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.
Jagadambal and anr. Vs. Minor Sundarammal by Next Friend, Ponnusami Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad46; (1940)2MLJ398
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff is a minor represented by a next friend; and she has brought this suit as a reversioner against the widow of the last male owner, in possession, alleging acts of waste and mismanagement. A number of specific acts of waste and mismanagement were set out in the original plaint, which was filed on 2nd October, 1933. In 1934 an application was put in by the plaintiff to be allowed to amend the plaint on the ground that fresh acts of waste had come to the notice of the next friend. That petition was allowed in the High Court. In 1938, another application was put in to amend the plaint, alleging further acts of waste and mismanagement. That petition was refused on the ground that it was very belated and that the facts alleged must have come to the notice of the plaintiff's next friend long before the time alleged. The order dismissing the second application to amend was brought to the High Court in revision; and the revision petition was dismissed. The plaintiff h...
Bolisetti Sundaram and anr. Vs. Kanuparthi Venkatappadasu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad874; (1940)2MLJ384
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioners were plaintiffs in a small cause suit based on a promissory note, Ex. A, dated 25th March, 1933, for a sum of Rs. 167-12-9. The promissory note reads as if it were a joint promissory note by the first and the second defendants. But it is found that it was not executed by the second defendant though it was executed by the first defendant. What happened was that the two defendants went to the plaintiffs and asked them to write a promissory note in renewal of two earlier promissory notes, the major note being Ex. C, a joint bond executed by both the first and second defendants, the lesser one being Ex. B a promissory note by the first defendant alone. While the suit note was being written the second defendant went away. The scribe wrote at the foot of the note the description of the second defendant as the person who affixed his mark, but no mark or thumb print was in fact taken from the second defendant. The first defendant executed the promissory note and...
Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao Vs. Chitluri Venkatramayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ257
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Before proceeding to examine the provisions of the sections of the Indian Evidence Act mentioned in the question under reference it is desirable to state the effect of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as in some cases where certified copies of the income-tax documents have been tendered in evidence its provisions have been misunderstood and misapplied. Sub-section (1) of Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act states that all particulars contained in a statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of the Act, or in evidence given in the course of proceedings under the Act other than proceedings under Chapter VIII (which relates to offences and penalties) or in a record of an assessment proceeding, or a proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand shall be treated as confidential, and, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, no Court shall be entitled to require a pu...
Amatipati Bhadrachalam and ors. Vs. Ramineedi Nagarupavatamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad885; (1940)2MLJ342
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of the effect of Section 4(h) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act upon the liabilities of the parties when the debt sought to be scaled down is a debt owned in common by two women. I have found considerable difficulty in dealing with the questions of law raised by this petition owing to the absence of any clear finding of fact in the lower Court's judgment. So far as the evidence goes the position seems to me to be as follows:The petitioners are the judgment-debtors under a decree for Rs. 625, the decree-holders being two sisters. These two sisters had been given a sum of money by their father and this sum of money was originally invested in a mortgage executed by the present petitioners which was discharged in 1936 by payments amounting in all to a sum variously estimated at Rs. 4,000 and Rs. 4,500. According to the evidence of the respondents' father, the whole of the payments in discharge of this mortgage went towards t...
Kodali Ramakoteswara Rao Vs. Kodali Suryanarayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad905; (1940)2MLJ356
Horwill, J.1. During the trial of O.S. No. 462 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif's, Court of Ellore, the matter in dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator was given full power to examine or not to examine witnesses and after he had given his decision largely in favour of the respondents, the matter came before the District Munsif for hearing objections. A number of points were raised which were all decided against the petitioner. The two objections that are reasserted in this revision petition are (1) that the award was void because the first respondent was a minor (an award not binding a minor) and (2) that the arbitrator acted improperly in examining the plaintiff's next friend in the absence of the first defendant.2. There is nothing in the first point; because an arbitration to which a minor is a party, is not in itself void; but is voidable at the instance of the minor. The minor in the present case (or rather his next friend), far from attempting to set aside...
Kanthasami Reddiar Vs. Pethusami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad887; (1940)2MLJ334
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant in a Small Cause suit for a sum of Rs. 232-2-2 due on account of dealings had by defendant with plaintiff from 6th March, 1933, to 1st March, 1934. The plaint was certainly based on a settlement of account on 1st March, 1934. The defendant raised pleas of discharge and also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court found against the pleas of discharge, there being no oral evidence adduced for the defendant. That decision of fact cannot be canvassed here.2. The learned District Munsif also held that the suit was in time having regard to Article 64 of the Limitation Act. Now, the actual page of the account bearing this alleged settlement entry is proved to be all in the handwriting of the defendant who was employed by the plaintiff. The heading shows that it is the account of Kandasami Reddiar the defendant in the plaintiff's cotton shop. That also was in the handwriting of the defendant. The first entry in that page ...
Nukala Surya Rao Vs. Yedida Bullemma Alias Venkayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad899; (1940)2MLJ333
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition canvasses the correctness of a decision to the effect that when there has been a decree on a mortgage-debt and the hypotheca has been sold and an application is, filed under Order 21, Rule 90 by the judgment-debtor to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity, etc., that proceeding is not a proceeding in respect of a debt within the purview of Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act (XI of 1936.) Section 25 runs as follows:When an application has been made to a Board under Section 4 any suit or other proceedings then pending before a Civil Court in respect of any debt for the settlement of which application Bas been made shall not be proceeded with until the Board has dismissed the application.2. The decree in this case was passed in a suit of 1934. The petition under Order 21, Rule 90 was E.A. No. 756 of 1937 and it was actually pending when the petitioner applied under E.A. No. 776 of 1939 for a stay of the earlier application on t...
Oorakkarai Seetharama Chettiar Vs. Sheik Abdul Rahiman Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ371
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application filed on 21st August, 1935, to execute a decree passed on 9th November, 1929, and the question is whether it is barred by limitation. Prima facie it is so barred, but the appellant claims that by reason of certain proceedings taken by the respondent he is entitled to count time as beginning to run at a much later date. f In November, 1931, respondent applied to the executing Court to record satisfaction of the decree. The Court dismissed his application. He appealed. His appeal was dismissed on 20th March, 1933. Appellant contends that under Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act time began to run only from that date.2. The point for determination is whether the appeal by the respondent is an appeal within the meaning of that article. 1 have been referred by appellant's learned Advocate to a judgment of a Bench of which I was myself a member, reported in Sriramachandra v. Venkateswara : AIR1939Mad157 and have been asked to extend the pr...
induru Pattabirami Reddi Vs. Kakarala Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad66; (1940)2MLJ484
King, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. On 7th November, 1922, defendant 1 mortgaged three items of property to plaintiff's father. In January, 1925, he settled the equity of redemption upon defendant 2 his mother. In September, 1925, defendant 2 sold item 1 to one Ademma, the main consideration for the sale being the promise by Ademma to discharge the whole of the mortgage debt. In 1926 and 1927 Ademma made two part-payments of Rs. 650 and Rs. 600 respectively. In January, 1932, Ademma sold item 1 to the plaintiff who had succeeded to his father's rights as mortgagee for Rs. 3,000 a sum which did not suffice to discharge the mortgage. Plaintiff accordingly sued to recover the balance, and the question at issue is whether on these facts, and with reference to Section 82 of the Transfer of Property Act, items 2 and 3 which have remained since 1925 in the possession of defendant 2, can be called upon to contribute any sum to the satisfaction of the mortgage. It is found that item 1...
Maragadhammal Vs. Yasodhammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad111; (1940)2MLJ587
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision is, what is the Court-fee payable on the Memorandum of Appeal which was presented against the judgment of my learned brother Somayya, J., in T.O.S. No. 11 of 1938 by which he directed the issue of a probate after declaring the will propounded by the respondent to be genuine. The appellant paid a court-fee of Rs. 225. The learned Master is of the opinion that an ad valorem stamp duty is payable under No. 35 of the High Court Fees Rules. The office is of the opinion that under No. 35 the appellant has to pay a stamp duty on Rs. 7,615-12-5 at which the testamentary suit has been valued and the same must be deemed to be the valuation in the appeal. The appellant contends that the subject-matter is incapable of valuation, but he however values it at Rs. 2,000 and states that the stamp duty paid by him is correct. The question is, is the contention of the appellant sound?2. The rule governing this matter is No. 35 of the Original Side Fees Ru...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »