers have been actively managing the suit institution. The presumption is, therefore, that even before that year they had the right of management - or the petitioners would not have acquiesced in the loss of their authority. Moreover, the petitioners have on more than one occasion described themselves only as archakas, and have allowed others to be called dharma-karthas. The villagers, by allowing the archakas for some years before 1904 to manage the small property of the temple, did not lose their right of management of the institution, or even of its property. The petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »