Chennai Court August 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 Maharaja of Cochin, by His Agent the Secretary to the Government o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad861; (1941)2MLJ792
King, J.1. This appeal arises in execution, and raises a question of the application of the principle of res judicata. The appellant, who is the decree-holder applied in execution to sell the properties which he alleged were included in his decree. Amongst them was a certain site on which stands a school building, and to this property the respondent who was defendant 31 in the suit lays claim. Sale was ordered and notice of the proclamation of sale issued under Order 21, Rule 66 to the respondent. In response to this notice respondent filed objections contending that the site in question was not included within the boundaries of the property with which the decree dealt, and also that in any case the school building was an improvement for which he had to be paid. On the day of hearing, however, the respondent made no attempt to substantiate these contentions, and sale was ordered to be held on 27th February, 1935. There was no sale on that day. A fresh proclamation was ordered on 1st Ma...
Subburamier Vs. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ516
Wadsworth, J.1. The question in this revision petition is whether a simple mortgagee of agricultural land has a saleable interest therein, so as to bring him within the definition of the term, 'agriculturist', in Section 3(ii)(a) of Madras Act IV of 1938.2. A mortgage is certainly an interest in immovable property and it is certainly saleable, so that, on the plain language of the section, it would seem to follow that a simple mortgagee of agricultural land is an agriculturist. The contention which has found favour with the lower Court and which is urged before us is, that the words, 'has a saleable interest in land', mean, has a right to sell the land, and it is argued that it could not have been the intention of the legislature to give to a money-lender the rights and benefits of an agriculturist debtor. With reference to this argument, it need only be said that possibly the definition of the word 'agriculturist' has been framed too widely so as to bring within the benefits of the Ac...
V.S. Singarachariar Vs. Pappathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad127; (1940)2MLJ501
1. In view of our decision in Subbaramier v. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar (1940) 2 M.L.J. 515 that a simple mortgagee of agricultural land has a saleable interest therein sufficient to satisfy Section 3(ii)(a) of Madras Act IV of 1938, it would seem to follow that the holder of a vendor's lien in agricultural land is equally qualified to be an agriculturist. But the trial Court has not gone fully into the question whether in fact the lien subsists. The transferee did not admit his liability to pay to his transferor, as the learned Judge seems to think, but to the plaintiff the holder pi the incumbrance over the right transferred. Whether or not the vendor's lien subsists will in our opinion depend largely on the circumstances of the transfer - for instance, if the transferee has the right to hold the unpaid money for the protection of his own interest against the incumbrances, there can hardly be a debt due to the transferor in respect of which the lien may be said to subsist. But this ques...
Periaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. S.A. Ramaswami Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad113; (1940)2MLJ513
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition arises out of an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to scale down a mort gage decree.2. The applicant (respondent here) was an assignee from the fourth defendant who was a third mortgagee. The petitioners before us represent the plaintiffs who were the first mortgageae. The mortgagor was the first defendant. The plaintiffs got a decree in 1935 which they executed and realised the full amount by the sale of the hypotheca. Plaintiffs also filed an appeal claiming an additional sum by way of interest and on 17th March, 1938, the appellate Court gave a decree for this additional sum. The plaintiffs then applied for payment of the amount of this decree out of the balance in Court deposit, and it was this application which gave rise to the application by the representative of the fourth defendant who had been brought on record in execution to scale down the decree.3. In revision a number of points have been taken. The first was whether the app...
Rayam Duraiswamy Aiyangar and ors. Vs. M. Raghavachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ648
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises a question regarding the working of Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioners were some of the defendants in the suit on a promissory note for Rs. 1,900. This note was dated the 20th April, 1935 and it renewed an earlier note which was admittedly executed on 19th April, 1926, for a sura of Rs. 1,000, though this earlier note has not been exhibited. On 2nd August, 1937, a payment of Rs. 1,000 was endorsed 'towards this promissory note in the matter of the sale of a house.' The lower Court has held that this payment was made towards the promissory note generally, that is, towards the entire amount due including principal and interest and he has rejected the plea of actual appropriation. The petitioners are admittedly agriculturists and the lower Court has scaled down the debt by the simple process of treating the debt as one borrowed on the earlier date 19th April, 1926, doubling the original principal, subtracting the admitted payments amou...
Kannabhiran Pillai Vs. Govindaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad959; (1940)2MLJ473
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of the proper procedure in a matter arising under Madras Act IV of 1938. The present petitioner was a defendant in a suit which was dismissed on 30th November, 1937, that is to say, before the Act came into force. There was an appeal by the plaintiff and the appellate Court after Act IV of 1938 came into force reversed the decision of the lower Court and gave a decree. The last sentence of the judgment of 'the appellate Court is as follows:This judgment will not preclude the defendants from applying to the lower Court for scaling down the debt under the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938 if they are entitled to have such relief.2. It is common ground that no formal application under Madras Act IV of 1938 was before the learned Judge when he disposed of the appeal. It is not clear whether any oral representation was made at the time of passing judgment that the defendants' rights under Act IV should be reserved. But it seems to...
Boppana Rukminamma and anr. Vs. Maganti Venkata Ramadas
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad949; (1940)2MLJ554
Horwill, J.1. [After dealing with the other points on facts as set out above proceeds.]2. The third point relates to the application of Act IV of 1938. The lower Court found that as the plaintiff was really a registered society formed under the Societies Registration Act, the debt could not be scaled down. It is contended that this society is not a corporation; but I am unable to see why. A perusal, of the Societies Registration Act makes it clear that a society formed under that Act is a corporation and that it has a separate existence apart from its members and can sue and be sued in its corporate capacity. On all the points therefore this petition fails and is dismissed with the costs of the plaintiff....
Pachaiammal and anr. Vs. the Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ688
1. The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether the respondent company, the Hindustan Co-operative Insurance Society, Limited, carries on business in Madras within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this Court. The first appellant is the widow and the second appellant is the daughter of one C.T. Subramania Mudali, who died on the 31st May, 1926. The deceased lived at Little Conjeeva ram in the Chingleput District and therefore outside the limits of this Court's original jurisdiction. He insured his life with the company for. a sum of Rs. 5,000, payable at the age of sixty years. According to the pleadings the policy was issued on the 6th August, 1925 and the assured died on 31st May, 1926. The company repudiated liability on the ground that the assured had failed to disclose that he was-suffering from certain diseases when he made the proposal. The suit was filed on the Original Side of this Court by the appellants, who claimed that the Court had juris...
Bongi Narayana Alias Demullu and anr. Vs. Bangari Gurramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad364; (1940)2MLJ918
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a revision against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam dismissing a suit of small cause on the grounds that the promissory note Which formed the basis of the suit was not sufficiently stamped and the application made by the fourth defendant to be transposed as a plaintiff and seeking permission to continue the suit on the original cause of action was not maintainable. The suit as framed was certainly based on the promissory note; but-either as a matter of history as to how the promissory note came into existence or with the object of disclosing as to how the cause of action had accrued, it was stated in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint that there were prior dealings between the parties' and the last promissory note on which the suit was based, was only executed in renewal of a prior promissory note of 1930.2. The only questions that have been debated before me, are whether the application made by the fourth defendant for transposition should not have...
Jampa Sattiraju and ors. Vs. Kallepara Venkatasatyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad410; (1941)1MLJ36
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiffs and the defendants were partners and had advanced various sums of money to the partnership. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for accounts, and after the preliminary decree had been passed and the matter was in the hands of the Commissioner, who was directed to take accounts, the defendants filed an application asking the Court to direct the Commissioner to work out the individual debts of the partners in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The petition was dismissed on the ground that although all the partners were agriculturists; the Act could not apply to a partnership or to money advanced by partners to their business.2. The defendants' case, as put in this Court, is that from the very inception, these debts were debts within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act. It seems to me that this argument cannot be accepted. When the money was advanced, it was advanced to the partnership and although a partnership has n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »