Chennai Court December 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.
Sri Raghava Doss Jee Varu Vs. Minor Sarju Bayamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ205
Somayya, J.1. The finding of the learned District Judge is that both the plaintiff and the defendant are Byragis. As explained in the case of Adwaita Das v. Lalit Mohan Mohanti : AIR1930Cal57 , the Byragi sect is one to which the members of the various castes--Brahmins Sudras, Vaisyas and Kshatriyas--all may be admitted. There are no special ceremonies for such admission and once a person becomes a Byragi, he ceases to belong to the caste to which he originally belonged. Cuming and Pearson, JJ., dealing with a ease of Byragis in the case just referred to say this:The presumption is always in favour of the legality of a marriage and it has not been shown to my satisfaction that a formal admittance to the sect is a necessary preliminary on the part of the woman to constitute a legal marriage among the Byragis.They also held that the marriage of a Byragi with a female of another sect cannot be annulled and that it cannot be held to be invalid. They referred to an earlier case where it was...
Sri Rajah Ravu Sri Krishnayya Rao Alias Sri Rajah Ravu Venkata Kumara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ472
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. These are connected appeals arising out of a Suit brought by two plaintiffs against the Maharaja of Pittapuram (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for an account and payment of the rents and profits and other sums collected by him from a Zamindari estate known as Gollaprolu and situate in the Godavari District, during a period of about 11 years and "8 months from the 12th January, 1924 up to the 7th September, 3935. The plaintiffs estimated the amount due at Rs. 7,38,000 which they seek to recover with interest at nine per cent. per annum from the respective dates of collection. The main defence, was one of limitation in regard to sums received more than three years prior to the suit. The Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coeanada which tried the suit overruled the plea and passed a preliminary decree, dated 4th March, 1937, directing the defendant to render an account of all sums received by him during the whole period but disallowing the claim for inter...
Kannoli Narayana's wife Janaki Vs. Kaiprath Sreedevi Amma's son Kanaru ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad583; (1942)1MLJ603
Somayya, J. 1. This appeal involves the question whether an undertaking by a vendee to pay a creditor of the vendor precludes the vendee from retaining that sum when the mortgagor who undertook as part of the same contract of sale to pay off a mortgage on the property did not do so. The twentieth defendant was the owner of the property, and he sold it to the first defendant under a sale deed Ex. I, dated the 20th June, 1935. The consideration for the sale deed was a sum of Rs. 1,935-15-1, out of which a sum of Rs. 302-12-4 was reserved with the vendee for payment to the plaintiff, who is a simple money creditor of the vendor. As part of the same sale transaction the vendor undertook to pay a mortgage existing on this and other properties and to free the property from that encumbrance as well. The wording is:The properties in the A Schedule are included in the sample mortgage executed in favour of M. A. Subramania Aiyar of Chakkirar Matam being document No. 1397 of 1934. That amount wil...
V. Balakrishna Naidu Vs. Mrs. B. Sakuntala Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad666; (1942)2MLJ134
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was an Assistant Engineer in the Mysore State for 9 years. He then took service with the Ceylon Government; but after sometime gave up that post because his wife (the petitioner in the lower Court) refused to live with him there. He then returned to his old post in Mysore and rented a house in the Bangalore Civil and Military Station. Although he and his wife had not been getting on well for many years, she consented to come and live with him in Bangalore after Panchayatdars had mediated between them. She had been there for about two months, when the petitioner who had left her jewels in Ceylon because he apprehended that he would have to pay customs duty if he brought them back to India with him, persuaded his wife to accompany him back to Ceylon and wear the jewels; for by her so doing, they could avoid paying duty on them. On their return from this short visit to Ceylon, they halted at Trichinopoly, where both the brother of the petitioner and her f...
B.A. Anthonimuthu Pillai Vs. V.K. Naganatha Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad311; (1942)1MLJ267
Somayya, J. 1. One K. A. Anthonimuthu Pillai was the owner of two houses Nos. 60 and 61 in Vaniarvilai Street, Tuticorin. The municipal tax for house No. 61 was in arrears. The owner K. A. Arithonimuthu Pillai was prosecuted. The Bench Court convicted and fined him and also directed him to pay up the arrears. The arrears were not paid and the Bench Court then issued a warrant to attach the movables of K.A. Anthonimuthu Pillai. The warrant proved infructuous. The Court then issued a second warrant through the Sub-Inspector of Police to attach all the movables found in the house No. 61. That house was then occupied by the defaulter's divided brother B. A. Anthonimuthu Pillai. Attachment was effected by the head constable to whom the warrant was entrusted for execution by the Sub-Inspector. When the warrant was returned at one time saying that the house was locked, the following order was passed by the Magistrates:The warrant should be executed properly. It is no use saying that the house...
M.C.A.R.C.S. Chockalinga thevar Firm Represented by One of the Partner ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad421; (1942)1MLJ281
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The appellants are a firm of merchants dealing in raw cotton at Tirumangalam and Virudhunagar. They filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura to recover from the respondents the sum of Rs. 24,264-12-10, which they claimed to be the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered to the respondents. Their case was that the respondents had in partnership entered into the contracts with the appellants. The respondents denied that they were partners and averred that the appellants and their other creditors had agreed to a composition of twelve annas in the rupee, which precluded the appellants from recovering more. The Subordinate Judge held that the respondents had entered into the contract in partnership, but he found for them on the question relating to the composition. Consequently he granted the appellants a decree for Rs. 16,248-14-8, being three-fourths of Rs. 21,685-3-7 which he held to be the ...
Appala Subbaramiah Vs. Kotha Gurumma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad385; (1942)1MLJ290
Wadsworth, J. 1. The petitioner in the revision petition (who is also the appellant) was the third defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce her right to maintenance by the realisation of the amount due under a security bond, executed by the third defendant to the family of the plaintiff's husband and assigned by that family to the plaintiff in lieu of maintenance. The third defendant did not contest the suit; in fact he could not contest the suit, for the amount due under the security bond was clearly payable and by virtue of the assignment it was payable to the plaintiff. The third defendant's application to scale down the decree debt has been dismissed solely on the ground that the liability is one in respect of maintenance falling under Section 4 (g) of Act IV of 1938. It seems to us that this decision is clearly wrong.2. No doubt the plaintiff's claim was a claim based on her right to maintenance; but her right to recover from the third defendant was not based, on he...
N.P.L. Egappa Chettiar Vs. Em.S.V.L. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad384; (1942)1MLJ155
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant instituted this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai for a declaration that the decree passed in O.S. No. 88 of 1933 by the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore is void and therefore not binding on him. When that suit was tried the appellant was a minor and his adoptive mother acted as his guardian-ad-litem at all times material to the present suit. The suit resulted in a decree being passed against him for the payment of the sum of Rs. 31,497-10-6. It had been filed to recover money deposited with a firm belonging to the family in which the appellant was born. Before the suit was instituted he was given in adoption to another family and therefore was not responsible for the liabilities of his father's family. In the present suit the appellant averred that his guardian-ad-litem had been guilty of gross negligence in that he had not pleaded a partition and in not. proving his adoption. At the hearing the Official Assignee, w...
T.R. Rajakumari Vs. the Motion Picture Producers Combine Ltd. (by the ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad349; (1942)1MLJ182
1. This is an application by one Rajakumari, a creditor, for excusing the delay in filing her affidavit of proof of her claim and for directing the Official Liquidator to receive the same. The Official Liquidator in pursuance of Rule 83 of the Indian Company Rules gave notice to all the creditors in accordance with Form No. 30 of the Appendix I to the Rules requiring them to prove their claim before the 30th April, 1941. The Official Liquidator contends that under Rule 91 of the Rules the applicant is not entitled to have her claim admitted and unless the provisions of the said rule are satisfied, there is no provision by which her claim can be admitted. The said rule runs thus:If any creditor fails., either owing to ignorance or want of notice, to file proof of his debt with the liquidator within the time specified in the advertisement referred to in Rule 83, such creditor may apply to the Judge or Registrar for relief and the Judge or Registrar, may, upon such terms as he thinks just...
Kori Kotrabasavva Vs. Araganji Veerabhadrappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad313; (1942)1MLJ235
Somayya, J.1. This is a reversionary action filed by the daughter of one Basalingappa for a declaration that a mortgage decree and the proceedings in execution of that decree in O.S. No. 299 of 1934, are not binding upon her. The properties in question admittedly belonged to her father Basalingappa, who died before 1913, leaving a widow who died after the suit and the plaintiff, his daughter. The first respondent and the second respondent's grandfather lent monies to the widow and ultimately a mortgage deed for Rs. 3,500 was executed on the 7th September, 1922. On this mortgage a suit was filed by the first' respondent against the mortgagor, the widow impleading the co-mortgagee's grandson as a defendant. A mortgage decree was passed and the properties were purchased by the first respondent. The present suit is filed for a declaration that 'the mortgage, - the decree in the suit and the sale in execution are not binding on the plaintiff, the next reversioner. The suit was decreed by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »