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.
K.G. Govindarajulu Naidu Vs. M.S. Gopalaswamy Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad401; (1941)1MLJ225
King, J.1. These petitions arise out of Small Cause suits filed by a landlord for rent or jodi due to him for faslis 1343, 1344 and 1345. He has however not sued his original lessee but has sued the petitioner who is a usufructuary mortgagee, from that lessee. The District Munsif has given him a decree on the ground that the provisions of Section 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act lay it down that a usufructuary mortgagee in possession of the mortgaged property is bound to pay the land revenue or similar public charges due on that property. This decree has been challenged in revision. It is argued that Section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act deals only with the relative rights and duties of the mortgagor and mortgagee and cannot possibly confer upon a third party to the mortgage the right of proceeding directly against the mortgagee for the recovery of rent. This objection seems to me unanswerable and is supported by the authority of Sachindra Mohan Ghose v. Commissioner for the ...
The District Board of West Tanjore, Represented by Its President Vs. t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad629; (1941)1MLJ378
Pandrang Row, J.1. These connected appeals have been argued together and they raise the same point. All ,of them arise out of suits instituted by the District Board, Tanjore against the Secretary of State for India in Council. The suits are for refund of water cess and land cess thereon collected by the Government from the District Board in respect of certain lands in whole inam villages for different faslis. Appeal No. 215 of 2937 relates to the claim for refund of cess for ten years, that is faslis 1333 to 1342 and the claim is for over Rs. 43,000. Appeal No. 95 of 1938 relates to the water cess for fasli 1343 and Appeal No. 216 of 1937 to the water cess for fasli 1344. These suits however do not raise the claim in a general way that is, not on the basis of any proprietory right claimed by the District Board, but on the basis of a certain compromise entered into between the parties in an earlier litigation of 1921., In other words, we have not to decide whether the District Board has...
In Re: N. Kayambu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad836; (1941)2MLJ500
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This matter has been placed before a Full Bench as it raises a question of importance under the Court-Fees Act and involves the consideration of certain Bench decisions of this Court. The petitioner was allowed to file an appeal in forma pauperis, but, at a later stage, it was discovered that he was not a pauper and an order was passed by Horwill, J., dispaupering him. In addition to directing that the petitioner should pay the appropriate court-fee on the memorandum of appeal the learned Judge directed him to furnish security for the costs of the respondent in the sum of Rs. 8,000 within three months from the 4th of November, 1937. This order was not complied with, and on the 4th March, 1938, the appeal was placed in the list of Venkatasubba Rao and Abdur Rahman, JJ., who passed the following order:The security ordered has not been furnished. The appellant has been dispaupered. Both sides agree that the appeal has to be dismissed, and it is accor...
The Public Prosecutor Vs. Chelliah Tevan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad61; (1940)2MLJ418
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The respondents were convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Tuticorin for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and the proceedings were submitted to the Joint Magistrate of Tuticorin under Section 7(1) of the Madras Borstal Schools Act with the opinion of the Sub-Magistrate that the respondents who are adolescent offenders as defined in Section 2(1) of the Act are proper persons to be detained in a Borstal School. The Joint Magistrate acquitted the respondents and the question is whether this is permissible.2. The proceedings were submitted under Section 7(1) of the Madras Borstal Schools Act which provides that when a Magistrate not empowered to pass sentence under that Act is of opinion that an adolescent offender is a proper person to be detained in a Borstal School he may without passing sentence record such opinion and submit his proceedings and forward the adolescetrt offender to the District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Mag...
Gudipati Brahmanandam Vs. Gudipati Sarveswara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad276; (1940)2MLJ503
Wadsworth, J.1. The present petitioner was the purchaser in Court auction of a mortgage-debt due to one Krishnayya who was the judgment-debtor in a money suit. The decree-holder, having attached this mortgage-debt, brought it to sale and it was purchased by the present petitioner on 14th October, 1935. More than a year later, the son of the mortgagee, who by this time is dead, filed an application which recites Order 21, Rule 90, Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 18 of the Limitation Act, praying the Court to set aside the sale and direct the mortgagor, who was made a party, to deposit the amount due on the mortgage, out of which the decree debt was to be satisfied and the balance paid to the applicant. The lower Court has dealt with this application in a somewhat summary manner. The learned District Munsif recites Rule 183 of the Civil Rules of Practice as laying it down that a debt attached in execution of a decree should be realised by appointment of rec...
Kaza Suryanarayana Vs. Sree Rajah Sobhanadri Appa Rao Bahadur Zamindar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ584
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Deputy Collector, Nuzvid Division, setting aside a rent sale held on 19th December, 1936. The petitioner who is the Agraharamdar of Singanagudam village obtained a decree for arrears of rent due by a tenant and brought his holding to sale in execution of the decree. The Revenue Inspector, Nuzvid, was appointed as the selling officer and he posted the sale to be held on 19th December, 1936. Meanwhile on 2nd Depember, 1936,, the first respondent herein, the Zamindar of Talaprolu Estate, which adjoined the Agraharam addressed a letter to the Deputy Collector alleging that the holding which had been proclaimed for sale formed part of Ranganagudam village comprised in his estate and that the petitioner had no right to bring it to sale as part of his Singanagudam Agraharam. This letter was forwarded by the Deputy Collector to the selling officer, 'for information and necessary action'. No notice of this letter was given to ...
Compalla China Ramamurti Vs. Pala Nukayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad30
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in a suit for the balance due on a promissory note executed by defendant 1 as principal and by defendant 2 as surety in favour of a bank which transferred the note to the plaintiff. The bank in question carried on chit funds and the liability arose out of the purchase of the pool of a chit by defendant 1. As security for the payment of the balance of his instalments he executed the promissory note with defendant 2 as the surety. The bank stopped business before defendant 1 had completed the payment of the instalments and he admittedly did not pay the instalments which fell due after the closure of the bank, which is now in the hands of a liquidator. Defendant 2, surety for defendant 1, had a claim against the bank for an amount similar to the balance due on the suit promissory note. An attempt was made to adjust the bank's claim under the suit promissory note against defendant 2's claim against the bank. But there was trouble owing ...
Manickavasaga Nadar Vs. K. Krishnaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad113
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The order under Section 133, Criminal P.C. was not made absolute under Clause (1) of Section 139, Criminal P.C. and further proceedings had to be dropped as provided in Clause (2) of Section 139, Criminal P.C. Section 140, Criminal P.C. is therefore inapplicable and the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate cannot be sustained. The revision petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate is set aside....
Nanjunda Chetty Vs. Y.P.R.L.M.L. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad30; (1940)2MLJ502
King, J.1. The question at issue in these two appeals is whether two applications for execution filed by the decree-holder on 17th February 1936 were or were not in accordance with law. The prayer in each application was for the arrest of defendant 1. The decrees as they then stood amended did not in either case make defendant 1 personally liable, but were only against the family properties in his hands. Both Courts below have held that these applications were in accordance with law.2. In appeal it is argued that the applications were not in accordance with law as the relief asked for was one which the decree did not permit of being granted. If this premise is correct, I think the conclusion must follow. Ramakrishna Kadirveluswami v. Eastern Development Corporation Ltd. (1917) 43 I.C. 537 , and Pandarinath Bapuji v. Lilachand Hatibhai I.L.R.(1888)Bom. 237, are instances in which this legal principle has been applied. But I am bound by a Bench decision of this Court to hold that the pre...
Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Company Limited (In Liquidation) b ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad256; (1940)2MLJ566
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant and the respondent are limited liability companies and both of them are now in liquidation under orders for compulsory winding up. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the appellant as 'the company' and the respondent as 'the bank'. The company was formed by the bank for the purpose of organising chit-funds, which was considered to be a profitable business. The bank held all the shares in the company, except two, and it is common ground that it controlled the company through one of its officers. The chit-funds which the company organised were for periods of 25 months with four classes of subscribers. The subscriber who was successful at the monthly auction could not withdraw the amount subscribed that month unless he furnished security to the company for its repayment. If he furnished security, of course, he was allowed to withdraw the money and dispose of it as he pleased. If security was not furnished, the company either retained the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »