Chennai Court February 1941 Judgments
Thalepaka Srinivasayya and anr. Vs. Nagallapati Obula Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ164
Wadsworth, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of two small cause suits for recovery of debts, in which the defendants pleaded that they were entitled to relief under Madras Act IV of 1938 as agriculturists and it was objected that they were landholders of a shrotriam paying a jodi of Rs. 169-3-10 and were therefore excluded from the benefit of the Act with reference to Proviso D to Section 3(ii). The defendants, while admitting that they were shrotriamdars, contended that they were entitled to only a half share in the shrotriam and had alienated considerable portions of that half share and that the jodi payable in respect of their half share was less than Rs. 100, so that they were not excluded from the definition of 'agriculturist'. The lower Court found that the alienations by the defendants were irrelevant as they had sold only their kudivaram right and that with reference to the division of the shrotriam into two halves this did not affect the liability to the Government...
Tag this Judgment!Thallapaka Srinivasayya and anr. Vs. Nagallapati Obula Raju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-28-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad741
Wadsworth, J.1. These civil revision petitions arise out of two small cause suits for recovery of debts, in which the defendants pleaded that they were entitled to relief under Madras Act, 4 of 1938, as agriculturists and it was objected that they were landholders of a shrotriam paying a jodi of Rs. 169-3-10 and were therefore excluded from the benefit of the Act with reference to proviso D to Section 3(ii). The defendants, while admitting that they were shrotriamdars contended that they were entitled to only a half share in the shrotriam and had alienated considerable portions of that half share and that the jodi payable in respect of their half share was less than Rs. 100, so that they were not excluded from the definition of 'agriculturist.' The lower Court found that the alienations by the defendants were irrelevant as they had sold only their kudivaram right and that with reference to the division of the shrotriam into two halves this did not affect the liability to the Government...
Tag this Judgment!Oorakarai Seetharama Chettiar Vs. Sheik Abdul Rahiman Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad40; (1941)1MLJ614
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The Letters Patent Appeal involves the question of the effect of the judgment of this Court in Sriramachanara v. Venkateswara : AIR1939Mad157 . In that case a Division Bench consisting of King and Krishnaswami Aiyangar, JJ., held that the word 'appeal' in the third column of Article 182 of the Limitation Act means 'an appeal in the suit which is likely to affect the decree sought to be executed', and not merely an appeal against the actual decree or order sought to be executed. In other words, the word 'appeal' does not necessarily mean an appeal from the decree or order referred to in the first column of the Article. In the present case the facts are very different from the facts in Sriramachandra v. Venkateswara : AIR1939Mad157 and King, J., whose judgment is now under appeal, has held that the decision in Sriramachandra v. Venkateswara : AIR1939Mad157 does not, govern the present case.2. In Sriramachandra v. Venkateswara : AIR1939Mad157 there was a...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Swarnam Iswariah Vs. K.M.S.R.M. Kannappa Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad704; (1941)1MLJ605
Wadsworth, J. 1. This appeal arises from a decision of our learned brother Gentle, J., on a matter relating to proviso C to Section 3 (ii) of Madras Act IV of 1938 and the connected Rule 7 of the rules framed under that Act by the Government of Madras.2. The appellant here is the decree-holder. She obtained a decree in 1934 on a promissory note. The respondent filed an application under Section 19 of Act IV and it was resisted on the allegation that the respondent was not an agriculturist by reason of his being assessed to property tax in respect of a house situate within the Municipality of Devakottah. The respondent proved that the house in question had been sold by him on 10th February, 1935. This was met by an allegation that the sale was a benami transaction, which allegation the appellant failed to substantiate by the necessary evidence. The learned Judge consequently held, applying Rule 7, that the person in whose name the assessment to property tax stood was not the owner of th...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppanna Goundan Vs. Marutha Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad663; (1941)1MLJ773
Wadsworth, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a question under Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The facts have not yet been established by evidence, but assuming them to be as asserted by the petitioner who was the defendant in the Court below, they are as follows: On 2nd March, 1925, the defendant's father and brother executed a promissory note in renewal of a series of earlier debts. At some time after the execution of this note the family divided and in the partition this debt was allotted to the defendant. In pursuance of that arrangement, on 12th July, 1932, the defendant alone executed the suit promissory note, discharging the prior promissory note executed by his father and brother. The question is whether in such circumstances the second note can be deemed to be a renewal of the earlier debt. 2. We have held that in order to apply the explanation to Section 8 the debtor must be the same, though there need not be a complete identity of the debtors under the earlier and...
Tag this Judgment!Corakarai Seetharama Chettiar Vs. Sheikh Abdul Rahiman Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad616
Leach, C.J.1. The Letters Patent Appeal involves the question of the effect of the judgment of this Court in Sriramchandra v. Venkateswara A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 157. In that case a Division Bench consisting of King and Krishnaswami Ayyangar JJ. held that the word 'appeal' in col. 3 of Article 182, Limitation Act, means 'an appeal in the suit which is likely to affect the: decree sought to be executed,' and not merely an appeal against the actual decree or order sought to be executed. In other words, the word 'appeal' does not necessarily mean an appeal from the decree or order referred to in Col. 1 of the Article. In the present case the facts are very different from the facts in Sriramchandra v. Venkateswara A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 157 and King J., whose judgment is now under appeal; has held that the decision in Sriramchandra v. Venkateswara A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 157 does not govern the. present case. In Sriramchandra v. Venkateswara A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 157 there was an appeal against an order refusing ...
Tag this Judgment!Nataraja Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Devanai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-27-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad674
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. Petitioner 1 is the heir of one Duraiswami Mudaliar who died on 20th February last and petitioners 2 and 3 are his servants. The complainant was the concubine of Duraiswami Mudaliar and the cattle were removed on 28th February as belonging to Duraiswami Mudaliar. The conviction of the petitioners under Sections 379: and 448, Penal Code, is, therefore, set aside and the fines, if levied, will be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Sree Rajah Vatchavaya Venkatasuryanarayana Jagapathiraju Bahadur Zamin ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad615; (1941)1MLJ779
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the Zamindar of Tuni and sued in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Peddapuram to recover from the respondents in this appeal what he had been compelled to pay by way of cess under the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, in respect of faslis 1338 to 1343. The respondents are darmilla inamdars, or under-tenure-holders, within the zamindari. They contested the right of the appellant to sue for more than what he had paid in respect of the last three faslis. Their contention was that as the appellant in suing in the Revenue Court had called in aid the Madras Estates Land Act he could not recover for more than three years. This contention was accepted by the Deputy Collector, by the District Judge of East Godavari on first appeal and by Wadsworth, J., on second appeal. This appeal is from the judgment of Wadsworth, J., who gave the necessary certificate under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. By virtue of Section 88 of the Madras Local Boards...
Tag this Judgment!Koti Nagabhushanam Vs. Chukkapalli Venkayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad854; (1941)2MLJ261
Wadsworth, J.1. This case raises a question under the explanation to Section 8 of Act IV of 1938. The defendant was the sole legatee under the will of one Pitchayya who appears to have died about the end of 1935. Pitchayya shortly before his death had executed to the plaintiff a promissory note (Ex. V) dated the 17th August, 1935, which was itself a renewal of an earlier promissory note and he was also indebted to the plaintiff under a separate promissory note (Ex. IV) of 13th September, 1933. After Pitchayya's death, the defendant under the will became entitled to his estate and also liable to discharge the debts and on 13th January 1936, he executed a consolidated promissory note (Ex. A) in favour of the plaintiff discharging Pitchayya's notes (Exs. IV and V). In the suit on Ex. A, the question was raised whether the debt had to be scaled down under Section 9 as one arising in 1936 or whether the defendant by virtue of the proviso to Section 9 could treat the debt as a renewal of the...
Tag this Judgment!T.R. Paramasivam and anr. Vs. Parvathareddy Chenchuramireddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-26-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad345; (1942)1MLJ316
King, J.1. The appellants here sued the defendants upon a promissory note executed jointly by the first defendant and another by name- Lakshminarasa Reddi Lakshpinarasa Reddi became insolvent in 1931 and included this debt in his schedule of debts. In 1936 a scheme was put forward by Lakshminarasa Reddi for the settlement of his debts. In that scheme, the present plaintiffs were included as creditor No. 11 and the first defendant as creditor No. 9. Creditors Nos. 8 to 10 in the insolvency, as appears from the terms of the scheme, were in possession of certain mica over which they claimed a charge; and one of the terms of the scheme was that, in consideration of those creditors who had claims against creditors 8 to 10 as sureties for the insolvent giving up those claims, they would bring the mica into Court to be treated as part of the insolvent's estate. A further provision was made that those creditors who had claims against creditors 8, 9 and 10 should receive a larger dividend in pu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »