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.
Suragouni Vemanna Vs. Thunga Sanjeeva Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad474; (1942)1MLJ511
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 850 due under a promissory note, dated 21st August, 1932, executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant who assigned it to the plaintiff on 10th February, 1935. On the date of the assignment there was an application to adjudge the first defendant an insolvent. That application was filed by the first defendant himself on 4th February, 1935, and in the list of debts which he showed as owing by him he specified the amount due under the said promissory note as one of the debts. On the 27th July, 1935, an application was made to the Court to consider a proposal for composition of the debts. A notice was issued to the second defendant, who received it on the 9th of September, 1935. The present plaintiff also was aware of the said notice and the fact of the said application being pending. But neither the second defendant nor the plaintiff took any steps in regard thereto. That petition ...
Sundarabalakadiresa thevar and ors. Vs. Avudai Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad495; (1942)1MLJ542
Somayya, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether execution of the decree is barred by limitation. The execution application under consideration is E.P. No. 307 of 1938 filed on 30th July, 1938. The decree sought to be executed is a mortgage decree passed on the 31st July, 1926, in O.S. No. 55 of 1924, on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Sattur. There were several execution applications in between and the question is whether the present execution application is not saved by the previous applications.2. The first application for execution was filed on the 1st of July, 1927, and it was returned for production of sale papers. This application was not re-presented with the sale papers within the time given but it was presented along with the next execution application filed on the 23rd June, 1930. This time also the sale papers were not filed with the execution petition bat on the undertaking that they will be filed later, the execution application was numbered as E...
P.V.A.L. Ramaswami Naticker Vs. Pudi N. Sokkayya Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ559
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent, to enforce a mortgage, dated 3rd September, 1925. Only two questions have been argued before us. The first contention relates to the claim of the defendant-appellant to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act.? In order to understand this contention it is necessary to state a few facts. The defendant brought a previous suit for partition against his father and other members of his family and during the pendency of the suit applied for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant himself was appointed as receiver, and while carrying on the family business, he was assessed as receiver in respect of the profits derived during the pendency of the suit. The assessment was made during the years referred to in proviso (A) to Section 3 (ii) of the Agriculturists' Relief Act. The assessment was made on the basis that the appellant and the members of his family after the institution of the partition ...
P V a L Ramaswami Naicker Vs. Pudi N Sokkayya Naicker.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad428; [1942]10ITR226(Mad)
.PATANJALI SASTRI, J.-This appeal arised out of a suit brought by the respondent to enforce a mortgage, dated 3rd September, 1925. Only two questions have been argued before us. The first contention relates to the claim of the defendant-appellant to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturist Relief Act. In order to understand this contention it is necessary to state a few facts. The defendant brought a previous suit for partition against his father and other members of his family and during the pendency of the suit applied for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant himself was appointed as receiver, and while carrying on the family business, he was assessed as receiver in respect of the profits derived during the pendency of the suit. The assessment was made during the years referred to in proviso (A) to Section3 (ii) of the Agriculturists Relief Act. The assessment was made on the basis that the appellant and the members of his family after the institution of the partition suit co...
In Re: Ammu Pujary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad295; (1942)1MLJ200
King, J.1. The appellant has appealed from jail against his conviction by the learned Sessions Judge of South Kanara on two charges, one for the murder of the deceased Giriappa and secondly for causing hurt by a dangerous weapon to P.W. 3. The learned Judge in convicting the appellant of murder has held that he did not kill Giriappa in exercising the right of private defence. It seems to us that the learned Judge's reasoning in regard to this part of the case is open to much criticism. The learned Judge concedes in paragraph 11 of his judgment that, according to the case for the prosecution itself, facts were established which gave the appellant the right of private defence. The facts were that the deceased had struck him with a stick and was prepared to strike him a second time and the learned Judge held that there were grounds for his apprehending that he would be hurt. But in paragraphs 11 and 12, the learned Judge unduly stresses the proposition that the appellant must, prove that ...
Murugayya Pillai Vs. Rajagopal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-01-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad381; (1942)1MLJ325
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner's suit was dismissed for want of evidence showing the plaintiff's title to sue. The want of evidence was due to the fact that the assignment in his favour of the promissory note which he sued on was not properly stamped. Prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner had taken the assignment to the Collector for his opinion under Section 32 of the Stamp Act. The Collector expressed his opinion that no stamp duty was necessary and sent the petitioner a letter to that effect. The petitioner relied on that letter from the Collector and contended that even though the assignment should have been stamped, yet the Collector's certificate was final and could not be questioned by a Civil Court. The District Munsif however, found that the Collector's decision that no stamp duty was necessary was wrong. He also found that even though the Collector's decision might be binding on him, the Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 32, beca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›