Chennai Court April 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.
Chinni Venkatachalam Chetti Vs. Athivarapu Venkatrami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad929; (1940)2MLJ456
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce two deeds of mortgage dated 24th June, 1924 and 24th April, 1930, executed by the deceased father of defendants 1 to 3 to the plaintiff. Both the deeds of mortgage not only gave security to the plaintiff over the immovable property comprised therein but also over the produce realised therefrom every year.2. The operative portions in the deeds of mortgage run thus:The produce realised therefrom every year have been hypothecated to you.3. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce his mortgage security over a sum of Rs. 364 which was deposited into Court during the pendency of the suit being the net sale proceeds of the crops of Fasli 1345 on lands which are items 1, 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Schedule A to the plaint comprised in the deeds of mortgage. The question arises in this way. On the 14th of May, 1933, the father of defendants 1 to 3 executed a registered lease deed o...
Ranganayaki Ammal Vs. Rajagopalaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad951
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 (4) clothing for plaintiff 1 was a claim for debts provable in insolvency. These 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), 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 (1904) 27 Mad. 45 and Suryanarayanarao Naidu v. Balasubramania Mudali A.I.R.(1920) M...
In Re: Pattammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad898; (1940)2MLJ315
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant is a dancing girl and she was charged with the murder of her paramour Murugesa Mudali She was acquitted of that offence and has been convicted under Section 201(1), Indian Penal Code, for giving false information with intent to screen the offender from legal punishment and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment to three years.2. Murugesa Mudali went to the house of the appellant about 3 P.M. on 15th July last and P.W. 5, the sweeper woman, found him and the appellant lying and chatting on a cot when she left the house about 4-30 P.M. There was none else in the house and the appellant came out some time later and shouted 'Akka, Akka, see the aniyayam'. The mother and sisters of the appellant who were near their house close by rushed into the house and P.Ws. 13 and 14 who were near P.W. 13's house next door ran up. The appellant requested them not to crowd and closed the door against them and P.Ws. 13 and 14 returned. But P.Ws. 15 and 16 who were near the op...
G. Chokkappa Chetty Vs. M. Santhubava Rowther
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad926; (1940)2MLJ481
Horwill, J.1. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent was referred to arbitration. The award was not made on the date prescribed, but extensions were asked for from time to time. The award was actually written on 26th August, 1936; but the order of Court allowing the last extension of time was not passed until 27th August, 1936, although the application had been filed in Court some days before the award' was made. The principal question argued in this Court and in the Court below was whether the Court became functus officio-in this matter on the day the award was made and was income petent to pass the order on 27th August, 1936, extending the time.2. It seems to me that the order passed by a Court on an application must refer back to the date on which the application is put in; for it is the state of affairs on that date that the Court has to consider in making an order. If on the date of the application the Court had jurisdiction to extend the time, I cannot see how it l...
Ganapathi Bhatta Vs. A.M.L. D'Sowza and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad907; (1940)2MLJ317
Horwill, J.1. The first respondent obtained a mortgage decree, and the petitioner purchased the equity of redemption from the receiver in the insolvency of the judgment-debtor. The petitioner applied in R.I.A. No. 470 of 1938 on the file of the District Munsif of Karkal under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act to have the decree debt scaled down as against him. The lower Court held that he was not a judgment-debtor and that therefore Section 9 did not apply to his debt.2. Section 19 says:Where before the commencement of this Act a Court has passed a decree for the repayment of a debt, it shall, on the application of any judgment-debtor who is an agriculturist...apply the provisions of this Act to such decree and...amend the decree accordingly....3. It is thus seen that the petitioner cannot have the advantage of this section unless he is a judgment-debtor. The Agriculturists' Relief Act does not define the word 'judgment-debtor' and so we must take it that the ordinary...
Kattuva Rowtha's son MoidIn alias Siavu Rowthan Vs. Dakshayani Amma an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ844
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner filed S.C. No. 460 of 1935 against a debtor and attached before judgment some money that was in the hands of a garnishee. Some time later, the petitioner obtained a decree - we do not know its exact date, but it is said that it was some time before 7th March, 1936. He did not take out execution of this decree. The respondents obtained a decree in S.C. No. 440 of 1935 against the same debtor, and in execution they also attached on 26th November, 1935, this same sum of money in the hands of the garnishee. That money was paid into Court on 3rd March, 1936 and upon an application by the respondents, the money was paid to them on 7th March, 193,6. The petitioner thereupon filed M.P. No. 590 of 1936; praying that the Court should recall the sum of money paid over to the respondents and distribute it rateably between them. That petition was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Palghat, and hence this revision petition.2. The petitioner's contention is that he was...
MoidIn Rowthan Vs. Dakshayani Amma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad125
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner filed S.C. No. 460 of 1935 against a debtor and attached before judgment some money that was in the hands of a garnishee. Some time later, the petitioner obtained a decree - we do not know its exact date, but it is said that it was some time before 7th March 1936. He did not take out execution of this decree. The respondents obtained a decree in S.C. No. 440 of 1935 against the same debtor, and in execution they also attached on 26th November 1935 this same sum of money in the hands of the garnishee. That money was paid into Court on 3rd March 1936, and upon an application by the respondents, the money was paid to them on 7th March 1936. The petitioner thereupon filed M.P. No. 590 of 1936, praying that the Court should recall the sum of money paid over to the respondents and distribute it rateably between them. That petition was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge of Palghat, and hence this revision petition. The petitioner's contention is that he was e...
Muhammad Sahib and anr. Vs. C. Kunthanmal Sowcar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad807; (1940)2MLJ185
Horwill, J.1. On 4th March, 1933, the petitioners executed a promissory note for Rs. 300 in favour of the respondent (plaintiff). In October of the same year he paid Rs. 100 towards the principal. On 18th November, 1935, we find the endorsement 'interest calculated, up to date has been paid off in full'. The plaintiff brings the present suit for the balance of Rs. 200 principal and Rs. 7-8-0 interest from the 22nd March, 1938 (the date on which the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act came into force) to date of suit. Two questions arose; and the one with which we are concerned is what is the amount due under Act IV of 1938. It was held in favour of the plaintiff by the District Munsif of Poonamallee that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount claimed.2. It is strenuously argued by Mr. Chakravarthy that in applying Section 9 of Act IV of 1938, interest should be calculated at 5 per cent, from the date when the debt was incurred; to that should be added the principal; and from that sum s...
The Official Receiver of East Godavari Vs. Chava Govindaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad798; (1940)2MLJ190
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the Official Receiver of East Godavari and he has filed this appeal as the representative of the estate of one Adusumilli Venkatasubbarayudu, who was adjudicated an insolvent during the pendency of the suit out of which this appeal arises. The insolvent was the plaintiff in the suit. On the 29th November, 1911, the second respondent and his sons mortgaged certain land belonging to them and in 1922 the mortgagees filed a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Rajahmundry to enforce the mortgage. They obtained a decree which they assigned to the plaintiff, who caused the land to be put up for sale in execution proceedings. The plaintiff bought the land at the Court auction and in due course obtained a sale certificate. When he went to take possession of the property he was obstructed by the first respondent, who claimed it as his ancestral property. Thereupon the plaintiff applied to the Court for an order under Order 21, Rule 98 of ...
Kulikarai Viswanathaswami Temple, by Its Trustee Bava C. Gopalaswami M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad900; (1940)2MLJ254
Horwill, J.1. In laying a line for the conveyance of electric power in connection with the Pykara scheme it was necessary to take it through a tope of the petitioner situated in Anavadapathi village. It appears that the engineer in charge of the scheme proceeded to cut down certain trees in the petitioner's tope and when he Objected, the engineer applied to the Sub-Magistrate under Section 18(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, which Act applies also to electric power lines and the magistrate ordered the petitioner not to interfere with the engineer in the cutting down of the trees. Apparently acting under Section 18(2), he passed an order which has been filed as Ex. IV, which evaluates all the trees which were cut by the engineer. The petitioner then applied to the District Judge under Section 16(3) of the same Act with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded. The learned District Judge thought that Section 16(3) did not apply; and held that the case of the petitioner was covered by...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »