Chennai Court September 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 Municipal Council Through Its Commissioner Vs. Sri Dhandayuthapani ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad185; (1940)2MLJ897
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Municipal Council of Palni has assessed to the property-tax leviable under Section 81 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, a power-house belonging to the Sri Dandayuthapani Devasthanam. The power-house is situate at the foot of the Palni Andavar Hill and within the municipal limits. The trustees objected on the ground that this building was exempt from taxation by reason of the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) of the Act. The property having been assessed t6 this tax and the tax having been paid, the trustees instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Palni for the recovery of the amount. The District Munsif found against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit, but on appeal his decision was reversed and the suit was decreed. The Municipal Council now appeals to this Court.2. It is common ground that the whole hill was set apart for religious purposes. On the top of the hill is a famous temple which is approached by means of a...
Mayandi Chettiar Vs. the Madura Municipality Through Its Commissioner
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad259; (1940)2MLJ1032
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. By an order dated the 10th August, 1931, the Provincial Government superseded the Madtira Municipal Council and appointed a Special Officer to carry out the functions of the Council for a period of one year from the 14th August, 1931. This order was passed under the provisions of Section 411(1) of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. On the 7th June, 1932, the Special Officer caused a building belonging to the appellant to be demolished. Thereupon the appellant filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Madura Town, the suit out of which this appeal arises of the recovery of damages. The suit was subsequently transferred for hearing to the Court of the District Munsif, Madura Taluk, whtf held that the appellant's contention was well founded and gave him a decree for Rs. 100 with costs. The respondent council appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Madura, who reversed the decree of the District Munsif on the ground that the Special Officer had ac...
Ramaswami Udaiyar and anr. Vs. Sevu Ramu Aru Ramanathan Chettiar and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad373; (1941)1MLJ6
Wadsworth, J.1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred against the order of the District Judge rejecting applications filed in one case under Sections 8 and 19 and in the other case under Sections 20 and 23 of Act IV of 1938. The Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been preferred owing to the doubt whether a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal would lie praying that these appeals may, if necessary, be converted into Civil Revision Petitions. We have heard these matters on a preliminary objection without deciding the question whether the proper form should be an appeal or a revision petition. The decree out of which these applications arose was passed on the '23rd October, 1935. In February, 1936, the decree-holder preferred an appeal to the High Court the main objection taken in appeal relating to the rate of interest. There was no stay of the lower Court's decree and the decree-holder proceeded with its execution while the appeal was pending and in November, 1937, brought to sale the pet...
Palani Goundan Vs. Peria Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad158; (1940)2MLJ887
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise an order of the District Munsif of Namakkal dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act for scaling down the amount payable under the decree dated 14th August, 1932, in O.S. No. 678 of 1932 on the file of that Court.2. The respondent obtained the decree on foot of a mortgage to which he claimed to be subrogated and was proceeding with its1 execution when the petitioner, having purchased the equity of redemption in the properties on 17th April, 1936, in execution of a money decree against the mortgagors, intervened with a claim to have the respondent's decree amended under Section 19 of the Act. There is no dispute that the petitioner is an agriculturist but the respondent objected that the petitioner was not a 'judgment-debtor' within the meaning of that section. The Court below upheld the objection and dismissed the application. It appears to have been conceded in the Court below ...
C.S. Ramier Vs. B.N. Srinivasiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad204; (1940)2MLJ872
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises questions under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The decree in question was passed on a mortgage executed in 1916 by the deceased father-in-law of the first defendant, who has not been proved to be an agriculturist. The appellant (petitioner here) was the second defendant in the suit, he having taken an usufructuary mortgage over the same properties on 22nd May, 1920, undertaking to discharge the prior mortgage. Third defendant (the District Board) has acquired the equity of redemption of certain items and is quite clearly not an agriculturist. On 15th January, 1936, the applicant consented to the passing of a preliminary decree on the prior mortgage and on 6th March, 1937, a final decree was passed. The puisne mortgage right of the applicant has been sub-mortgaged to one Appoji Naidu, who has deposited Rs. 2,700 to the credit of the decree and it was contended in the lower Court by the plaintiff that this deposit satisfied the decree and that t...
Punyam Rangaswami Reddi Vs. Gali Gopalakrishna Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad200; (1940)2MLJ883
Wadsworth, J.1. The question in this Civil Revision Petition is whether, having regard to the terms of Proviso D to Section 3(ii) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, the petitioner is an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of Section 15 of the Act. The petitioner owns the kudivaram interest in certain lands in the village of Kolathur, which is an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, paying a peishcush of Rs. 1,200. Some years ago he purchased the zamin rights of the estate and in 1927 he was recognised by the Collector as the landholder. In 1934 he executed two usufructuary mortgages, each covering one moiety of the zamin right in the estate. He retained his ryoti lands and thus became the tenant of his mortgagees in respect of those lands. In 1935 the respondent (one of the mortgagees) applied to the Collector for recognition as the landholder of the estate. His application was opposed by the mortgagees of the other half of the zamin and the petitioner was also a party t...
M. Ethirajulu Naidu Vs. A. Ranganatham Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ711
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the owner of a plot of land in Thatha Muthiappan Street, George Town, Madras. On the 18th October, 1912 the appellant leased this land to the respondents for a period often years. The respondents acquired the lease for the purpose of building thereon a hall which was intended to be used for dramatic performances. At the time the lease was entered into there was a building on the land, but this the respondents demolished and erected in its stead a new building, which was used for dramatic performances and for cinematograph entertainments. On the expiration of this lease the appellant granted to the respondents a new lease for another period of ten years from the 1st of October, 1922. Clause 4 of the second lease reads as follows:The lessee shall always and in any event be entitled to be paid the price of the superstructure built on the said plot of land before he surrenders possession of the land either on the expiry of the lease hereby...
Katuri Dharmarao Vs. Manepalli Bapanayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ15
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada in which he asked for partition of the family properties and for possession of his share. He also asked the Court to set aside an alienation made by his father on the 10th September, 1921. The family estate then consisted of two house sites in the town of Bezwada, one site measuring 290 sq. yards and the other 720 sq. yards. On each site was a house built of mud and stone. The property alienated by the father was the first of these properties. At that time the joint family consisted of the father (the sixth respondent in this appeal) and his two sons (the appellant and his younger brother, the second respondent). Both the sons were then minors. Three other sons were born to the father between the years 1921 and 1931. They are the third, fourth and fifth respondents. The plaint contained the usual allegation that the father had lived a debauched life and tha...
Puthur Veettill Krishnan Chettiar Vs. Aramalu Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ472
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 11th October, 1928, the fourth respondent mortgaged certain property to the appellant and she purported to do so as the karnavastri of a tarwad. There was at the time a karnavan, who is the fifth respondent and the son of the fourth respondent. He was employed as a pointsman on the railway and by, reason of his employment he was absent from the family house for the greater part of the year. The appellant filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Tirur the suit out of which this appeal arises for the purposes of enforcing the mortgage. Two defences were raised, namely, (i) no consideration had passed and (it) the mortgage had not been created in order to provide funds to meet a family necessity. The District Munsif found for the appellant on both these issues. An appeal was filed to the District Court of South Malabar by the first, second and third respondents, who are the junior members of the family. The District Judge was not satisfied that...
Chettikulam Sri Ekambareswaraswami and Dhandayudapani Swami Temples Re ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ568
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this petition is a promissory note executed by one T. D. Palaniappa Mudaliar in favour of the respondent for Rs. 200 on 22nd March, 1933. Palaniappa Mudaliar describes himself in the body of the note as manager of a certain temple in Chettikulam, and states further that he has borrowed the money 'for the preliminary expenses of the Panguni Uttiram festival in the said temple', but he has executed the note in his own name, and there is a personal covenant to repay without any reference to the temple funds, such as is found in the note with which I have dealt in Ekambara and Dandayudhapani Swami Temples v. Arunachala Goundar : (1941)2MLJ587 . The Respondent sued in due course upon this note and has obtained a decree against both Palaniappa Mudaliar personally and the properties of the temple. This is a petition on behalf of the temple in which its liability under the note is contested.2. The contention of the petitioner is supported by direct authority wh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »