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.
Natesa Aiyar and anr. Vs. Singaravelu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ923
Burn, J.1 This is an application to revise an order passed by the learned District Munsif of Negapatam on the 13th December, 1939, in E.A. No. 995 of 1939 in Small Cause Suit No. 267 of 1937. The applicant before the District Munsif was the decree-holder in the small cause suit. The petitioners in this case are the defendants in the' small cause suit. The facts which it is necessary to mention are that while execution proceedings were pending, the judgment-debtors filed a petition O. P. No. 61 of 1939 before the Debt Conciliation Board, Negapatam, and in consequence of that the sale of the judgment-debtors' property which had already been proclaimed was stopped on the 1st May, 1939, presumably under the provisions of Section 25 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. The judgment-debtors' petition O.P. No. 61 of 1939 was dismissed by the Debt Conciliation Board on the 28th June, 1939. After that, dismissal the decree-holder proceeded with execution and the sale of the properties was...
D.D. Italia and anr. Vs. the Official Assignee of Madras and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad183; (1940)2MLJ979
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises two questions of law with regard to the administration in insolvency of the estate of a deceased person. On the 15th July, 1938, one S.V. Kannabhiran Pillai died, and by an order of the Original Side of this Court passed on the 18th April, 1939, it was directed that his estate should be administered in insolvency under the provisions of Section 108 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The appellants are creditors. On the 9th August, 1938, they obtained a decree against the deceased's estate in C.S. No. 154 of 1938. In execution proceedings filed on the 26th January, 1939, they attached the deceased's interests in certain immovable property, which was the subject-matter of another suit, C.S. No. 189 of 1938 and in movable properties, which were in dispute in a third suit, C.S. No. 198 of 1939. The movable properties included a sum of Rs. 483-7-10 which was standing to the credit of the deceased in the books of the Egmore Benefit So...
Raju and anr. Vs. Abdul Rahiman Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad751
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The order is to a large extent based on statements alleged to have been made by the petitioners to the Sub-Inspector of Police which are not on record nor were the petitioners questioned about those statements. The order is therefore set aside and the petition under Section 145, Criminal P.C., is remanded for fresh disposal by the District Magistrate or such other Magistrate as the District Magistrate may direct....
Natesa Ayyar and anr. Vs. Singaravelu Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad350
ORDERBurn, J.1. This is an application to revise an order passed by the learned District Munsif of Negapatam on 13th December 1939 in E.A. No. 995 of 1939 in Small cause Suit No. 267 of 1937. The applicant before the District Munsif was the decree-bolder in the small cause suit. The petitioners in this case are the defendants in the small cause suit. The facts which it is necessary to mention are that while execution proceedings were pending, the judgment-debtors filed a petition, O.P. No. 61 of 1939 before the Debt Conciliation Board, Negapatam, and in consequence of that the sale of the judgment-debtors' property which had already been proclaimed was stopped on 1st May 1939 presumably under the provisions of Section 25, Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. The judgment-debtors' petition, O.P. No. 61 of 1939 was dismissed by the Debt Conciliation Board on 28th June 1939. After that dismissal, the decree-holder proceeded with execution and the sale of the properties was fixed to take pl...
Venkatammal Vs. K.V. Ramaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad62; (1940)2MLJ685
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition is preferred by the fourth defendant in a mortgage suit, who filed an application under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act to scale down the decree. The application was unsuccessful to the extent of Rs. 2,500 which the learned Subordinate Judge held to be protected by the provisions of Section 10 (2)(ii) of the Act and it is this decision which the petitioner seeks to revise. The suit was based on a mortgage dated 13th December, 1923, executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. This mortgage is alleged to be a renewal of an earlier mortgage dated 16th August, 1917, executed in favour of the same creditor by Subbaraya Goundar, who is said to have been the husband of the first defendant and the father of the second defendant. After the execution of the mortgage of 1923, the mortgagors on '27thDecember, 1933, sold the hypotheca to the petitioner (fourth defendant) under a sale deed in which she specifically undertook to discharg...
Vasudevan Nambudri Vs. Raman Nambudri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad939; (1940)2MLJ712
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The question that falls to be decided in this Civil Revision Petition is whether Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act is applicable to the surplus reserved as. payable to the mortgagor under a possessory mortgage after appropriating part of the usufruct in lieu of interest due on the mortgage money. The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest held the lands here in question on a kanom granted by the respondent on May 25, 1911, for Rs. 1,137-2-4. In consideration of a further advance of Rs. 862-13-8 making up a total of Rs. 2,000 the respon,detit executed on August 17, 1925, the deed (Ex. A) styled 'Kaivasam panayam' (possessory mortgage) under which the mortgagee was to appropriate, out of an'estimated yield of 430 paras of paddy, 200, paras in lieu of interest on the mortgage money, pay 60 paras for assessment on the property and then pay the balance of 230 paras to the respondent as 'panaya purappad' in two instalments during the harvest season. The ...
Abdul Khadir and ors. Vs. V. Subramanya Pattar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad946; (1940)2MLJ760
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is a petition to revise an Order of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara dismissing an application by the petitioners (judgment-debtors) to scale down the decree for Rs. 34,291-10-9 in O.S. No 70 of 1932 on of the lower Court. The suit was brought by the respondent on foot of a mortgage bond (Ex. B) dated 5th June 1925 whereby the judgment-debtors purported to mortgage the properties usufructuarily to the respondent's assignor for Rs. 21,000 out of which only Rs. 20,300 was advanced and a marupat (Ex. C) of the same date under which the mortgaged properties were leased back to them at an annual 'purappad' of 10,150 seers of paddy. The mortgage contained only a covenant to repay the principal but no, stipulation for payment of any interest as the profits were to be enjoyed in lieu of interest. It is common ground that the usufructuary mortgage and the lease back were parts of the same transaction and the respondent himself in suing for the amount due under b...
K.G. Lakshmana Aiyar and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ827
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioners obtained a decree in a mortgage suit and they seek to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge scaling down that decree under Sections 8 and 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act at the instance of defendants 1 and 3 to 5. The main ground on which the lower Court's order is attacked, is that the liability under the mortgage is one for which a charge is provided under Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, so that by the provisions of Section 10(2)(ii) of Act IV of 1938 the liability cannot be scaled down. Now we have held in Varadaraja Perumal Pillai v. Palanimuthu Goundan : AIR1941Mad118 , that Section 10(2)(ii) must be interpreted as excluding all liabilities falling within the category therein described, whether or not the charge actually subsists at the time of suit. We have therefore to consider whether at its inception the liability covered by this mortgage was one of the class in respect of which Section 55(4)(b) of the Transfer ...
N. Subramania Sastrulu of Kandukur and anr. Vs. the Official Receiver ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad274; (1940)2MLJ846
King, J.1. The subject-matter of these two appeals is two mortgages executed on the 15th October, 1932 in favour of two of the creditors of Padmavati Ammal, against whom an insolvency petition was filed on 7th November, 1932 and who was finally adjudicated insolvent in 1934. The proceedings by the Official Receiver were, in the first instance, taken against three mortgages, all of which were executed, on the same day. They were taken under Sections 4, 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned Subordinate Judge of Chittoor dismissed the Official Receiver's applications. The learned District Judge of Chittoor has set aside the learned Subordinate Judge's order and annulled all the three mortgages. These are appeals by two of the mortgagees against the learned District Judge's order. The annulment by the District Judge, it must be mentioned, has been based on Section 54 alone; he does not hold that the mortgages are not fully supported by-consideration; but he holds that the...
Periyatan Katanhipalli Kannan Nambiar Vs. Ullannur Madhathil Subramani ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad231; (1940)2MLJ927
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These revision petitions arise out of applications made by defendants 1 and 2 (judgment-debtors and respondents in C.R.P. No. 691 of 1939) under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act for scaling down the compromise decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1936 on the file of the lower Court. The suit was brought on a mortgage bond executed on 16th July, 1923, for the payment of Rs. 9,000 in eighteen instalments of Rs. 500 each payable every eight months commencing from 7th February, 1924. Trie decree-holder (the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 691 of 1939) started a kurichit as stake-holder with twenty subscribers each contributing Rs. 10,000 in twenty equal instalments on the terms and conditions set out a what is called the kurivari. According to these terms, the amounts collected from the subscribers in respect of each instalment was to be put up for auction among them and allotted to the bidder who offered the highest discount, such discount being distributed among the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »