Chennai Court July 1940 Judgments
Patinhare Valappil Pokker Vs. Alakkal Kunheethutti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad186; (1940)2MLJ603
Pandrang Row, J.1. This appeal comes before us as a result of the order made by Burn, J., to the effect that an important question is raised in this appeal arising out of the Malabar Tenancy Act which frequently comes up for decision and on which there is no authority. This question is whether the renewal in respect of a part of the original holding by an intermediary in favour of the tenant in actual possession of that part is not permitted under the Malabar Tenancy Act, XIV of 1930. Before dealing with this question a few necessary facts have to be stated. The first plaintiff in the suit is the jenmi of the properties and the second plaintiff is an assignee of his in whose favour the plaintiff prays for a decree. Five items of properties were demised on kanom tenure by the first plaintiff in favour of the tarwad of defendants 1 to 20 under Ex. A of 11th September, 1911. One of these five items was set apart in favour of the third defendant whose assignee subsequently got a. renewal f...
Tag this Judgment!Chinniya Pillai and anr. Vs. Subbaratnam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad22; (1940)2MLJ590
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The question that falls to be decided in this revision petition is whether a person whose adjudication is annulled under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act is disqualified for election as a member of a Local Board as an 'undischarged insolvent' under Section 55(2)(b) of the Madras Local Boards Act. The respondent was adjudicated insolvent in 1928 and the adjudication was annulled in 1932 as he did not apply for discharge within the time prescribed. He was elected as a member of the Samayapuram-Kannanore Panchayat Board in June, 1938. Apparently no objection was raised on the ground of disqualification when he offered himself for election nor was any proceeding instituted to set aside his election after he was elected, but the petitioner who was also a member of the Board applied under Section 57 on 21st November, 1938, to the District Judge, Trichinopoly, in which the area of the Local Board is situated, to determine whether or not the respondent was dis...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vasireddi Sivalinga Prasad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad683; (1941)1MLJ610
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner was an organising Secretary of the Andhra Provincial Ryots Association and he addressed a meeting of the ryots of Peddavaram in the open space in front of the house of P.W. 1, the Kamatam agent of the Zamindarini of Muktyala on the night of 21st January, last. He abused the Zamindarini and her agents in the course of his speech on the inam legislation but neither the Zamindarini nor her agents were present at the meeting and as rightly conceded the conviction of the petitioner under Section 504, Indian Penal Code is unsustainable. It is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Kunchaparti Venkatachellam Vs. Vemuri Subrahmanyam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad795; (1941)2MLJ219
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the refusal of the Court below to allow the petitioner a share of the realised assets of his judgment-debtor in a rateable distribution thereof under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner obtained a transfer of the decree in O.S. No. 216 of 1929 on the file of the lower Court passed against one Nageswaram, and the respondent obtained a decree against the same person and his brothers in O.S. No. 38 of 1930 in the same Court. In execution of the latter decree, properties of the brothers were sold on 20th July, 1936, and the petitioner who is said to have applied on 14th July, 1936, to execute his decree claimed a rateable share of the proceeds of such sale. The Court below rejected the claim on the ground that the transfer of the decree in favour of the petitioner had not been recognised by the Court before the date 0f the realisation of the assets, and the correctness of this view is challenged by the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!S. Subbaraya Mudaliar Vs. Appathurai Samban and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1940
Reported in: AIR1943Mad756
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two suits instituted in the Court of the District Munsif of Shiyali being O. S. Nos. 204 and 205 of 1933. There was a third suit O. S. No. 206 of 1933 tried along with them raising identical questions. The suits were instituted by the appellant to eject the several defendants in occupation of portions of a piece of dry land part of Survey No. 27 in the village of Kondal, Shiyali Taluk. The patta for this land has all along stood in the name of the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title. The plaintiff purchased roughly two-thirds of the lands in the village of Kondal and among the items purchased was an extent of 32 cents in Survey NO. 27. The defendants in O. S. No. 204 of 1933 are in possession of 7 out of 32 cents purchased by the plaintiff, while the defendants in O. S. No. 205 of 1933 are in possession of 6 cents thereout. It is unnecessary to consider the special facts of O. S. NO. 206 of 1933, which is not now bef...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimhalu Naidu Vs. Pemmati Naga Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ694
King, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the licensee of the toddy shop at Minnal for the year beginning 1st October, 1932. The auction at which defendant's bid was accepted was on 8th August, 1932. On the 31st August appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent which is embodied in Ex. A. This is a brief document called a 'partition' and apart from a penalty clause with which I am not now concerned, its terms are that appellant should bear one half of the expenses of running the business and that the sale proceeds should be divided between appellant and respondent every month. Respondent alleging that appellant had not paid him his half share of the profits, filed a suit for accounts. Appellant contended, amongst other things, that the agreement was illegal and could not therefore be enforced. The District Munsif of Sholinghur accepted this contention, the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor rejected it and remanded the suit for disposal after taking accounts. Against that ord...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Beggam Appalanarasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ715
Mockett, J.1. The appellant who is the karnam of the village of Gangachollapenta was charged before the learEed Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam together with three other persons for murdering one Thalada Ramaswami on the night of the 2nd August last. The murder must have taken place on the piain road between Gajapathinagaram and Mentada very near to Mentada. There is ample evidence on the record to show that the appellant and the deceased were on terms of friendship. That has been proved by the Village Munsif and there are circumstances in this case which strongly bear that out. But the learned Sessions Judge has relied on certain evidence in this case as proving motive on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased. That motive is derived from statements made by the deceased to his wife and to his wife's sister to the effect that in relation to a law suit in which the deceased's, wife's sister, one Pydithalli, was concerned the appellant had accepted a bribe from the plaintiff one ...
Tag this Judgment!The Nellore Permanent Fund Limited by Its President, C. Malakondaiya V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad888; (1941)2MLJ388
Wadsworth, J.1. Petitioner is a public company which has got a decree on a mortgage providing interest at something under 8 per cent, with a default rate of 12 1/2 per cent. The latter rate has actually been adopted in the decree, so that it is not open to the petitioner to base an argument on the theory that the 12 1/2 per cent, is not a rate of interest payable but a penal rate which could not be recovered. Nor can it be argued that the rate of interest 'payable in respect of the liability' in Section 10(2)(iii) of Act IV of 1938 means the rate of subsequent interest on the decree amount. Clearly the sub-clause is dealing with an exemption from the operation of Sections 8 and 9, which are concerned with the scaling down of the debt whether or not it has ripened into a decree. It must, therefore, be interest on the basic debt to which this rather cumbrously worded clause refers. The order of the lower Court is correct and there are no grounds for interference in revision. The petition...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Baggam Appalanarasayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad101
Mockett, J.1. The appellant who is the karnam of the village of Gangachollapenta was charged before the learned Sessions Judge of Vizagapatam together with three other persons for murdering one Thalada Ramaswami on the night of 2nd August last. The murder must have taken place on the main road between Gajapatinagaram and Mentada very near to Mentada There is ample evidence on the record to show that the appellant and the deceased were on terms of friendship. That has been proved by the village Munsif and there are circumstances in this case which strongly bear that out. But the learned Sessions Judge has relied on certain evidence in this case as proving motive on the part of the appellant to murder the deceased. That motive is derived from statements made by the deceased to his wife and to his wife's sister to the effect that in relation to a law suit in which the deceased's wife's sister, one Pydithalli was concerned the appellant had accepted a bribe from the plaintiff one Narayanam...
Tag this Judgment!Narasimhulu Naidu Vs. Pemmati Naga Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad64
King, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was the licensee of the toddy shop at Minnal for the year beginning 1st October 1932. The auction at which defendant's bid was accepted was on 8th August 1932. On 31st August appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent which is embodied in Ex. A. This is a brief document called a 'partition' and apart from a penalty clause with which I am not now concerned, its terms are that appellant should bear one-half of the expenses of running the business and that the sale proceeds should be divided between appellant and respondent every month. Respondent alleging that appellant had not paid him his half share of the profits, filed a suit for accounts. Appellant contended, amongst other things, that the agreement was illegal and could not therefore be enforced. The District Munsif of Sholinghur accepted this contention; the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor rejected it and remanded the suit for disposal after taking accounts. Against that order of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »