Chennai Court August 1940 Judgments
Velayudham Subbayya Nadar Vs. Kalamsetti Anjaneyalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ570
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The short question for decision in these revision petitions is whether an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis can be rejected without hearing the applicant or giving him an opportunity of being heard. In each case, the Court below rejected the application without hearing the petitioner and the legality of this procedure is challenged before me.2. It is not disputed that an application under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, is a judicial proceeding and the order made therein should be based upon the exercise of a judicial discretion exercised on a proper consideration of the relevant material. A Full Bench of this Court has expressed the opinion, approving Appasami Pillai v. Somasundara Mudaliar I.L.R.(1902)Mad. 437, that an order rejecting an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is an appealable 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. See Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar (1910) 21 M.L.J. 1 : I.L.R. 35 Mad. 1 .It is the...
Tag this Judgment!Kamalathammal Vs. Harihara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad103; (1940)2MLJ700
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of jurisdiction on which there has been considerable divergence of judicial opinion.2. The facts may be briefly stated. The petitioner obtained an ex parte decree in Section C.S. No. 73 of 1937 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tiruvarur. The respondent who was the first defendant in the case applied to the Court to set aside the ex parte decree which was set aside on 31st August, 1937, on certain terms which are not material for the purpose of this petition. A revision petition was filed against that order and this Court set it aside and remitted the proceeding for disposal according to law. Before, however, it could be disposed of, the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur was abolished with effect from 1st November, 1938, and by the District Court's proceedings dated 29th October, 1938, the application to set aside the e% parte decree was ordered to be transferred from the Subordinate Judge's Court t...
Tag this Judgment!S.K. Subba Naicker Vs. Savarimuthu Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ709
King, J.1. This appeal is entitled to succeed on the ground that no appeal lay to the lower appellate Court - see Viswanatha Aiyar v. Narayanaswami Aiyar (1939) 2 M.L.J. 398, but the correct interpretation of Section 23 of the Act (Agriculturists Relief Act - Act IV of 1938) is an important matter coming within the scope in my opinion, of Section 115, Civil Procedure Code and I accordingly proceed to deal with the decision of the learned District Munsif in revision. The interpretation of Section 23 in my opinion admits of no doubt whatever. It enacts that any sale held in execution of any decree cm be set aside provided that(i) it was of immovable property in which an agriculturist had an interest;(ii) it was on or after 1st October, 1937;(iii) the judgment-debtor must be an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act;(iv) the application must be made within 90 days of the commencement of the Act.2. The clause 'notwithstanding that the sale. Has been confirmed' in no way affects ...
Tag this Judgment!Sevugam Chettiar Alias Manickavasagam Chettiar Vs. Ranganatha Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad288; (1940)2MLJ870
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only question for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is from what date a debt scaled down under Section 8(3) of Madras Act IV of 1938 is to carry interest under Section 12 of the Act. The debt in this case was contracted on 14th September, 1932, and the decree thereon was passed on 21st December, 1936. It was scaled down to Rs. 298-14-11 being the amount by which the sums paid by way of principal, and interest fell short of twice the amount of the principal and there is no dispute before us regarding the amount.2. In applying Section 12 of the Act, the Court below was of opinion that when a debt is scaled down under Sub-section 3 of Section 8 it has to be scaled down up to the commencement of the Act and the reference to 1st October, 1937, in Sub-section (1) has no application to cases falling under Sub-section (3). We consider that this view is erroneous. It is true that Sub-section (3) does not mention the date up to which debts have to be scaled...
Tag this Judgment!Jooluri Guruvayya Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad575; (1941)1MLJ405
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioner obtained a decree against certain persons who were subsequently adjudicated insolvents. Before the insolvency petition was admitted, the judgment-debtors' properties were sold in execution of the decree and a sum of about Rs. 666 was realised. The respondent who is the Official Receiver applied to the Court below for payment of this amount to him and the Court ordered payment accordingly.2. The petitioner assails the validity of this order as being contrary to Section 51 (l)of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Prima facie that section entitles the petitioner to the amount realised in execution of his decree, as it does not appear that the petitioner's allegation in the counter petition filed in the lower court that the amount was realised before the admission of the insolvency petition was controverted. But the respondent's contention which has found favour with the Court below is that by virtue of Section 28 (7), the order of adjudication should be r...
Tag this Judgment!Marina Anmayi Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council, Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ328
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision is whether the suit out of which this second appeal arises is liable to be dismissed for want of proper notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit. The question now is whether the dismissal is proper.2. The notice of suit given to the Collector was dated the 20th October, 1932. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the notice was served on the 21st October, 1932. The suit was instituted on the 21st December, 1932. In the plaint the allegation is that the first defendant, the Secretary of State for India represented by the Collector of East Godavari acknowledged the notice on the 21st October, but however failed to comply with the demand therein. The plaintiff claimed exemption of the two months' time occupied by reason of the said notice. The reply of the Collector on behalf of the Secretary of State was that the amount of claim was not mentioned in the said notice and the suit was bad...
Tag this Judgment!Vinjamuri Venkatanarasimhacharyulu Vs. Jami Gangaraju (Amended As) Gan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad607; (1941)1MLJ554
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This revision petition raises an interesting question of law on which it is said there is no direct authority.2. The petitioner brought the suit for recovery of the first year's rent payable under a registered kadapa executed by the respondent on 23rd May, 1935, for a term of five years. The defence was that out of the 5 acres 40 cents covered by the kadapa (Ex. A.), 4 acres and .10 cents belonged to the petitioner's adoptive mother, that the petitioner who was managing her properties on her behalf leased the said 4 acres and 10 cents along with 1 acre and 30 cents of his own land, describing the entire property as his own, that part of the rent proportionate to the extent belonging to her was paid and accepted by the petitioner's adoptive mother and that the balance had been paid to the petitioner. The kadapa recites that the properties leased were in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and contains a covenant by the respondent to pay the ren...
Tag this Judgment!Velayudham Subbaya Nadar Vs. Kalamsetti Anjaneyalu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad49
ORDERPatanjali Sastri, J.1. The short question for decision in these revision petitions is whether an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis can be rejected without hearing the applicant or giving him an opportunity of being heard. In each case, the Court below rejected the application with-out hearing the petitioner and the legality of this procedure is challenged before me. It is not disputed that an application under Order 44, Rule 1, Civil P.C., is a judicial proceeding and the order made therein should be based upon the exercise of a judicial discretion exercised on a proper consideration of the relevant material. A Full Bench of this Court has expressed the opinion, approving Appasami Pillai v. Somasundaram Mudaliar ('03) 26 Mad. 437 that an order rejecting an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is an appealable 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent : see Tuljaram Rao v. Alagappa Chettiar ('12) 35 Mad. 1 . It is therefore difficult to see how s...
Tag this Judgment!Marina Ammayi Vs. Secretary of State and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad446
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision IH whether the suit out of which this second appeal arises is liable to be dismissed for want of proper notice under Section 80, Civil P.C. Both the lower Courts dismissed the suit. The question now is whether the dismissal is proper. The notice of suit given to the Collector was dated 20th October 1932. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the notice was served on 21st October 1982. The suit was instituted on 21st December 1932. In the plaint, the allegation is that defendant 1, the Secretary of State for India represented by the Collector of East Godawary acknowledged the notice on 21st October but however failed to comply with the demand therein. The plaintiff claimed exemption of the two months' time occupied; by reason of the said notice. The reply of the Collector on behalf of the Secretary of State was that the amount of claim was not mentioned in the said notice and the suit was bad for want of proper notice. The followi...
Tag this Judgment!Puranam Egna Narayanayya Vs. Desaboyina Venkatayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ920
Wadsworth, J.1 The petitioner in this revision petition entered into an agreement with one Seshayya to purchase land, paid 'the price and got a sale deed executed . When he was about to get the sale deed registered he was approached by the first respondent who himself wanted a conveyance of the same land. There was an agreement whereby the petitioner undertook to get the land conveyed by Seshayya to the first respondent and on that date the first respondent executed in favour of the petitioner a promissory note and paid a certain sum in cash. On the same day at the instance of the petitioner Seshayya executed a registered sale deed in favour of the first respondent and on the following day 11th August, 1921, the first respondent executed a mortgage to the' petitioner to cover the amount embodied in the promissory note of the previous day. In 1937 the petitioner sued on his mortgage and on 6th November, 1937, he got a preliminary decree which was followed on 11th March, 1938 by a final ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »