Chennai Court July 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.
Boddana Ramudu and ors. Vs. Sasapu Sanyasi Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad97; (1940)2MLJ668
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs as purchasers of the equity of redemption of two mortgages dated 22nd June, 1914 and 12th November, 1918. Tlie mortgage of 22nd June, 1914, is usufructuary and that of 12th November, 1918, is simple. The plaintiffs sued for redemption of. the mortgages and for recovery of possession of the lands mortgaged thereunder. The right to redeem is not denied. The amount due and payable under the mortgages is not disputed. But the point in controversy between the parties is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover vacant possession of the lands or are only entitled to the melvaram interest therein. The contention of the defendants is that on the date of the mortgage in 1914 they were cultivating tenants in possession of the lands and had occupancy rights therein and that what was mortgaged was only the melvaram interest. The plaintiffs said in answer that under the terms of the mortgage what was m...
Pothula Sattiraju Vs. Polisetti Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad800(2); (1941)2MLJ646
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition is preferred against a Judgment in appeal dismissing a suit as one of which the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction with reference to the terms of Sections 189 and 213 of the Madras Estates Land Act.2. The petitioner (plaintiff) had a decree under a mortgage binding lands in an estate. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 represented the mortgagors owning the kudivaram in the land. The first defendant was the zamindar. In 1929 the first defendant obtained an ex parte decree against defendants 3 to 5 for water cess alleged to be due on their land which was an inam. Under the decree a sale was held and a portion of the land was purchased in revenue sale by the second defendant. The plaintiff came to know of the sale and deposited the amount due thereunder which was a little over Rs. 1,300 and got the sale set aside. This was on 17th January, 1930. On 17th January, 1933, he filed the present suit in the District Munsif's Court in which he alleged a fraudulent conspir...
Vedala Vallabhacharyulu Vs. Vedala Rangacharyulu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad76; (1940)2MLJ416
Wadsworth, J.1. It seems to me apparent that the Court hearing an appeal from a decision in a suit wherein the plaintiff seeks to escape liability from a decree of another Court, has no jurisdiction under Section 19 or any other section of Madras Act IV of 1938 to scale down the decree which is being attacked at the instance of the plaintiff. The petitions are dismissed with costs in C.R.P. No. 1123 of 1939....
T.P. Chandrasekara Aiyar Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ461
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioner can be deemed to be an agriculturist with reference to the definition in Section 3 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The objection raised was that he was the landholder of an estate in respect of which a sum exceeding Rs. 100 was paid as 'quit rent, jodi, kattubadi, poruppu or the like.' The learned District Judge has not given a precise finding as to the amount payable by the petitioner in respect of the eight villages of which he admits possession but has come to the conclusion that on his admissions the petitioner is disqualified from claiming to be an agriculturist. In the Memorandum dated 6th July, 1938, the petitioner has admitted possession of eight villages in respect of which he pays as jodi, Rs. 6-4-0 only, though he pays approximately Rs. 72, Rs. 339 and Rs. 244 respectively for kaval fees, road-cess and water-charges. The learned District Judge has lumped all these four charges ...
Sundara Reddiar Vs. Alagappa Chettiar, by Agent Veeraraghava Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad100(2); (1940)2MLJ466
Wadsworth, J.1. Petitioner is the son and legal representative of the 19th defendant against whom the decree was being executed when he got a stay by means of an application dated 9th April, 1938, under Section 20 of Act IV of 1938. The 19th defendant did not follow up his stay application with an application under Section 19, but he died on 4th June, 1938, just before the expiry of the sixty days time allowed under Section 20. Petitioner was impleaded as legal representative op 19th October, 1938 and on that day asked for time to oppose the execution. On 14th December, 1938, he filed a fresh application under Section 20. I am of opinion that the application does not lie. The petitioner succeeds to the rights and liabilities in the litigation of his father. His father had already exhausted his remedy under Section 20 and by the express terms of that section the decree must be executed against him as it stands. The legal representative is subject to the same liability. The petition is d...
N. Muthusami Chettiar Vs. Periyal Achi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad84; (1940)2MLJ606
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the first defendant in a suit for recovery of money collected by the first defendant as a result of a decree which is alleged to be the property of the plaintiff's husband. The facts are rather peculiar. The decree in question was transferred from a third party to the name of the first defendant and it is alleged that the real owner was the plaintiff's husband who is now dead. The plaintiff's husband was adjudged an insolvent in 1930. He died in June, 1934, at or about the time when the first defendant effected a sale of the properties acquired in execution of the decree in question. It would appear that at the time of his death the plaintiff's husband had failed to carry out the Court's orders in prosecution of his insolvency and had not applied for a discharge. It would also appear that the debts due to creditors in the insolvency were the subject of an extra judicial composition. In June, 1937, the plaintiff, widow of the deceased insolvent sued th...
Mayandi Venkatesa Mudali and anr. Vs. Konne Desappa Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad99(1); (1940)2MLJ555
Wadsworth, J.1. The question is whether the sale of the appellant's property for arrears of rent under the Madras Estates Land Act operates as an act of insolvency under Section 6(e) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. It seems to me clear that the decree for rent is a decree for the payment of money, notwithstanding the fact that the rent is charged on the holding. The decree in question was passed before the appointment of the ad-interim receiver in the previous insolvency. At the time of the sale, the receiver was apparently not in possession though he had been appointed. The property therefore not only vested in the debtor but was in his physical possession and there was nothing, except his poverty, to prevent him from paying the rent. The property was certainly 'his property' within the terms of Section 6(e) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The case reported in Lachmi Chand v. Bipin Behari : AIR1928Cal644 has no application, for in that case, there had been an adjudication and the ...
In Re: Karuppal Alias Chetty Boyachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad50; (1940)2MLJ492
Burn, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore for the murder of her own two children, a little girl aged 5 and a little boy aged 2 on the 17th December, 1939. The evidence against the appellant consisted mainly of confessions of her own said to have been made to her aunt (P.W. 10) and to an acquaintance (P.W. 1, Rama Boyan) and also to the Village Munsif of Pattaramangalam, P.W. 12. The appellant according to these witnesses admitted that she had thrown her children into a well and said that she had jumped into the well herself but had afterwards, apparently repenting of her intention to take her own life, managed to get out. She said that the reason why she had decided to take her children's life and her own was that she had been very harshly treated by her husband and was living a life of the utmost misery. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has accepted these confessions of the appellant and has stated that in his opinion this ...
In Re: Singampilli Yerranna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad306
Mockett, J.1. The four appellants and one Killadi Dali Naidu who was accused 5 before the Sessions Court were charged in the case of accused 2, 3 and 4 with the murder of one Sriramulu on 1st November 1939; accused 1 was further charged with abetment of the murder by accused 2, 3 and 4, at the place of the murder, and accused 5 with abetment of accused 2 by waiting near by presumably with the object of co-operating. Accused 1 and 2 were further charged with dishonest misappropriation of property of the deceased. Accused 1 is the wife of the deceased and there can be little doubt that - to put it no higher - the married life of accused 1 and the deceased was not happy. The father of Sriramulu deposes that the deceased and his wife had not slept together after their marriage until actually the night of the occurrence. It is not necessary to investigate the relations between these two further than that. The prosecution relied on the ill-feeling alleged to exist between them as being at le...
In Re: Thalappil Thithachumma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad27; (1940)2MLJ551
Burn, J.1. This is one of the many cases of murder of a child for the sake of jewels worn upon the person. An unusual feature of the case is that the murder in this case was committed by a young woman aged about 20.2. There is no possible doubt about the facts. On the 2nd January, 1940, the appellant decoyed a child named Katheesa aged twelve to her house, strangled her by putting a cloth round her neck and pulling it tight, took her silver jewels worth about Rs. 5 off and then threw the body into a well in the compound. With the jewels she went straightaway to a silver smith (P.W. 14) and requested him to make them over for her. The silver smith deducted one rupee weight of silver for his own wages and turned the rest of the jewels into chitters which were recovered from the appellant by the police very shortly afterwards. There was no eye-witness of this crime and the evidence against the appellant consist almost entirely of confessions made by herself. When she was questioned on the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »