Chennai Court January 1941 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.
Ramachandra Aiyar (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad612; (1941)1MLJ557
Abdur Rahman, J. 1. The main point to be decided in this appeal relates to the character of the property held by Varada Pillai defendant No. 2. His father Vijayaraghava executed a will (Ex. B) on the 29th April, 1918 under which he bequeathed the property to his sons for enjoyment during their lives. It also provided against the alienations of this property by them but contained a clause that his grandchildren could do so after the property devolved on them subsequent to his sons' death. It contained a further provision for charity as well; but we are not at present concerned with the property which was reserved for charity or with the right and duty of conducting the same.2. Vijayaraghava had three sons at the time when the will was executed, Thiruvengada Pillai, Varada Pillai and Krishna Pillai but the youngest of these (Krishna Pillai) died during his lifetime. Vijayaraghava died in October, 1918, and the eldest son of his, Tiruvengada, five years later.3. Varada Pillai, the second ...
S. Ramasubba Aiyar and anr. Vs. Ayyalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1941
Reported in: (1941)1MLJ414
Mockett, J. 1. This is a petition seeking to revise an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram and it involves a question under the Court Fees Act. The point may be shortly stated. The petitioners contend that they should pay a Court-fee under Article 17-A (1) of the Act and the learned Judge has held that the fee should be paid under Section 7, Clause 4-A. The history of this matter, so far as it is relevant, is as follows : It appears that one Ayyalu Naidu, a grocer, brought a suit against the temple of Sri Mayuranathaswami Abisheka Kattalai represented by its hereditary trustee Sri la Sri Ambalavana Pandarasannadhi and against Sri la Sri Ambalavana Pandarasannadhi himself. The suit was founded upon a promissory note, and the promissory note had been executed by the trustee in respect of goods supplied by the plaintiff. The end of the suit was that the plaintiff obtained a decree against the temple properties alone and did not press the suit against the trustee against wh...
In Re: S.P.S.A.L. Ramaswamy Chetty, an Insolvent
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ110
Somayya, J.1. The decree in O.S. No. 13 of 1925 was being executed by the Official Assignee of Madras in the Sub-Court of Devakottah. Meanwhile another person who obtained a decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1931 brought certain properties to sale in execution of his decree. Some properties were sold in execution of that decree and the deposit of one-fourth of the purchase money was made on 23rd September, 1940. Mr. R. Rama Aiyar, Advocate, Devakottah, who was appearing for the Official Assignee of Madras wrote on 24th September, 1940, intimating the proceedings in O.S. No. 56 of 1931. He advised the Official Assignee that an application for rateable distribution must be filed and stated that the matter was urgent. This was in view of the fact that the application for rateable distribution, if any, should be filed before the purchaser paid the balance of the purchase money into Court. On 26th September, 1940, the Official Assignee sent the necessary papers and the application was filed in the S...
Ahmed Mohideen Vs. Yusuf Ali Syed
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ486
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The house of the complainant was raided by the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police under the provisions of Section 42 of the Madras City Police Act on 9th July last and instruments of gaming on horse races were found. The complainant escaped and he was arrested by the respondent on 10th July, and taken to the police station. Two Sub-Inspectors are stated to have beaten him in the station under the orders of the respondent and as urged by the Crown Prosecutor the respondent gave the order while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. He is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Secretary of State and Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, enacts that no Court can take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the Governor of the Province in the exercise of his individual judgment. The revision petition therefore fails and is dismissed....
S. Ramasubba Iyer and anr. Vs. Ayyalu Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad493
Mockett, J.1. This is a petition seeking to revise an order of the learned subordinate Judge of Mayavaram and it involves a question under the Court-fees Act. The point may be shortly stated. The petitioners con-tend that they should pay a court-fee under Article 17A(1) of the Act and the learned Judge has held that the fee should be paid under Section 7, Clause (iv-a). The history of this matter, so far as it is relevant, is as follows : It appears that one Ayyalu Naidu, a grocer, brought a suit against the temple of Sri Mayuranathaswami Abisheka Kattalai re-presented by its hereditary trustee Sri La Sri Ambalavana Pandarasannadhi and against Sri La Sri Ambalavana Pandarasannadhi himself. The suit was founded upon a promissory note, and the promissory note had been executed by the trustee in respect of goods supplied by the plaintiff. The end of the suit was that the plaintiff obtained a decree against the temple properties alone and did not press the suit against the trustee against ...
In Re: S.P.S.A.L. Ramaswami Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad632
ORDERSomayya, J.1. The decree in O.S. No. 13 of 1925 was being executed by the Official Assignee of Madras in the Sub-Court of Devakottah. Meanwhile another person who obtained a decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1931 brought certain properties to sale in execution of his decree. Some properties were sold in execution of that decree and the deposit of; one-fourth of the purchase money was made on 23rd September 1940. Mr. R. Rama Ayyar, advocate, Devakottah, who was appearing for the Official Assignee of Madras wrote on 24th September 1940 intimating the proceedings in O.S. No. 56 of 1931. He advised the Official Assignee that an application for rateable distribution must be filed and stated that the matter was urgent. This was in view of the fact that the application for rateable distribution, if any, should be filed before the purchaser paid the balance of the purchase money into Court. On 26th September 1940 the Official Assignee sent the necessary papers and the application was filed in the ...
Ponnambala thevar Vs. Ramaswamy Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad803
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The evidence justifies the conviction under Section 447, Penal Code, but the eviction of the petitioner was not under Section 163A, Madras Estates Land Act, and the conviction under Section 212(d) and (e) of that Act is unsustainable. The conviction under Section 212(d) and (e), Madras Estates Land Act, is therefore set aside and otherwise this petition is dismissed....
C. Welayudham Pillai Vs. S. C. Subramania Pillai.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR275(Mad)
This is a Civil Revision Petition to revise the order of the learned District Munsif of Ariyalur. The lower Court on an application by the respondent has ordered the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, to apply for a certified copy of his income-tax returns and profit and loss statements with particulars submitted by him to the Income-tax Officer, First Circle, Trichinopoly, over a period of several years. He is to produce them at the plaintiffs cost. It will be observed that the application was not in the precise terms of O. 11, R. 14, Civil Procedure Code, to produce documents in the defendants possession or power relating to the matter in suit but to obtain and produce copies of these documents. The learned District Munsif has made the order because he considers that a new situation has been created by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported in Rama Rao v. Venkataramayya (1) : (1940)2MLJ257 . What that case decided was that certified copies of profit and loss s...
Kanakasabapathi Chetty Vs. Unnamalai Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad502; (1941)1MLJ299
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for probate of a will left by one Varadappa Chetti. The application was contested by his widow Unnamalai Ammal and it was therefore registered as a suit under the Indian Succession Act. The plaintiff in the suit and his brother Subramania Chetti since deceased were the sons of the brother of the first wife of the said Varadappa Chetti and they were being brought up by Varadappa Chetti as their parents were dead. The will propounded is dated the 4th April, 1930 and under it there were bequests in favour of the plaintiff and his brother and also in favour of Unnamalai Ammal. Unnamalai has put the plaintiff to proof of the will and the validity of the dispositions and also contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to probate on the ground that he was not appointed executor expressly under the will nor an executor by necessary implication and that in any event as Subramania Chetti died before the testator she was entitled...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›