Chennai Court September 1940 Judgments
Kumaraswami Reddiar Vs. Muthugopal Naicker (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad205; (1940)2MLJ943
Wadsworth, J.1. The first of these petitions arises out of an application under Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938, to set aside a sale. The second petition arises put of a connected application by the same judgment-debtors to amend the decree under Section 19 of the Act. The decree in question in both the petitions-was passed on a mortgage executed by the defendants 1 to 3. The applicants in the Court below were the legal representatives of the first defendant together with the second and third defendants. The eighth defendant in the mortgage suit was impleaded as puisne mortgagee of items 3 to 9 and 12 out of the 13 items in the hypotheca. He did not prove his mortgage, and no decree was passed in his favour, except that the judgment contained a direction that, in the sale, the items in which he was not interested should be sold first and the other items subsequently in the same sale. The ninth defendant was impleaded in the mortgage suit on the ground that she claimed a charge for ...
Tag this Judgment!Gunturu Seeta Ramanjaneyulu, Minor by Mother and Guardian Seetamma Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad28; (1940)2MLJ972
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 9th of May, 1934, the first respondent obtained a money decree in the Court of the District Munsif of Masulipatam against the third respondent and his son, the appellant, who is a minor. So far as the appellant was concerned, the decree was limited to his share in the family property and the assets of the estate of his-deceased grandfather in his hands. On the 15th of March, 1937, 19.26 acres of land were sold by the Court in execution of this decree. This land had Seen attached by the decree-holder on the ground that it represented joint family property. The second respondent became 4he purchaser on the 14th April, 1937. The appellant then filed an application in execution proceedings asking that the sale be set aside. He asserted that the property sold was his self-acquired property, that no notice had been issued to him as required by Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that there had been material irregularity in the publica...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnapalli Venkatappayya and anr. Vs. Pushadapu Ramaswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad36; (1940)2MLJ984
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These appeals can conveniently be disposed of in one judgment. They arise out of two suits, O.S. No. 209 of 1922 and O.S. No. 212 of 1922 of the Court of the District Munsif of Repalle. The appellants were the plaintiffs. They asked for the ejectment of the respondents from lands which the Respondents had held as their tenants, notices to quit having been served upon them. It was the case of the appellants that the notices terminated all right of occupancy. The respondents strongly contested tins contention. Their case was that the lands constituted part of an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The District Munsif rejected the respondents' plea and decreed the suits. The District Munsif's judgment was concurred in by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali and by this Court in second appeals. The respondents, however, carried the matter to the Privy Council and the Judicial Committee reversed the decisions of this Court and of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Janaki Ammal Vs. Sanjeevi Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad552; (1941)1MLJ510
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether a deed of release Ex. B in and by which the husband of the fourth defendant one Pattabhirama Chetti relinquished his right to the management of the temple of Sri Anjaneyaswami described in Schedule A to the plaint in favour of his brother Sanjeevi Chetti is valid. The learned District Munsif was of the opinion that it was invalid; the learned Subordinate Judge took a different view. It is against this?decision that the present appeal has been preferred by the fourth defendant.2. It is necessary to set out a few facts. The said Anjaneyaswami temple was founded by the plaintiff's father Singaperumal Chetti, the first defendant's grandfather Thiruvengadam Chetti and the father of defendants 2 and 3 Muthukrishna Chetti. They were members of an undivided Hindu family. They also made certain endowments for the due administration of the said temple. On 15th June, 1887, they became divided and entered into an ar...
Tag this Judgment!P.P. Ar. Rm. Sp. Ramanathan Chettiar by Mother and Guardian Meenakshi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ234
Pandrang Row, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai dated 31st October, 1939, dismissing an application made under Order 32, Rule 15, Civil Procedure Code, for the appointment of a guardian ad litem of the fourth defendant in O.S. No. 208 of 1932 on his file. The application was made necessary by reason of the fact that after the suit had been finally disposed of by this Court in appeal, an application was presented on behalf of the fourth defendant, who is a major, by his mother as guardian ad litem to apply the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) to the decree passed in the appeal. That petition to apply the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act as well as this petition for the appointment of the mother as the guardian ad litem were both remitted to the lower court for disposal. Reliance had been place 1 in support of the application for appointment of a guardian ad litem on the provisions of Orde...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Alagappa Mudaliar Vs. A.L.V.R.S.T. Veerappan Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ665
Horwill, J.1. On the 13th of August, 1933, the appellant met with a serious accident in the respondents' mill, his leg being fractured by the falling of a beam on it. The employers (the respondents) assured him that they would look after him, pay his expenses while he was in the hospital, maintain him, re-employ him when he was discharged from the hospital, and see that he was looked after for the rest of his life. On the strength of this assurance he was persuaded to file a leave application, in which he said falsely that he fell into a channel and so wanted some leave. After his discharge from the hospital some time in November, he was re-entertained. On 1st March, 1934, he was dismissed from service, apparently because he was not able on account of his injury to perform his duties properly. Lawyer's notices were sent to the employers, who denied that the mill was open on the day of the accident and asserted that the appellant had been on leave. As no satisfactory reply was forthcomi...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K. Krishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad296
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. It appears that in this case while the preliminary enquiry was being held by the committing Magistrate, the accused was put the following question after the evidence for the prosecution had been recorded : 'Q. - You have heard the evidence of prosecution witnesses; what have you to say?' The accused gave the following answer : 'A. - I am filing my written statement.' That written statement appears to be a long document consisting of 24 pages of typed matter. The question now arises as to whether this long typed statement filed by accused 1 before the Magistrate comes within Section 287, Criminal P.C., and whether it is a document containing the examination of the accused duly recorded by or before the committing Magistrate. If the document contains the record of the examination by or before the committing Magistrate, it is the duty of the prosecutor to tender it and read it as evidence. But for reasons which will be mentioned, it does not appear to be such a...
Tag this Judgment!Muthuswami Tevar Vs. Rajah Ram Pandian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad744
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The attachment of an undivided share of a village is not permissible under Section 146(1), Criminal P.C., and the order of the Joint Magistrate is set aside....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Agasthyalinga Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad766
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The accused had kept a bottle of the 'Atlas tree killer' in his farmshed and two of his farm servants drank the stuff thinking it to be arrack and died in consequence. This can hardly warrant a prosecution under Section 304-A, I.P.C. and the charge framed against the accused is quashed....
Tag this Judgment!Pannalall Marwari Vs. T.M. Krishnaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad804
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to quash the charges framed by the Stationary, Sub-Magistrate and his order under Section 436, Criminal P.C., is set aside. But the offence, if any, does not fall under Section 409, Penal Code, and the case will go back to the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonam for disposal according to law....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »