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.
The President, Co-operative Credit Society Vs. Sanam Narasimha Rao and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad77; (1940)2MLJ402
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 7th April, 1936, the first respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore to recover the sum of Rs. 7,248-10-8, which he claimed to be due on a mortgage created by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent, who had assigned his interest to him. On the 2nd March, 1931, the appellant, who was the third defendant in the suit, obtained in proceedings before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies an award entitling him to recover Rs. 1,116-6-2 from the second respondent. On the 18th May, 1931, the appellant attached in execution proceedings in the Court of the District Munsif of Ellore two items of the properties covered by the' mortgage in suit. On, the 15th December, 1932, the third respondent filed a petition asking that the District Munsif should direct the properties attached by the appellant to be sold subject to his mortgage. On the 25th January, 1933, the District Munsi...
In Re: Gampala Subbigadu Alias Damasagadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad280; (1940)2MLJ1018
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Cuddapah and sentenced to death for the murder of one Bitti Chennugadu alias Laddugadu on the 19th August, 1939.2. Bitti Chennugadu was undoubtedly murdered' on the 19th August at Buggajapalli where he lives. According to the evidence for the prosecution, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 and the accused were engaged at about noon in skinning a cow by the side of the Cuddapah-Rayachoti road. At that time Chennugadu, it is said, came and objected to their skinning the cow in that place because it was stinking aisd because it would provoke the anger of any inspecting officer who might come. He threatened to go and report the matter to the Village Munsif and so saying he turned away. When he had gone a few steps, the accused is said to have run after him and stabbed him in the back with the knife which he was using to skin the carcass. Chennugadu ran a few yards further away but the accused pursued him and stabbed him twice in th...
Sait Sogmull Lachiram Firm of Tenali Vs. Vallabhaneni Parandhamayya an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad716; (1940)2MLJ17
Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.1. A somewhat interesting question relating to the construction of the proviso to Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 arises for consideration in this revision petition. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a small cause suit in which he sued to recover a sum of Rs. 1,000 on foot of a promissory note executed on 10th April, 1930, by the first respondent. The other respondents are the undivided sons of the first respondent. The suit was filed on 12th November, 1934, that is to say, one year seven months and two days after the period of limitation and is therefore prima facie time barred unless the plaintiff could claim the benefit of an exemption. To this end he relies on Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act which runs as follows:Where an order of adjudication has been annulled under this Act, in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit or application for the execution of a decree (other than a suit or application in i...
Kuppu Govinda Chettiar Vs. Uttukottai Co-operative Society by Its Liqu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad831; (1940)2MLJ241
Pandrang Row, J.1. These are appeals from the decree in two connected suits O.S. Nos. 1 and 12 of 1935, on the file of the District Court of Chingleput. The plaintiff was the same in both the suits and the defendant also was the same. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendant who is the respondent in these appeals, was described as the Uttukottai Co-operative Society by its Liquidator. The suits were for a declaration that certain orders made in 1933 and 1932 by the Liquidator of the Co-operative Credit Society in question determining the contribution payable by the plaintiff in the suits at Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively were illegal and void and of no effect whatever as against the plaintiff. The suits were resisted on various grounds and they were tried together and disposed of in one and the same Judgment by the District Judge. It is an unfortunate feature that in this case judgment was pronounced by the Court below more than a year after case had been closed.2. On all...
Boganatham Arunachalam Chetty and anr. Vs. Boganatham Krishnaveni Amma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad724; (1941)1MLJ697
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal and the memorandum of objections arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs as reversioners of the estate of one Kumaraswami Chetti for restraining the first defendant, the mother of the said Kumaraswami Chetti from committing waste of the property inherited by her from her son. The first plaintiff was related to the said Kumaraswami as his great grandfather's brother's son. Plain-tiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased brothers of the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit in the lower Court and plaintiffs 2 and 3 were declared as his legal representatives. The second defendant Subbammal is the grandmother of the deceased Kumaraswami Chetti being his father's father's wife. The third defendant is the wife of Kumaraswami's great grandfather. Defendants 2 and 3 are admittedly persons entitled to maintenance out of the estate of Kumaraswami. In the plaint the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant was entirely...
Paleti Chandrayya and ors. Vs. Yeruva Chinnappa Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad753
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal is from the order of the learned District Judge of Guntur confirming the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur dismissing the petition filed by five creditors of an insolvent Thomas Reddi in I. p. No. 42 of 1923 on the file of the District Court of Guntur for the grant of certain reliefs against respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. Respondent 1 is another creditor of the insolvent and respondent 2, P.V.S. Rao, is the special receiver, Guntur. Several questions of law were argued during the hearing of the appeal. In order to appreciate them, a statement of facts is necessary. Thomas Reddi was adjudicated insolvent on 8th January 1924. The adjudication was annulled on 7th December 1927, by reason of the insolvent failing to apply for his discharge in time. While annulling the adjudication, the District Judge of Guntur passed the following order:I think that in the interest of the general body of creditors the prop...
ivaturi Veera Subramanyam and ors. Vs. President, District Board
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad733
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs, a father and his three minor children, have brought this suit for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act on account of an accident alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendants, which was responsible for the fall of a tree on a cart passing along the Narasapur Nidadavole Road, with the result that the wife and two small sons, aged three years and one year, of plaintiff 1 were killed. The amount of damages claimed was Rs. 6000. The Subordinate Judge of Ellore, who tried this suit, found that the District Board of West Godavari had been negligent in the sense that the attention of the Board had been drawn from time to time to the dangerous condition of some of the trees on this road and that they had taken no steps in spite of the complaints to out down the trees. The District Board, which was the contesting defendant, set up a plea of vis major and contributory negligence, it being alleged that the accident occurred during a very heavy stor...
In Re: V.K.R. St. Kasi Viswanatha Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ702
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was one of the Managing Directors eo nomine and the evidence does not warrant the conclusion that he was knowingly and wilfully a party to the default under Section 76(1) of the Indian Companies Act. The conviction of the petitioner is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Muthuswami thevar Alias Mappilaiswami thevar Vs. Rajakumar B. Rajaram ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad904; (1940)2MLJ355
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The respondent claimed to be in possession of the entire village and the Joint Magistrate has declared him to be entitled to possession of an undivided 5-8ths of the village. This is not permissible under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the order declaring the respondent to be entitled to possession of 5-8ths of the village is set aside....
Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam Through Its Executive Officer, K.N. Radhakr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad811; (1940)1MLJ891
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner is the trustee - of the Sri Kallalagar Devasthanam, Madura. He applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Melur, for orders under Section 44B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, directing the resumption of certain service inams granted by the temple. The Revenue Divisional Officer rejected the applications and the petitioner then filed appeals to the Collector of Madura, who held that there was no right of appeal and consequently passed an order dismissing them all. The petitioner has now asked this Court to quash the order of the Collector and to direct him to hear the appeals.2. Section 44-B(2)(a) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act states that the Collector may resume the whole or any part of an inam granted for the performance of a charity or service connected with a math or temple on one or more of the following grounds: (i) that the holder of the inam has made an exchange, gift, sale or mortgage of it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »