Chennai Court January 1941 Judgments
The Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company Limited, by Its Agen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ189
Somayya, J.1. These are two appeals filed against the decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bezwada, in two suits filed by the appellant against the respondent for refund of certain taxes which were alleged to have been illegally levied under the Madras District Municipalities Act (Madras Act V of 1920) on the vacant lands belonging to the appellant. The appellant is the Madras and Southern Maharatta Railway Company owning several buildings and vacant sites within the limits of Bezwada Municipality and the Municipal Council of Bezwada is the respondent. The respondent Council levied certain taxes under the Madras District Municipalities Act on the appellant's vacant lands from 1929 to 1935. The plaint in O.S. No. 41 of 1935 was filed for recovery of Rs. 22,092-13-0 which was the tax levied for the year 1931-32. The other suit O.S. No. 61 of 1935 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 76,706-10-4 made up of various sums which were levied for the years 1929-30, 1930-31, 1932-33,...
Tag this Judgment!Vanguri Mahalakshmamma Vs. Vanguri Venkatanarayanamurthi (Died) and or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad626; (1941)1MLJ796
King, J. 1. The petitioner here filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tanuku for the division of property held by her husband's relations on the assertion that her husband died divided from them and that a release deed executed by him in their favour was not binding upon her. She sued also for cancellation of that release deed. Court-fee was paid in two sums, one for the general relief of the division and recovery of property and one for the cancellation of the release deed. The suit was dismissed on the ground that there was no division in status between the husband of the plaintiff and the other members of his family. In the course of the judgment a finding was given that the release deed was brought about by undue influence and was therefore not binding on the widow. This finding, as will be seen, had no material effect upon the result of the suit which had to be dismissed because the plaintiff's husband had died as a member of a joint family. The plaintiff appealed ag...
Tag this Judgment!Kikishru Nadershaw Chinoy Vs. Nargesh Kikishru Chinoy Nee Nargesh Dora ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad159
ORDERGentle, J.1. This is an application by the respondent in a petition presented pursuant to the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 3 of 1936. In the application the applicant seeks to obtain revocation of the order giving leave to the petitioner to present her proceedings in this Court, the grounds being that the balance of convenience will be met by the proceeding being presented in a Court nearer to the Punjab where the respondent says he is residing. This Court is not the High Court sitting in its original jurisdiction. It is the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court which is constituted under the provisions of Sections 18 and 19, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936. The application on the face of it purports to have been issued under Order 13, Rule 14 (f) of the Rules of the Original Side of the High Court. This rule provides that the Judge sitting on the original side of the High Court shall deal with applications for revocation of orders granting leave to sue.2. The petitioner applied to...
Tag this Judgment!Kachi MuhaidIn Tharaganar Vs. Sainambu Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad582; (1941)1MLJ503
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Sainambu Ammal (plaintiff No. 1) in the Court of the District Munsif of Ambasamudram for the recovery of Rs. 402-8-0 in regard to expenses alleged to have been incurred by her on behalf of her minor daughters (plaintiffs 2 and 3) from the 7th November, 1933 to the 2nd February, 1936 and for their future maintenance at Rs. 15 per mensem. The suit was instituted against the minors' father who is said to have divorced the first plaintiff some years ago. The parties were described in the plaint as Muhammadans belonging to the Shafei sect. The expenses before the 7th November, 1933 were recovered by another suit (O.S. No. 355 of 1933) brought by and on behalf of the same plaintiffs in the same court. It was pleaded inter alia by the father in the present litigation that the first plaintiff could not recover any maintenance on behalf of the second and third plaintiffs as they had attained puberty and were being unlawfully det...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Nadar Vs. Minor Pitchaimani Nadar by Next Friend A.K.P. Chi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ291
Happell, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant in O.S. No. 20 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsif of Tirumangalam. The suit was decreed against him and he filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge of Madura. The respondent (plaintiff) however filed an application asking that he should be directed to furnish security for costs of the appeal and on this application the District Judge made an order by which he directed the petitioner to furnish security for costs and giving him four weeks, which expired on the 3rd of December, in which to furnish the security adjourned the appeal for orders to the 4th of December, 1937. On the 3rd December, 1937 the petitioner did tender security and it appears that the District Munsif of Tirumangalam adjourned the question of testing the security until the 15th of December. On the 11th of December, however, the District Judge rejected the appeal on the ground that the security had not been furnished within the time prescribed.2. The conte...
Tag this Judgment!Sivasubramania thevan Vs. Kalankarayan Konar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad868; (1941)2MLJ301
Mockett, J.1. This is a civil revision petition to revise an order of the learned District Munsif, Tinnevelly and it relates to the Stamp Act. The defendant made a promissory note in Colombo on the 11th March, 1934 in favour of one Arunachala Thevar. The promissory note was at the time stamped with one anna adhesive stamp, the correct stamp for a note in British India and was duly cancelled. That must be taken to have happened on the 11th March, 1934. On or before the 11th March, 1935, the promissory note came into British India and was assigned to the plaintiff. The relevant portions of the Stamp Act are:Section 3. Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that schedule as the proper duty therefor respectively, that is to say--(b) every promissory note drawn or made out of British India on or after that day and accepted or paid, or presented for acceptance or paym...
Tag this Judgment!Premji Tulsidas Sait and ors. Vs. P.S. Sethuramaswami Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad373; (1942)1MLJ190
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is a civil revision petition filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in I. A. No. 554 of 1939 on his file. That application was made by the third plaintiff in O.S. No. 33 of 1939 for an order permitting him under Order 23, Rule 1 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code to withdraw from the suit and to strike his name off from the record. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application and hence the revision petition.2. O.S. No. 33 of 1939 was instituted by the first two plaintiffs along with the petitioner for the specific performance of a contract entered into between the first two plaintiffs and the defendant by which the defendant had agreed to reconvey certain properties purchased by him from the former. The properties consisted of a mill and premises and also certain agricultural lands 'which belonged to the first two plaintiffs. They sold those properties for a consideration of Rs. 26,000 of which Rs. 17,000 was ...
Tag this Judgment!Pothapu Timma Reddi Vs. Kondalu Rami Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad416; (1941)1MLJ421
ORDERHorwill, J.1. One Kondalu Rami Reddi was given possession of a cow and a calf by its owner for the purpose of grazing in a certain forest. While there, this cow and calf were missing and the information of the complainant was that it had been stolen by Sugalis. According to the facts found during the police enquiry, the complainant searched for these cattle for many months and at last traced them to the house of the accused. The accused said that the cow and calf were his and that he purchased them long before from some Sugalis. As he would not return them, the complainant informed the police, who investigated this as an offence coming under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. They came to the conclusion, upon the acceptance of certain information, that the offence committed was not one punishable under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, but one under Section 403, Indian Penal Code, which is criminal misappropriation. This offence is not cognizable and so the police sent a referred charg...
Tag this Judgment!Arunachalam Pillai Vs. Seetharam Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad584
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a mortgagee who sues to enforce his mortgage is entitled to a decree for the whole amount due under the mortgage against a non-agriculturist Court auction purchaser of the equity of redemption when the agriculturist mortgagor claims to have the debt scaled down under the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The appellant brought the suit out of which this appeal arises in August, 1937, for recovery of Rs. 8,500 by the sale of the mortgaged properties on foot of a mortgage executed by the managers of the joint family of respondents 1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the mortgagors) for Rs. 5,000 on 29th October, 1931. Respondents 9 to 11 are subsequent encumbrancers in respect of one of the properties comprised in the mortgage, and respondent 12 is the purchaser of all the properties subject to the mortgage in execution of a decree for money obtained by a third party against the mortgagors. While the su...
Tag this Judgment!Uppala Appanna Sastri Alias Annappa Sastri Vs. Sree Raja Sobhanadri Ap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad84; (1941)2MLJ947
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant here brought a suit for a declaration that a sale in execution of a decree obtained in S. S. No. 287 of 1924 was not binding upon him. The suit in question was brought against one Gangulu, who was the original pattadar of land situated in an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act. We are concerned throughout this appeal with the Act prior to the amendment of 1934. Gangulu fell into arrears and two decrees were obtained against him. The first was in S. S. No. 373 of 1922 and the second was in S. S. No. 287 of 1924. The earlier decree was executed in 1926 after the second decree had been obtained and in the execution proceedings the land put up for sale was purchased by the present appellant on 5th May, 1926. I am informed that this land was only a portion of the holding of Gangulu. After the purchase the appellant does not appear to have produced the sale certificate before the landholder, as he should have done under Section 146 (1) ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »