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.
Chettikulam Sri Ekambareswaraswami and Sri Dhandayudhapaniswami Temple ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ587
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this petition is a promissory note executed by one T. D. Palaniappa Mudaliar in favour of the first respondent for Rs. 100 on 14th August, 1933. Palaniappa Mudaliar describes himself therein as managing dharmakartha of a certain temple at Chettikulam, and recites also that he is borrowing the money as manager of the temple and that repayment is to be made 'from out of the properties of the said temple''. The first respondent sued upon the note and obtained a decree both against Palaniappa Mudaliar personally, and against the properties of the temple. This is a petition by the temple with the contention that it should not have been held liable.2. That the money was actually borrowed, and expended for temple purposes, and that the loan was necessary are facts which are not now disputed. Nor can it be seriously urged that if Palaniappa Mudaliar was in fact authorised to borrow, his transaction will not bind the temple. It is contended, however, that he was...
In Re: Vettukkattu Pachayanna Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad258; (1940)2MLJ767
Burn, J.1. The case against the appellant was that at about sunset on the 18th of June, 1934, near the village of Mandagapalayam, he stabbed twp women with a spear inflicting fatal injuries upon them, The two women were named Pappayi and Palani. The appellant had been on terms of illicit intimacy with Palani and it is said that Pappayi had persuaded Palani to give him up. This was the supposed motive for the attack by the appellant upon the two women.2. Pappayi and Palani were both taken to the hospital at Tiruchengode the same evening and as they were in a dangerous condition, the Sub-Magistrate (P.W. 13) was sent for and both of them made dying declarations. Ex. D is the dying declaration of Palani but the learned Sessions Judge has not relied on this because it contains internal evidence that Palani was not fully conscious when she was making her statement. Ex. E is the dying declaration of Pappayi who was fully conscious while her statement was being recorded. Besides the evidence ...
Rajoo Alias Doraisami Goundar and ors. Vs. Palaniyappa Chettiar and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad289; (1940)2MLJ817
Wadsworth, J.1. These revision petitions all arise out of applications by sons of the late Bommayya Goundan under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938, to scale down decrees on promissory notes passed against their father.2. It is conceded that Bommayya Goundan was the manager of a joint family consisting of himself and his sons and that the debts in respect of which the decrees were passed were joint family debts. The learned District Munsif has found that the sons were not entitled to the benefits of the Act, because Bommayya Goundan was in the year 1936-37 assessed to income-tax at the time when he was the manager of the joint family. The main contention urged in these petitions was that Proviso A to Section 3(ii) of the Act did not apply in a case in which the assessment was made in the year 1936-37 but in respect of the income of the previous year. This contention cannot succeed having regard to the words of the proviso which are not identical with but substantially the same as those in P...
Thrikkateeri Ullanoor Manakkal Vasudeva Nambudiri Vs. Matanna thediyil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad486; (1941)1MLJ220
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The main question arising for determination in this revision petition is whether an assignee of part of the properties demised on kanom is entitled to the benefit of Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act in respect of the arrears of michavaram due to the jenmi. The lower Court has held that he is, and the petitioner who is the jenmi contests the validity of that conclusion.2. The facts are briefly these. The petitioner demised five items of land on kanom to one Haji by Ex. A dated 11th December, 1907 for a sum of Rs. 136-11-5. Under this deed, the michavaram payable by the kanomdar was fixed at 50 paras and 6 narayams of paddy and one bunch of bananas worth eight annas. There was a partition in Haji's family in 1925, and three out of the five items comprised in the kanom were allotted to his son Koya subject to the payment of 50 paras and 4 annas which is practically the entire michavaram due to the jenmi. The respondent became entitled by assignmen...
K.V. Ramaswami Ayyar Vs. Ramayya Sastrigal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1940
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ295
1. This is a petition raising a question under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938. The decree arose out of a promissory note dated 27th June, 1933 for Rs. 3,000 (Three thousand). When the decree was passed, the amount due for principal and interest was Rs. 3,400 with Rs. 377 (Three hundred and thirty seven) as costs. On 23rd February, 1937 this respondent in execution purchased property of the petitioner (the judgment-debtor) for Rs. 3,406 (Three thousand four hundred and six) for which amount part satisfaction was entered on 17th July, 1937. On 30th August, 1937 a fresh execution petition was filed, claiming Rs. 662--7--6 (Six-hundred and sixty two annas seven and pies six only) as the balance due under the decree. The question is what is the effect of this payment of Rs. 3,406 (Three thousand four hundred and six) towards the decree having regard to the provisions of Sections 8, 9 and 19 of the Act.2. It seems to us that this payment cannot be regarded as a payment to the debt generally ke...
Ramadoss Reddiar Vs. Munuswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad116; (1940)2MLJ825
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises the question whether the provisions of Section 15 of Act IV of 1938 can be applied so as to discharge a decree obtained by the endorsee of a promissory note executed for arrears of rent. On 11th February, 1936, the petitioner executed a promissory note for the arrears of rent due for fasli 1345 and previous faslis. The promisee under the note was one of the two zamindars of the village. He endorsed the note in favour of his co-zamindar, who filed a suit on the note and got a decree on 28th September, 1937. On 5th November, 1938, the petitioner applied under Section 19 of the Act to amend the decree after declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to nothing thereunder except the amount of costs, inasmuch as the entire subject-matter of the suit comprising arrears had been discharged by paying in the Collector's office the arrears for faslis 1346 and 1347. The application was rejected and it is this order of which revision is sought.2. Section 19, und...
Devidoss and Co., a Firm of Cloth Merchants Vs. Alathur Abboyee Chetty ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad31; (1940)2MLJ793
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The suit out of which this appealarises was instituted by the appellants on the original side of this Court for a declaration that they were entitled exclusively to the use of a certain trade mark and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from using a similar mark. The defence was threefold. In the first place it was said that the respondents had the right to use the mark complained by reason of concurrent user. In the second place it was said that the appellants had in any event lost the right to exclusive user by reason of their acquiescence in the respondents using the marks now complained of. The third plea was that the appellants had abandoned any rights they might have had in the mark. The learned trial Judge (Gentle, J.) held that the use by the respondents of the mark complained of was an infringement of the rights of the appellants, but the appellants had acquiesced in the course of conduct pursued by the respondents and there...
Pandiri Sarveswara Rao Vs. Maturi Umamaheswara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad152; (1940)2MLJ841
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition raises the question of the precise effect of Provisos (B and C) of Section 3(ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner was the judgment-debtor in a mortgage suit, being himself the mortgagor, and he sought the benefits of the Act under Section 19 in respect of the mortgage decree. He was held by the lower Court to be disentitled to those benefits on the ground that he was assessed to profession-tax in respect of the first half year of the financial year 1937-38. The lower Court also rejected the plea advanced on behalf of the creditor that the petitioner was also disqualified under Proviso (C). The petitioner was admittedly not assessed to profession-tax within the two years preceding the 1st October, 1937. His assessment was actually made on 15th January, 1938, but it was retrospective, so that it covers the half year beginning 1st April, 1937. The learned District Judge, applying Section 137-B of the Madras City Municipal Act, has held that a person w...
T.S. Rajan Vs. Mrs. Pankajammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad194; (1941)1MLJ186
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an Order passed by Gentle, J. on an originating summons taken out by the respondents under the provisions of Order 45 of the Rules of the Original Side of this Court. The respondents are the widow and daughter respectively of one V. Rama Ayyangar, who died on the 14th April, 1937, leaving a will dated the 25th April 1936. By his will the testator appointed the appellant and his brother, who are his nephews, to be his executors. To the appellant he left his ancestral properties situate in the village of Tirukurangudi in the Tinnevelly District. The executors did not prove the will, although it has been said in these proceedings that they acted as the executors of the will for a period. It is alleged by the appellant that there was friction between the executors and the widow and the daughter as the result of which it was impossible for the executors to carry on with the administration of the estate. The appellant says that in c...
Athipatte Manakkal Karnavan and Manager Krishnan Nambudri's son Itteer ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad303; (1940)2MLJ820
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition raises questions under Sections 15 and 16 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner here is the jenmi. The application filed in the lower Court was made by a number of persons claiming to represent the whole of the interest in the kanom right. The original kan9m demise was made On 10th June, 1919, under Ex. A to the tarwad of which some of the present applicants were then members. There was a partition in the tarwad of the kanomdars and various tavazhis became entitled to portions of the kanom right. Some of these tavazhis alienated their rights and the present application under Section 15 was made by all the persons interested in the kanom right whether as representing the tavazhis of the original kanomdars' tarwad or as alienees from such tavazhis. The trial Court held that the application was valid and reduced the rent payable in accordance with the terms of Section 15.2. Two contentions were argued on behalf of the jenmi before us. Firstly, it ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »