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.
A.L.S.P.P.L. Subramanian Chettiar by Agent Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Muth ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad890; (1940)2MLJ170
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court from an order of Wadsworth, J., which involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935. The application is opposed and it is necessary to set out the course of events preceding the order of the learned Judge and to examine the provisions of the Act and the amendments which have been made to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Order, 1937.2. On the 21st November, 1934, the petitioner obtained a money decree for Rs. 7,569-0-9 with interest and costs against the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. At that time the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act had not been placed on the statute book. It came into force, however, on the 22nd March, 1938, and in accordance with its provisions the judgment-debtor applied for an order scaling down the decretal amount. His applica...
Budiredla Ramamurti Vs. Matta Sitaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad56; (1940)2MLJ293
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question of the power of a Court to scale down a compromise decree under Section 8 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, IV of 1938.2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. He and the respondent had dealings on account starting in 1922. On 26th March, 1928, the petitioner executed a promissory note in settlement of that account. On 3rd April, 1928, he executed a second promissory note for a fresh advance. On 20th July, 1929, he executed a promissory note for Rs. 4,600 comprising the amounts due on the two previous notes and a small amount in cash advanced at that time. It was alleged that on the 27th September, 1930, there was an arrangement whereby the petitioner undertook to pay the amount due on this promissory note within a, given time or to execute a mortgage over certain properties. No payment having been made and no mortgage having been executed, the respondent filed a suit O.S...
Abdul Kudus and ors. Vs. Abdul Gani and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad955; (1940)2MLJ406
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question of the court-fee payable on an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against an order requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 and odd being his share of debts binding the property, the possession of which has been decreed to him subject to this payment. The question is whether the plaintiff should value his appeal on the same basis as he valued his suit, namely, as if possession were the subject-matter, or whether he should value it on the basis of the value of the order which he seeks to get rid of in the appeal. Obviously, a contention such as that which has been raised before me would never be raised were it not for the fact that the suit itself has been filed on a fictitious value much less than its real value. Consequently, it is to the advantage of the petitioner to get the appeal relating to only a portion of the subject-matter of the suit valued at the value of the whole of the subject-matter of the suit. The absurdity of this positio...
In Re: A. Rahim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad71
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The prosecution was for installing a rice mill without the permission of the local authority and the complaint was made within twelve months from the commencement of the, offence. The complaint was thus within time and there is no substance in the contention that permission of the local authority need only be applied for. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed....
In Re: Pudukodu Iswara Subramanya Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad938
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The ghee was not stored or offered for sale, and the conviction under Section 5(1)(b), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, (Act 3 of 1918) is unsustainable. It is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Alapati Anandarao and ors. Vs. the President, Co-operative Credit Soci ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad828; (1940)2MLJ179
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellants are the sons of the fourth respondent and are all minors. They filed a suit through their maternal grandfather as their next friend in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore for partition of the family properties and the setting aside of certain alienations made by their father. They attached to their plaint three schedules. Schedule A contained the descriptions of ten items of immovable property belonging to the family. Schedule B was a list of the family's movable properties, and Schedule C, a list of the debts owed by the family. Of the immovable properties, items Nos. 1 to 9 had been mortgaged by their father and item No. 10 had been sold. These alienations were said to be invalid so far as the interests of the appellants were concerned and it was also alleged that some of the debts were not binding on them. The mortgage of items Nos. 1 to 9 was in favour of the Co-operative Credit Society of Pedatadepalli, which is represented...
N. Krishnaswami Aiyar Vs. T.N. Nagalinga Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ174
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The petitioner was the second defendant in a suit on a promissory note dated 8th October, 1934, executed by himself and by his brother the first defendant. This promissory note was in supersession of an earlier promissory note executed by the first defendant alone on 28th May, 1930. The first defendant is admittedly not an agriculturist within the purview of the Act. The second defendant claims to be entitled to the benefit of Section 9 of the Act on the basis that the debt upon which he has been sued is in renewal of a prior debt so far as he is concerned.2. It seems to us unnecessary to decide the question whether, when there is a debt incurred by A, superseded by another debt incurred by A and B, B can contend that his liability is in renewal of a prior debt. So far as the facts of this case go, it is clear to us that the original debt is not a debt as defined by Section 3(iii) of the Act wh...
In Re: B. Sriniwasa Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad687
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant was the Secretary of the Madras Socialist Party and he delivered two speeches at two public meetings held on 29th September and 15th October last. He was charged under Rule 38, Clause (5), Defence of India Rules, and besides alleging some distortions in the transcriptions, he contended that the speeches were not 'prejudicial acts' as denned in Rule 34, Clause (6). The Magistrate held otherwise and convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of each speech, directing the sentences to run concurrently, The accuracy of the transcriptions of the speeches which were taken down in shorthand by trained Sub-Inspectors was not seriously disputed, and apart from other objectionable matters the appellant exhorted the audience in both the speeches to desist from enlisting in the army or assisting the prosecution of the war in any manner. He had been warned by the Commissioner of Police against carrying on such propaganda and the s...
Nimmagadda Ramaseshayya Vs. Adusumilli Kutumba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad793; (1940)2MLJ235
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of the meaning of words 'debts incurred before the 1st October, 1932,' in Section 8 of the Madras Act IV of 1938. The transaction with which we are concerned is a decree dated 2,1st August, 1936, which itself is passed on the basis of a promissory note of 1928 which promissory note was in renewal of an earlier promissory note of 1925. The learned Subordinate Judge, has held that the debt to be scaled down is the decree itself and not the antecedent debt which formed the basis for the decree. He bases his decision on the definition of the word 'debt' in Section 3 of the Act which contains the words:'Debt' means any liability in cash or kind...due from an agriculturist, whether payable under a decree or order of a civil or revenue court or otherwise.2. He holds that since the definition of the word 'debt' covers one payable under a decree we must regard the decree as the starting point and since the decree was passed in 1936, it ...
Tajbi, Minor by Father and Next Friend Mohamed Alli Vs. Nattar Sheriff
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad888; (1940)2MLJ345
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant, who is a Sunni and therefore governed by the Hanafi law, brought this suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Ellore to recover a sum of Rs. 725 which she claimed as mahar. She was married to the respondent on the 31st March, 1930, when she was only nine years of age. On the 24th November, 1932, before the marriage had been consummated, the respondent divorced her. It is common ground that the respondent agreed at the time of the marriage to pay the appellant the sum of Rs. 725 as mahar, but it was contended in the trial Court that the appellant was only entitled to half the amount as the marriage was never consummated. The District Munsif gave a decree for the full amount; but this decree was set aside by the Subordinate Judge of Ellore on appeal. Th6 Subordinate Judge held that the defence was well founded and gave the appellant a decree for Rs. 362-8-0 only. The appellant has appealed to this Court.2. It is quite clear that the de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »