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.
M. Varadaraja Perumal Pillai and anr. Vs. Palanimuthu Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad118; (1940)2MLJ838
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition arises out of an application by a judgment-debtor under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 and raises a question regarding the meaning of Section 10(2)(ii) of that Act.2. The essential facts are that the judgment-debtor purchased lands under a sale deed of February 1923 whereby the purchase price was to be paid by the discharge of two debts and the execution of a promissory note for the balance. This promissory note was twice renewed and the renewed note of 1932 was assigned in 1936 to the plaintiff by endorsement. The plaintiff got a decree on the promissory note and when the judgment-debtor applied to scale down the decree, the plaintiff pleaded that the liability was one in respect of which a charge was provided under Section 55(iv)(b) of the Transfer of Property Act and that therefore the provisions of Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938 could not be applied.3. For the purpose of deciding this case, we assume that the decision in Elumalai Chet...
In Re: Arunachala Mudali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad99(2); (1940)2MLJ819
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The first petitioner obtained a licence from the District Superintendent of Police under Section 30, Clause (2) of the Indian Police Act for taking a procession, and one of the conditions of the licence was that music of all description should be stopped within a distance of 50 yards on either side of any mosque. This condition was violated by petitioners 2 to 11 and the first petitioner the licensee would unquestionably be guilty under Section 32 of the Indian Police Act. The real question is whether the other petitioners would also be guilty under that section and as urged by the Public Prosecutor Section 32 provides that every person violating the condition of any licence granted by the District Superintendent of Police for the use of music shall be liable to a fine. The person violating the condition need not be the licensee, and the finding is that petitioners 2 to 11 were aware of the conditions of the licence. They too would therefore be guilty under Sec...
Amad Koya and anr. Vs. Appu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad201; (1940)2MLJ935
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question whether Section 15 of the Madras Act IV of 1938 can be invoked in favour of a tenant whose rent is payable to an assignee of rent from a Malabar jenmi. The petitioners here were the applicants in the Court below and they were the judgment-debtors. The suit was brought by the first plaintiff as assignee of the rent for the period from 1929-30 to 1936-37, his assignor being the second plaintiff, the jenmi. The assignment was dated 17th February, 1937, and there was a decree dated 9th October, 1939, in favour of the first plaintiff, the assignee, alone. Defendants applied under Sections 19 and 15 of Act IV of 1938 to scale down this decree.2. Section 15(1) of the Act begins as follows:All rent payable by at agriculturist to a landholder or an under-tenure-holder under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, or to a jenmi or intermediary under the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, which has accrued for the fasli year 1345 and prior fasli...
Chinatalapati Venkatanarasimharaju (Now Major) Vs. Surisetti Ramaswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad176; (1941)1MLJ145
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which has been referred reads as follows:Whether a person who is in the enjoyment of an easement, but who has not acquired a title to it by prescription or otherwise, can maintain an action to prevent its obstruction by any person other than the owner of the servient tenement?2. The considerations which may apply when the interference complained of has reference to the access of light and air or to support from adjoining land may not apply when the interference has reference to the use of a way over another's land and as this reference arises out of a case relating to an alleged right of way we consider that the question should be re-framed in these terms:Can a person who has been using a particular way over land adjoining his, but for less than the prescriptive period, maintain an action to prevent a stranger from obstructing him using the way?3. In Jootoor Acchanna v. Kanamala Venkatamma : (1895)5MLJ24 , a Bench of this Court (Collins, C...
The Official Assignee of Madras Vs. S. Natesa Acbari and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad892; (1941)2MLJ460
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether certain words used in a deed of mortgage dated 4th July, 1924, amount to an acknowledgment of liability in respect of two earlier mortgages within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. One Sundaravela Achari mortgaged the property in the suit to one Manicka Chetty on 9th August, 1921, to secure a sum of Rs. 5,000. On 6th January, 1923, he executed a second mortgage of the property in favour of Manicka Chetty to secure a further advance of Rs. 1,000. On 4th July, 1924, Sundaravela Achari executed a usufructuary mortgage of the property in favour of one Rajagopala Chetty for the sum of Rs. 1,000. The first two mortgages fell to the share of one Kuppuswami on a partition. Kuppuswami is now an insolvent and is represented by the appellant, the Official Assignee. The creditors will be entitled to the benefit of the first two mortgages if they are still enforceable. The suit out of which this appeal aris...
Kolathoor Soolapani Moopil Variar Vs. Vayanakare thekke Veettil Veloor ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: (1940)2MLJ788
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner here was the plaintiff in a suit to redeem a Malabar kanom. An application was filed in that suit by the ninth defendant for relief under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938. That application was granted and it is this order that the plaintiff-petitioner seeks to revise.2. The kanom in question was executed on 23rd March, 1915, and it contained a provision that in case of default of payment of rent to the jenmi, the latter could adjust the arrears of rent due with interest thereon to the kanom amount. There was a default and on 10th September, 1934, the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption appropriating the arrears towards the amount which was due under the kanom and claiming to redeem the kanom on payment of the balance Rs. 715 and odd. At the time of this suit, the kanom right was held by the tarwad of the defendants which admittedly paid more than Rs. 500 as land revenue and was therefore not an agriculturist, having regard to the Proviso D to Section...
K.M.Sr.K. Lankaram Vs. O.K.S. Sundaragopala Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad208; (1940)2MLJ1038
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted in the Court of the Subardinate Judge at Madura on the basis of a mortgage deed (Ex. A) executed by or on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 on the 29th July, 1921, in the plaintiffs favour.2. The only points for decision in this appeal relate to the enforceability of this mortgage deed and to the lien claimed by the appellant, who was the fifth defendant in the suit, on account of a payment made by his father in satisfaction of a money decree passed in O.S. No. 135 of 1920 against the defendants 1 to 4.3. The facts which have led to this litigation may be briefly stated. A decree for a sum of Rs. 14,130-11-2 was passed against the defendants 1 to 4 on the 11th November, 1920, in O.S. No. 135 of 1920. The decree-holder made an application for execution and attached various items of property including the one (item No. 3 in those proceedings and the first item in the present suit) with which we are concerned in this appeal. The att...
Gopala Menon Vs. Punnoli Korath Meenakshi Arama Karnavastri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad402; (1941)1MLJ106
Burn, J.1. This is a revision petition against the order passed by the learned District Munsif of Parappanangadi in E. A. No. 587 of 1938 in S. C. No. 204 of 1935 on the file of the c Sub-Court, Calicut. The application (E. A. No. 587 of 1938) was made by the second and third defendants in the Small Cause Suit. It was a petition under Section 23 of Madras Act IV of 1938. It contained an allegation that three items of immovable property had been sold on the 28th October, 1937, in execution of the Small Cause Court's decree. It contained an allegation that the petitioners are agriculturists and persons eligible to be admitted to the benefits of the Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act and an allegation that the petitioners propose to file a petition in the Sub-Court, Calicut, to scale down the debt under the Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act. The prayer in the petition therefore was that the sale of the three items of immovable property held on the 28th October, 1937, be set aside under Section...
Kolethoor Soolapani Moopil Variar Vs. Vayankare thekke Veettil Veloor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad196
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner here was the plaintiff in a suit to redeem a Malabar kanom. An application was filed in that suit by defendant 9 for relief under Section 15, Madras Act & of 1938. That application was granted and it is this order that the plaintiff-petitioner seeks to revise. The kanom in question was executed on 23rd March 1915 and it contained a provision that in case of default of payment of rent to the jenmi, the latter could adjust the arrears of rent due with interest thereon to the kanom amount. There was a default and on 10th September 1934, the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption appropriating the arrears towards the amount which was due under the kanom and claiming to redeem on payment of the balance Rs. 715 odd. At the time of this suit, the kanom right was held by the tarwad of the defendants which admittedly paid more than Rs. 500 as land revenue and was therefore not an agriculturist, having regard to the proviso D to Section 3 (ii) of Act & of 1938. On 5...
Dharmapuram Mutt Represented by Sri La Sri Shunmuga Desika Gnana Samba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad151; (1940)2MLJ831
King, J.1. One Dawood Sahib obtained a decree in O.S. No. 4 of 1927 in the Additional Sub-Court, Tanjore. In execution of the decree, a deposit of Rs. 2,745 was made. Of this sum, deducting what was attached by the creditors of Dawood Sahib, a sum of Rs. 1,569-13-3 was available to be paid to him, and he was permitted to Withdraw that amount on furnishing security. Security was offered by one Kadir Bivi Ammal who executed a deed of security on 17th October, 1928. This bond was executed in the District Court and is headed A.S. No. 60 of 1928. That appeal resulted in part in favour of the appellant and the amount payable by the judgment-debtors to Dawood was reduced by Rs. 550. This decision was given in April, 1929. There was then a second appeal to the High Court and also a Memorandum of Cross-objections. On 20th March, 1934, the High Court gave judgment dismissing Dawood Sahib's suit in toto. In October, 1935, the successful appellant in the High Court applied to execute the surety bo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »