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.
K.G. Lakshmana Iyer and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-10-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad119
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, Madras Agriculturists Belief 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), T.P. Act, so that by the provisions of Section 10(2)(ii) of Act 4 of 1938 the liability cannot be scaled down. Now we have held in Varadaraj Perumal v. Palanimuthu Goundan reported in ('41) 28 A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 118 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 T.P. Act, provides a c...
The Official Assignee Vs. H.D. Hukumchand Khimsura
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad147; (1940)2MLJ891
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant in this case is the Official Assignee of Madras, who represents the estate of one C Subramania Iyah, an insolvent. Before his adjudication, the insolvent borrowed a sum of Rs. 300 from the respondent, who is a money-lender and as security for the loan deposited with him two policies of insurance on his life. The deposit was evidenced by a document in writing and the question which arises in this appeal is whether this document amounts to an assignment of the insolvent's interest in the policies. It was held by Somayya, J., that the document constitutes an assignment and the appellant challenges the correctness of this finding.2. The document is in the, form of a letter signed by the insolvent in favour of the respondent and commences thus:I have taken from you a loan of Rs 300 in words Rupees Three Hundred only at 1 1/2 pies per rupee per mensem on the pledge of the articles noted below on the following conditions.3. It will be sufficient...
Peri Kameswar Rao, Minor by New Guardian Peri Reddamma Vs. Peri Jagann ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad405; (1941)1MLJ12
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises is barred by Section 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act. The facts are few and not in dispute. The office of the Village Munsif of Peruru became vacant in 1928 consequent on the resignation of the first defendant. The second defendant was put forward as the adopted son of the. first defendant, but the plaintiff's father opposed his claim on the ground that he was entitled to succeed thereto because the first defendant, the plaintiff's father and the natural father of the second defendant were brothers and sons of the same father. The revenue authorities referred the plaintiff's father to a Court of law. The plaintiff's father subsequently died and thereupon the plaintiff filed this suit for a declaration that the second defendant was not the adopted son of the first defendant. Both the Courts below have held that the suit is maintainable.2. Mr. Lakshm...
Bijjala Pedda Bali Reddi Vs. Bathula Chinna Nagi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad564; (1941)1MLJ407
King, J.1. It is argued in second appeal that no appeal lay to the first appellate Court. For this argument authority can no doubt be cited, Lahore and Patna, but in Madras I am bound by Ayyasami Aiyar v. Sivakki Ammal I.L.R.(1932)Mad. 909 : (1932) 65 M.L.J. 407. This authority lays it down that when a Court calls upon a surety to carry out the terms of his bond--and does so not under the strict terms of Section 145, Civil Procedure Code, but under the inherent powers given it by Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, the right of appeal which the surety would have had under Section 145 is not lost to him under Section 151. The same principle clearly applies to an order under Section 151 read with Section 144. If a party is ordered under Section 151 to make restitution he must have a right of appeal. That the proceedings in the present case were analogous to proceedings under Section 144 cannot be doubted. The appeal to the first appellate Court was therefore competent. The first appellate...
In Re: C. Raghava Menon
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad250; (1940)2MLJ748
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The accused was the clerk of the Official Receiver of Calicut and three sums of Rs. 35 were received by him during the absence of the Official Receiver on 3rd October, 1939, 2nd November, 1939 and 2nd December, 1939. They were entered in the accounts on 7th October, 21st November and 18th December and on the complaint of the Official Receiver the police filed a charge sheet against the accused for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts alleged did not warrant a charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate framed a charge under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code for temporary misappropriation of the amount. The accused denied the offence and pleaded that the delay in making the entries and paying the amount over to the Official Receiver was due to oversight due to heavy work but the plea was not accepted and the accused was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 17 on each count.2. The case...
Udambanthala Nalupurapatti Mammad Vs. Vyagram Narayana Pattar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ934
King, J.1. It is a plausible argument that as ryotwari pattadars are entitled to the benefits of this Act no matter how much land revenue they pay, a jenmi who is also a ryotwari pattadar and who in the former capacity pays less than Rs. 500 should also be so entitled.2. But there are no words in the proviso restricting the land revenue payable by a jenmi to the revenue payable only on the land so held by him and taking the clause in its plain meaning we have here a jenmi whose total payments to Government on account of land revenue exceed Rs. 500. I cannot therefore hold that the Courts below have wrongly construed the proviso. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of respondent 2....
D. Vanjeeswara Aiyar Vs. the District Board of South Arcot Represented ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad887; (1941)2MLJ469
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner brought this suit against the President, District Board, Cuddalore, (the third defendant) the District Board being the successor to the Taluk Board, Vridhachalam, to enforce payment for certain work done by him in pursuance of a contract to remove prickly pear, to do certain earth work, and to plant mile and furlong stones. The suit was dismissed on the ground that according to the terms of the contract, he was not entitled to be paid for work done if it was not check-measured or did not give satisfaction. This petition has been filed by the plaintiff, who contends that even if he is not entitled to the money under the contract, the principle of quantum meruit should be applied and he should therefore be paid for such work as he has done.2. With regard to the earth work, it appears that Rs. 15 remained unpaid and was carried over to the plaintiff's deposit account. Why actually it was transferred to the deposit account is not very clear; but the learned Mun...
Udumbanthala Nalupurappatti Mammad Vs. Vyagram Narayana Pattar and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad305
King, J.1. It is a plausible argument that as ryotwari pattadars are entitled to the benefits of this Act, no matter how much land revenue they pay, a jenmi who is also a ryotwari pattadar and who in the former capacity pays less than Rs. 500 should also be so entitled. But there are no words in the proviso restricting the land revenue payable by a jenmi to the revenue payable only on the land so held by him and taking the clause in its plain meaning we have here a jenmi whose total payments to Government on account of land revenue exceed Rs. 500. I cannot therefore hold that the Court below have wrongly construed the proviso. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs of respondent 2....
K.G. Monappa Vs. A. Venkataswami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad805
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The complaint was under Section 500, Penal Code, and the order of the Additional District Magistrate taking it on file under Section 182, Penal Code, is unsustainable. It is therefore set aside and the complaint will be enquired into afresh by the District Magistrate or such other Magistrate as he may direct in accordance with law....
In Re: K. Sannaya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad38; (1940)2MLJ564
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner is a Postman attached to the Coondapur Sub-Post Office and a charge sheet has been filed against him for offences under Sections 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code for misappropriating the amount of a money order entrusted to him by forging the thumb impression of the payee in the money order form and using the forged document by returning it to the post office in token of payment.2. The offences were committed on 10th April, 1939, that is, before the relevant date as defined in Section 270, Clause 3 of the Government of India Act, which in relation to acts done by persons employed about the affairs of the Government of India is the date of the establishment of the Federation, and being a servant of the Crown in a department of the Central Government the petitioner would unquestionably be a person employed in connection with the affairs of the Government of India. Section 270(1) provides that no proceedings civil or criminal shall be insti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »