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.
Nithoor Thimmanna Bhat Vs. Aithappa Adyanthaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad903; (1940)2MLJ251
Horwill, J.1. The promissory note on which the petitioner sued was dated 10th May, 1930. There was an endorsement of payment on 8th May, 1933, which gave a fresh period of limitation; and so the suit had to be filed on or before 8th May, 1936. On that date however, the Courts were closed for the summer recess. On the reopening day, 1st June, 1936, the payee under the promissory note assigned his rights in the promissory note to the present petitioner, and on the very same day the petitioner filed the suit. The District Munsif of Puthur, in whose Court the suit was filed, held that the suit was barred by limitation. He relied on the observation of the Chief Justice in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Fatma Bi v. Nagoorkhan (1931) 62 M.L.J. 256 : I.L.R. 55 Mad. 630 , to the effect that Section 4 did not extend the period of limitation. He was of opinion that as at the time when the assignment was made the suit was barred, no rights passed to the assignee under the assignment. He ...
Ambu Bai Ammal Vs. Soni Bai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad804; (1940)2MLJ298
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this appeal is whether a Hindu widow is bound to maintain out of her husband's estate her husband's widowed daughter when the daughter is without means and her husband's family is unable to support her. The appellant is the widow of one Sadasiva Rao, who died on the 13th January, 1930. The respondent is the daughter of Sadasiva Rao by his first wife, who pre-deceased him. The respondent carried one Rama Rao, who died in the month of May, 1932. Sadasiva Rao was a man of considerable property, but Rama Rao was entirely without means and in consequence Sadasiva Rao was compelled to maintain the respondent and her husband from the time of her marriage up to the time of his death. Rama Rao never acquired property and his family had none. In 1934 the respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tinnevelly for a decree for maintenance against her step-mother on whom had devolved her fa...
Minni Zuleka Bi and anr. Vs. Kulsum Bi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad128; (1940)2MLJ393
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition raises the question whether when an appeal has abated so far one of the respondents is concerned but has been decided on the merits so far as the other respondents are concerned, a subsequent application for an amendment of the decree under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code, at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent should be made in the trial Court or in the appellate Court. The question is apparently not covered by authority and is not without difficulty. Unfortunately, very few of the relevant documents are before the Court and there is a certain obscurity regarding the facts.2. So far as I have been able to gather them, the admitted facts are as follows : The suit was originally filed by one plaintiff alone for partition of his share in properties owned in common by members of a Muhammadan family. This plaintiff was entitled to a 7/24th share. By a clerical error the plaint was so drafted as to make it appear that...
C.K. Kunjandi Vs. Kuduvayoor Nagarathil Melharath Kadir Moideen Rowthe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad110; (1940)2MLJ326
Horwill, J.1. The second defendant is the mother of defendants 3 to 5. The husband-of the second defendant, the father of defendants 3 to 5, and the first defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Within the period of limitation, after the death of the second defendant's husband, first defendant made a payment. This suit was brought within three years of that payment but more than three years from the execution of the note. The first defendant was clearly liable; but the more difficult question was whether defendants 2 to 5 were liable also or whether the suit was barred as against them. That point was decided in favour of the defendants 2 to 5 by the Subordinate Judge of Palghat.2. There can be no doubt that it is well established in this High Court that any acknowledgment made under Section 19 by one person does not save limitation against any other persons liable under the note, whereas a payment made under Section 20 saves limitation as against all...
Syed Sabjumiah HussaIn and ors. Vs. Kalayigar Abdul Vahab Sab and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad821; (1940)2MLJ176
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioners in this case were defendants in a suit for possession of 3-85 acres of inam land and two houses situated within a municipality. Of the 3.85 acres of land an extent of 2.35 acres was admittedly leased to the municipality during the year previous to the filing of the suit at an annual rental of Rs. 186 for use as a night soil dumping ground. The trial Court valued this portion of the land under Section 7(v)(c) of the Court-Fees Act at 15 times the nett profits, that is to say, at Rs. 2,790. The two houses were valued at Rs200 and the balance of the land was valued at Rs. 1,770, On the basis of this valuation the trial Court held that the suit had been under-valued and that the true value was beyond the jurisdiction of a District Munsif and therefore returned the plaint for re-presentation in the proper Court after paying the deficient court-fee. This decision was the subject of an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge held that the e...
Dharba Sooryanarayana and anr. Vs. Meduri Ramamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad808; (1940)2MLJ291
Wadsworth, J.1. These two petitions raise a question under Section 21 of Act IV of 1938. In each of the petitions the petitioners are purchasers of parts of the hypotheca and defendants in the suit on the mortgage which has been decreed. The mortgage was one of 1922. The original mortgagor became an insolvent in 1929 and it is said that a dividend was declared before the commencement of Madras Act IV of 1938. The purchases by the petitioners in C.R.P. No. 1178 of 1939 were long after the adjudication. The purchase by the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 1179 of 1939 was after the presentation of the insolvency petition and before the adjudication. The Court below has held that by reason of the insolvency of the original mortgagor, Section 21 of Madras Act IV of 1938 applies to the decree debt as a whole and none of the judgment-debtors can have the benefit of the Act. It would appear that the original mortgagor was an agriculturist, but now that he has become an insolvent he is clearly disenti...
Aravapalli Viresam Vs. Gurram Adinarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad114; (1940)2MLJ977
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise an order setting aside an ex parte decree against the respondents on terms that the respondents should deposit suit costs which deposit was made.2. The only contention which might call for interference in revision is that by inference from the terms of Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code; it is obligatory, upon the Court to record a finding that the defendant who seeks to set aside an ex parte decree was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. In the present case, the respondents filed an affidavit alleging sufficient cause for their non-appearance. There was a counter-affidavit filed by some lawyer acting for the lawyer of the plaintiff denying these allegations. The learned District Munsif does not discuss the truth of the allegations on one side or the other but, simply lays down the terms upon which the ex parte decree should be set aside. Now, Order 9, Rule 13 merely requires the applicant to satisfy the Court that summons wa...
J. Austen Byers, Esq Vs. the Municipal Council by Its Executive Author ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad636; (1941)1MLJ620
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question of liability to profession tax under Section 93 of the Madras District Municipalities Act. The petitioner was the defendant in the lower Court and there is no dispute about the facts.2. From 1st April, 1935, to 14th April, 1935, petitioner held the appointment of District and Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly. On 15th April, 19 : 35, he ceased to hold that appointment having been granted leave with permission to be absent from duty during the ensuing summer vacation. He spent this period of leave and vacation outside India. On 22nd June, 1935, he was re-appointed District and Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly, and held that appointment up to 9th September, 1935, when he again took leave and his connection with Trichinopoly ceased. The total period of his duty as District and Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly, during the half-year with which we are concerned was thus 3 months and 2 days and it is common ground that during this period, though he worked in...
Muthu Goundan Vs. Peria Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad353; (1940)2MLJ937
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This matter raises the question whether a Debt Conciliation Board is entitled to give a certificate under Section 18 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, when it will be bound eventually to dismiss under Section 17 of the Act a petition for the settlement of the petitioner's debts. The respondent applied to the Debt Conciliation Board, Namakkal, for a settlement of his debts under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. His only creditor was the petitioner in these proceedings, who has security. The petitioner appeared before the Board and informed it that he was not prepared to agree to a settlement of his debt. Before there can be a settlement of debts under the Act creditors representing more than fifty per cent, of the total amount of debts must agree to a settlement. If no amicable settlement is arrived at within twelve months from the date of the application the Board is bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 17 to dismiss the ap...
Jagannatha Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Suppiah Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ187
Horwill, J.1. A decree was obtained against defendants 1 to 5 personally on a promissory note executed by them for a debt binding on the family. Because it was binding on the family, the other two members, defendants 6 and 7, were made liable to the extent of their share of the family property. Defendants 3 to 7 filed an application in the Court below for scaling down the debt. The debt was scaled down in accordance with Section 8 of the Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act (IV of 1938), and a question arose in view of the allegations that defendants 1 and 2 were not entitled to the benefit of the Act (defendant 1 being said to be an insolvent and defendant 2 to have no further interest in the family property) whether, under Section 14 of the Act, the creditor can proceed against each of the defendants only for his proportionate share of the debt. The lower Court held that Section 14 did not apply to the case of a contractual debt. Defendants 3 to 5 appeal.2. Section 14 affects:A Hindu fami...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »