Chennai Court October 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.
Budi Gaddennaidu and anr. Vs. Chintalapudi China Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ90
King, J.1. This is an appeal filed jointly by the judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 61 of 1936 and a surety who gave a bond for his appearance on the 4th October, 1939.2. The facts of the case are that on the 1st August, 1939, the judgment-debtor was arrested in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 61 of 1936 and was brought before the Court which had given him time for three days for making some attempt at paying off part of the decree. The inquiry contemplated by Order 21, Rule 40 was adjourned for those three days. On the second of August, the judgment-debtor informed the Court that he had made an application to the Debt Conciliation Board and applied for two reliefs:(1) that the execution proceedings against him might be stayed in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act, and(2) that he might be released from custody.On the 4th August, the Court passed orders granting stay and granting release from custody upon the production by the judgment-debtor of secu...
Pachai Ammal Vs. the Corporation of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad346; (1942)1MLJ233
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in O.S. No. 441 of 1940 tried by the learned Additional Judge of the City Civil Court. The suit was filed by the Corporation of Madras for property tax for three years, 1937-38, 1938-39, 19S9-40 due on a building and site described as No. 88-A, Adam Sahib Street The learned Judge of the Court below gave the Corporation a decree and the defendant has preferred this appeal.2. 88-A, Adam Sahib Street, as the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, has said, is part of a large house which also has a door opening upon Mannarswami Koil Street. In Mannarswami Koil Street it is numbered 85. Now this house, the whole of it, belongs to the defendant. In the portion fronting upon Mannarswami Koil Street she and her husband lived; in the other portion there are four rooms which are let out to separalte tenants. This house, 85, Mannarswami Koil Street, has been shown in the Corporation's property registers as the property of the defendant and there is no...
Mantri Errama Reddi and anr. Vs. Karnam Soorappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad418; (1942)1MLJ314
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition and the appeal filed in the alternative arise out of the dismissal of an application under Section 20 of Act IV of 1938. There is no right of appeal and the question has to be decided with reference to the civil revision petition whether the dismissal of the application was without jurisdiction or involved any irregular refusal to exercise jurisdiction.2. The decree in question arose out of a mortgage suit. The preliminary decree was passed on 27th August, 1937, that is to say, before Act IV came into force. The final decree was passed on 25th June, 1938, that is to say, after Act IV came into force. The application for stay under Section 20 was not filed until 18th. December, 1939. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner had the opportunity to urge his defence under Act IV at the time of the passing of the final decree, that it was a plea which he might have and ought to have raised at that stage and that he was barred from rais...
N. Narayana Bhat Vs. Rama and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad551; (1942)1MLJ453
Wadsworth, J. 1. This appeal raises two questions. One relates to the meaning of the phrase 'all interest outstanding on the 1st October, 1937', occurring in Section 8 (1) of Act IV of 1938. The other question relates to the fixing of costs on the basis of confession of judgment when there was not a full confession of judgment.2. The suit arose out of a mortgage of 1930 executed by the father of defendants 1 to 4. The fifth defendant was a puisne mortgagee. The suit was filed on the 14th November, 1938, that is, after Act IV of 1938 came into force. The plaintiff claimed the principal amount due on the mortgage with interest at 6 1/4 per cent. for the year ending March, 1938, and for the subsequent broken period on the basis that the date on which the interest was payable was the 10th March in each year. The mortgagors admitted the suit debt and confined themselves to disputing their liability for interest from the 10th March, 1937, up to the 1st October, 1937. As for the rest of the c...
Singamsetti Sundaram and ors. Vs. Singamsetti Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad402; (1942)1MLJ327
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question of the interpretation of Section 6 of Act IV of 1938. The facts as stated in the judgment of the lower Court are that the suit was based on a promissory note of 1933 made by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 being impleaded as the joint sons of the first defendant. There was no oral evidence, but it appears from the decree that the suit debt relates back to prior transactions starting in 1922. The plaintiff produced a copy of an income-tax assessment order which showed that the first defendant along with certain partners was assessed to income-tax for the financial year 1936-37 and on this ground it was held that neither he nor his sons, defendants 2 to 5, could claim the benefit of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The petitioners rely on a decision of ours in Rajoo v. Palaniappa Chettiar : AIR1941Mad289 where we held in a case under Section 19 when the sons of the deceased judgment-debtor sou...
Panuganti Seshayya and ors. Vs. Lankireddi Swamireddi (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad204; (1941)2MLJ795
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises the question of the interpretation of Section 9(1) of Act IV of 1938. The suit was brought on a promissory note dated 22nd September, 1937, executed for the balance due on a mortgage bond in favour of the same creditor executed on 19th December, 1932, by the present defendants and some others. There had been considerable payments made under the mortgage bond.2. The contention of the defendants-petitioners here is that under Section 9, they are entitled to have the debt scaled down on the basis of the original mortgage advance of 1932, payments thereunder made towards interest being adjusted to interest on the original principal at five per cent. The contention is based on the language of the proviso to Section 9(1) which states:Provided that any part of the debt which is found to be a renewal of a prior debt shall be deemed to be a debt contracted on the date on which such prior debt was incurred, and if such debt had been contracted ...
Saradambal Vs. S. Subbarama Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad212; (1941)2MLJ862
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal raises a question relating to the construction of Section 3, Clause (2) of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. The relevant facts are few. On the 18th December, 1935, the plaintiff obtained a decree for money in O.S. No. 1138 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif of Coimbatore against the first defendant. Subsequent to the date of the decree the first defendant died. His wife the third defendant was brought on record as his legal representative. The plaintiff sought to implead the brother and the brother's son of the first defendant besides the third defendant, but the Court allowed only the third defendant to be brought on record and dismissed the application against the brother and the brother's son. The order passed by the learned District Munsif is to the following effect:To implead the widow he relies upon the Act XVIII of 1937 by which a widow obtains the interest of her deceased husband. I do not think that the decree-holder c...
Yella Venkatramayya Vs. Yella Seshayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad193; (1941)2MLJ877
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal raises questions of some importance as to the status of the members of a Hindu family, who having been converted to Christianity, are subsequently, reconverted to their old faith.2. The appellant is the son of the first respondent and he sued for partition of his half share in the family properties, claiming that a mortgage executed by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent and a Court sale in favour of The fifth respondent in execution proceedings instituted against the first respondent are not binding on his share in the properties. The Court below has upheld both the transactions in their entirety and this appeal has been preferred challenging the correctness of that, decision.3. The facts material for the decision of this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant was born on the 1st July, 1914. In 1.917, the first respondent and his wife became converts to Christianity and the appellant was also baptised in the same year. In 1930...
The Cannanore Bank, Limited Vs. Pattarkandy Arayanveettil Madhavi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad41; (1941)2MLJ956
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In order to give an answer to the question referred it is necessary to decide what is meant by an adverse order under Order 21, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That rule states that where a claim or an objection is preferred the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute, but, subject to the result of a suit the order shall be conclusive. The order referred to in the rule is an order passed on an application which falls within the purview of Rule 58. That rule provides that where a claim is preferred to, or an objection is made to the attachment of property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that it is not liable to attachment, the Court shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection, provided that it may refuse to investigate when it considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. 2. In Venkataratnam v. Ranganayakamm...
In Re: Syed Murthuza Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad269; (1941)2MLJ1042
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was granted a lease under Section 160(3) of the Local Boards Act for a period of one year to use a road side site of 1 or 2 cents to sell his wares, and in it he constructed a small shed. He did not quit the land at the end of the period of the lease and so a notice was sent to him, purporting to be one under Section 159 (1), requiring him to remove the shed which was on the 1 or 2 cents in Survey No. 851 of the Local Fund road and threatening that unless he removed the encroachment within a fortnight from the date of service of that notice further proceedings under the Act would be taken against him. He ignored this notice; and so the present case was instituted against him. He has been charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 159 (1), read with Section 207 (1) (a) and (c) of the Madras Local Boards Act. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and his conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal by the Joint Magistrate of Ti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »