Chennai Court April 1940 Judgments
Allamsetti Venkatappadu and ors. Vs. Manda Appalaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ487
King, J.1. I am unable to see how Somasundaram v. Kondayya (1926) 49 M.L.J. 401 can be distinguished. It is clear that the learned Judges in that case held that the decision to confirm a sale was res judicata against a judgment-debtor who could have raised a plea, but did not, that the land was inalienable. If the decision confirming a sale constitutes the adjudication which is binding it is clearly equally binding whatever be the nature of the subsequent proceedings in which the judgment-debtor attempts to have the sale set aside. Sitting singly I am bound to follow Somasundaram v. Kondayya (1926) 49 M.L.J. 401. I must therefore allow this appeal, set aside the order of remand and dismiss respondent's application with costs throughout.2. Leave refused....
Tag this Judgment!R.K. Presanna Venkatesa Rao Vs. the Trichinopoly District Co-operative ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ488
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the award of the sum of Rs. 1,295 paid as gratuity to the second defendant by the first defendant Bank in pursuance of a resolution of the General Body dated 23rd November, 1935, is valid. The learned judge in the Court below answered the question in the affirmative. The question is whether his view is sound.2. Mr. Rajah Aiyar canvasses this view on two grounds : (1) The Ex-Secretary was permitted to retire on 17th March, 1935, on production of a medical certificate which stated that he was suffering from chronic bronchitis and would not be in a position to attend to his duties for a period of six months. Under the Gratuity rules which govern the payment of gratuity, the Ex-Secretary would not be entitled to claim any money as and by way of gratuity; because the rules contemplated certain conditions on fulfilment of which alone an ex-servant of the Bank can claim gratuity. However the Board'of Management...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Karuppan Chetti and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad267
Burn, J.1. The appellants were accused 2 and 8 in S.C. No. 119 of 1940 in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Madura tried them and one Pethnasami Chetti (accused l) on the charge that accused 2 and 3 had murdered one Chockalingam Chetti on 17th June 1939 and that accused 1 had abetted the commission of the murder by them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered that the evidence of abetment by accused 1 was insufficient and acquitted him, but accused 2 and 3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, agreeing with, the assessors, found guilty of the offence of murder.2. There is no doubt about the fact that Chockalingam Chetti was murdered on the night of 17th June 1939, at Bodinaickanur. He was stabbed in 24 places and his head was cut off. The case was undoubtedly one of murder. The chief evidence against the appellants consisted of confessions made by accused 3. He was arrested on 26th June in the house of a country doctor (P.W. 29) to whom he had gone for treatmen...
Tag this Judgment!Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao Vs. Chitluri Venkataramay ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad768
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. These two appeals raise the question of the liability of the appellant on two missing promissory notes, one for Rs. 9704 dated 16th February 1932 and the other for Rs. 24,400 dated 13th February 1933. The former promissory note formed the subject-matter of O.S. No. 14 of 1935 against which A.S. No. 234 is preferred. The execution of this promissory note was admitted but the defendant (appellant) pleaded that it was discharged except for a small amount. The second promissory note formed the subject-matter of O.S. No. 28 of 1936 (against which A.S. No. 235 is filed) and its execution is totally denied by the appellant. The promisee (plaintiff) was a well-to-do Vaisiya money-lender and it is common ground that up to 28th March 1934, he and the defendant, an important Mokhasadar, were on very friendly terms and had considerable dealings. On 1st February 1934, the defendant made over the income from some of his lands to his wife for a term of years and it is said that t...
Tag this Judgment!Edara Venkayya Pantulu Alias E.V. Pant and anr. Vs. Kalipattapu Chitti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad879; (1940)2MLJ328
Pandrang Row, J.1. [After dealing with the facts his Lordship continued.]2. The defamation having been established beyond doubt it only remains to consider whether the amount of damages awarded by the Court below is reasonable. It may be mentioned in this connection that before the suit was filed there was a criminal prosecution at the instance of the father of the plaintiff which resulted in the conviction of all the defendants which was upheld in the High Court on revision. It is argued that the very fact that there had been, a criminal prosecution and a conviction obtained before the civil suit was launched is itself a reason for reducing the amount of damages, and reliance has been placed on the decision in Ma Sein Tin v. U Kyaw Maung A.I.R. 1936 Rang. 332. At page 334 there are certain observations which show that the learned Judge disapproved conduct of this kind, that is, the filing of a civil suit for damages after a criminal prosecution, though the law grants both remedies to ...
Tag this Judgment!Karnam Ramamma and anr. Vs. Peddineni Venkatalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad375; (1941)1MLJ286
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The main question to decide in this appeal is one of construction of a will executed by one Veerappa Naidu, a Kamma of Nellore. What we have to ascertain is whether the testator's intention was to bequeath a share of his property to a designated person (persona designata) Sankariah, who happened to be his sister Venkatalakshmamma's son or whether Sankariah's marriage with the testator's daughter Ramamma, the second defendant, was a condition precedent without which the bequest was not to take effect. The will was executed on the 27th April, 1923, and the testator died two days later. Sankariah died before his marriage on the 22nd June, 1925, leaving his mother as his heir. He was about 13 years old then. Ramamma was subsequently married to Gopal Naidu, the third defendant in the suit. Venkatalakshmamma brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of the share bequeathed by her brother Veerappa Naidu to her son Sankariah under the will Ex. A.2. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Chidambaram Aiyar Vs. Manickavasagam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ232
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The main question arising for decision in this C.R.P. is whether in scaling down a debt under Section 9(1) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, the proviso to that section can be applied more than once, until the debt is traced back to the principal amount originally advanced. The petitioner obtained a decree against the respondents in S.C.S. No. 447 of 1937 on the file of the lower Court on a promissory note executed on the 9th of April, 1935. This promissory note was executed in renewal of an earlier debt incurred in April, 1933, which itself was the result of a settlement in respect of dealings' which commenced in June, 1931.2. The petitioner's learned Counsel contends that in scaling down the decree debt in question under Section 9(1) of the Act, the Court can have regard to the earlier debt of April, 1933, but it cannot go further back to the commencement of the dealings in 1931 and scale down the debt under Section 8 with reference to the principal sum...
Tag this Judgment!Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. Rajagopalaswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ239
Burn, J.1. It cannot be disputed that the claim for (1) marriage expenses, (2) arrears of maintenance, (3) lump sum on account of residence and (4) clothing for first plaintiff was a claim for debts provable in insolvency. This together was over 90 per cent, of the claim put forward in the suit. Even as regards the claim for future maintenance I am not satisfied, having reference to the language of Section 34(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, that it is not a debt provable in insolvency. If it is not, it would seem that no insolvency proceedings against a Hindu with female relations entitled to maintenance, could be taken effectively.2. The plaintiff being a creditor to whom the insolvent was indebted in respect of a debt provable under the Act was forbidden by Section 28(2) of the Act to bring any suit against him without the leave of the Insolvency Court. The cases reported in Jayanti Subbiah v. Alamelu Mangamma : (1902)12MLJ270 and Suryanarayana Rao Naidu v. Balasubramania Mudali...
Tag this Judgment!Motam Kotayya Alias Prakasam Vs. Singampalli Venkata Punnayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad910; (1940)2MLJ202
Wadsworth, J.1. I agree with the conclusion and reasoning of the judgment which my learned brother is about to deliver. I only wish to add that after hearing a fuller argument and having the benefit of discussion with my learned brother, I am of opinion that my decision in Kanakaraju v. Achutaramanaraju : AIR1940Mad432 , was erroneous.Patanjali Sastri, J.2. The question that falls to be decided in this Revision Petition is whether a debt for the repayment of which a decree has been passed after the commencement of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, is liable to be scaled down in accordance with Section 8 of the Act when the debt is one incurred before the 1st of October, 1932. The facts are simple and not in dispute. The respondent sued the petitioner m S.C.S. No. 4 of 1938 on the file of the Court below for recovery of the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed on 29th October, 1929. The suit was brought on 3rd January, 1938, and the petitioner filed his wr...
Tag this Judgment!Vendoor Thazhath Paravan Alias Cheriad and anr. Vs. Venthrayil Tarwad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad794; (1940)2MLJ273
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar amending the decree obtained by the petitioner in S.C.S. No. 432 of 1934 on the file of that Court, under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938.2. The respondent sold some trees to the petitioner on 29th September, 1931, for Rs. 400 but before the petitioner could cut and carry them away, a third party successfully asserted a paramount claim to them and the sale to the petitioner therefore failed to take effect. The petitioner thereupon sued for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 400 'with interest at 24 per cent, per annum from 29th September, 1931.' The. Court, however, allowed interest at 12 per cent, only and passed a decree for Rs. 538-5-3 for principal and interest till 20th August, 1934, the date of the suit and Rs. 94-9-4 on account of costs with further interest at 6 per cent, on the aggregate amount from 4th November, 1936, the date of the de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »