Chennai Court May 1940 Judgments
Dara Tripura Sundaralingam Vs. Vinjamuri Venkataramanayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad917; (1940)2MLJ322
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner brought an application before the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam, purporting to/be under Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, asking for a stay of the execution of a money decree pending proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board under Section 4 of the Act. When the application was filed, a copy of the petition was filed before the Debt Conciliation Board. A counter was filed making the usual allegations of frivolity and so on against the petitioner; and the Court passed an order staying the disposal of the execution application on condition of the petitioner's paying up the costs of the suit or of depositing them into Court on or before a certain date. The petitioner contends that this condition imposed by the order of the Subordinate Judge was ultra vires.2. Under Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, the Court is bound to stop all proceedings in connection with the debt which is being consi...
Tag this Judgment!Rachamadugu Narayanaswami Chetti Vs. R. Venkata Reddi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad889; (1940)2MLJ324
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a revision from an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor dismissing an application made by a judgment-debtor under the Debt Conciliation Act with the object of securing a stay of execution of a mortgage decree passed against him. The two grounds on which the execution Court refused to accede to the petitioner's (request were(1) that Section 25 of the Act did not apply to execution proceedings,(2) that a decree passed on the basis of a mortgage-deed does not fall within the purview of the Debt Conciliation Act.2. As to the first ground of the learned Subordinate Judge's decision, I find the words in Section 25 to be quite general and apparently intended to cover every proceeding, whether in the nature of an execution or otherwise. An application for execution, although arising out of a suit after a decree is passed therein is none the less a proceeding and there seems to be no justification for restricting the words only to miscellaneous pr...
Tag this Judgment!Alagu Sundarammal Vs. Ko. So. Thiruvengadathu Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad100(1); (1940)2MLJ379
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner was a close relative and a creditor of the respondent. The suit debt was incurred in 1928 in Devakottah, where both the petitioner and the respondent were living. The respondent has a son-in-law in the South Arcot District and while on a visit to him, filed an insolvency application under the summary procedure and omitted to mention the petitioner as his creditor. During the course of the insolvency proceedings, he made an endorsement on the pronote of the petitioner which saved limitation; but he failed to draw the attention of the Insolvency Court to the existence of this debt. The lower Court has found that he played a fraud upon the petitioner and deliberately concealed the existence of this debt in order that the insolvency proceedings might be decided to his advantage. The procedure being on the summary side, many formalities were dispensed with and very little publication was given to the insolvency. Nothing was, of course, known about the insolvent'...
Tag this Judgment!P.R.N.S.M. Chokkalingam Chetti Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ645
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decree passed by us in O.S.A. No. 68 of 1937. This appeal was preferred by 'the petitioner against the decision of our learned brother Wadsworth, J., disallowing the claim to priority of the petitioner in regard to the amount claimed by him. We affirmed the decision of our learned brother Wadsworth, J., and dismissed the appeal. The decree passed by us is a decree of affirmance within the meaning of Section 110, Clause 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is contended by Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar that there is one decree issued in this case and, when leave to appeal is granted in regard to the question of interest, his client is entitled as a matter of right to leave to appeal also in regard to the question of priority, because the claim is one composite claim and the decree is one decree. We are not inclined to agree with this contention. Though one decree was issued in this case, it is in es...
Tag this Judgment!G. Samuel Vs. Cyril Gill and John Stanley Goodwin, Official Liquidator ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ818
ORDERVenkataramana Rao, J.1. This application raises a question of set-off. The Travancore National and Quilon Bank hereinafter called the Bank, lent a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the applicant herein, Mr. G. Samuel, on a promissory note dated 7th October, 1936. The Bank was not willing to lend this sum to him without security. His mother-in-law Mrs. G. P. Sathanantham Srinivasan offered to give the necessary security. On the date of the loan she had a sum of Rs. 4,300 in fixed desposit covered by the Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing the same date. She gave that amount as security. In her affidavit Mrs. Srinivasan states that she gave the said security on the definite understanding that the Bank should adjust the amount due by Mr. Samuel from and out of the money due to her under the said deposit at the time of maturity. The terms on which she gave the said security were reduced to writing and is evidenced by a letter written by Mrs. Srinivasan to the Bank and it runs thus:I beg to hand you herew...
Tag this Judgment!Pattu Achi Vs. V. Rajgopala Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad923
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is part of the property admittedly left by one Venkataohala Pillai who died in May 1890. At that time Venkataohala Pillai was a young man, married to defendant 1 who was shortly expecting a child. She was delivered of a still born female child in July. It is not now seriously disputed that shortly before he died Venkataohala Pillai orally authorized his wife to make an adoption in case the child she was expecting should prove to be a girl. On 9th February 1891 defendant 1 adopted one Pichai Pillai who lived to become a major, but shortly afterwards (in February 1907) was murdered while still unmarried. In 1922 defendant 1 executed Ex. W, by which the estate which had originally belonged to Venkatachala Pillai and was then in her hands, was divided into two portions, the larger half being retained by defendant 1 and the smaller conveyed to Muthukumara Pillai, the nearest reversioner. In May 1926 defendant 1 made a second adoption to her decea...
Tag this Judgment!Sofia Bi Bi Saheba Vs. Vasudeva Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad952; (1940)2MLJ381
Somayya, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Principal City Civil Judge at Madras in O.S. No. 555 of 1935. The suit is for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction on their property so far as is necessary to restore to the plaintiff the free use of her windows and the quantity of light and air that has been coming through them undiminished and for a permanent, injunction restraining them from erecting any construction so as to interfere with plaintiff's use of her windows.2. The plaintiff is the owner of a storied house No. 420 situated on the western row of the Triplicane High Road facing the east. The defendants' are owners of house No. 419 situated next south of the plaintiff's house. The plaintiff alleges that the southern wall on the first floor of her house facing the defendants' house, contains three windows which have been in existence for over 50 years, that she had been enjoying free light and air through those...
Tag this Judgment!Charapotta Kanur Kesavan Nayar Vs. Kummankuzhi Ezhuvan Kunchu's son Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad909; (1940)2MLJ238
Wadsworth, J.1. I do not consider that the District; Munsif is right in treating the lack of direct evidence of execution of the promissory note as a material irregularity sufficient to justify interference under Section 73 of the Village Courts Act. The village Court was satisfied by comparison of the signature with that found on an admitted document and by a consideration of the admitted circumstances that the promissory note was executed by the defendant. The mere fact that a decree was given on a lesser degree of proof than would have been required by the Court of a District Munsif is not sufficient to constitute a material irregularity justifying interference in revision. There has been no injustice. I set aside the order of the District Munsif and restore the decree with costs here and in the District Munsif's Court....
Tag this Judgment!Maddipati Narasimhamurti (Minor) and ors. Vs. Hayat Khan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad911; (1940)2MLJ287
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The first respondent filed this suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Kovvur for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage created on the 20th April, 1877, in respect of 2-61 acres of land. The first respondent's case was that this property was mortgaged by his; great uncle, one Sujayat Beg, in favour of the predecessors in title of the appellants, that the period for which the mortgage was created expired in 1927 and that he was entitled to three quarters of Sujayat Beg's estate, to the extent of a quarter as the result of succession and to the extent of a half as the result of a purchase made by his mother. In order to establish a right to any portion of the property, it was incumbent upon the first respondent to prove his mother's relationship to the mortgagor and that the persons who sold their interests to his mother were also heirs of Sujayat Beg. The appellants, in addition to denying the relationships set out by the first respondent, aver...
Tag this Judgment!Roopchand Merlacha Vs. Sha Motaji Mokanaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-01-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad791; (1940)2MLJ283
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question under Madras Act XI of 1936. The petitioner was the judgment-debtor under a compromise decree. On 27th October, 1939, a sale was ordered under that decree. At some date in November the petitioner presented an application to the Debt Conciliation Board, which application was not in proper form and was consequently rejected on 2nd December, 1939, under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. At the time of the rejection an application for stay of execution of proceedings under Section 25 of the Act was pending before the executing Court and on 8th' December, 1939, the Court ordered a stay of the sale for two months. It is to be observed that at the time of this order there was in fact no application pending and if there had been an application pending, the limitation of the period of stay to two months seems to be not in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act which makes it obligatory upon the Court to stay proceedings unti...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »