Chennai Court February 1941 Judgments
Y.G. Peria Muniswami Mudali and ors. Vs. Sena Narasappa Mudali (Deceas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ79
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises questions of importance with regard to the interpretation of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. As the case is not concerned with any of the alterations made by the amending Acts of 1934 and 1936 the sections to which I shall refer in the course of this judgment will be those of the original Act.2. On the 30th November, 1925, Sadayappa Govindappa Mudali, a tenant of ryoti lands in the village of Malapudi, which is in the Karvetnagar Zamindari, sold his interest in certain of the lands to one Kanniappa Mudali and mortgaged his interest in other of the lands to one Kandappa Mudali. The lands sold to Kanniappa have been referred to as the A schedule lands and the lands mortgaged to Kandappa as the B. schedule lands, and it will be Convenient to continue these descriptions. On the 29th June, 1926, Kanniappa sold his rights in the A schedule lands and Kandappa assigned his rights as mortgagee in the B schedule lands to the first responden...
Tag this Judgment!Vankineni Peda Venkata Subbayya Vs. Jillillamudi Venkayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad612; (1942)1MLJ413
Mockett, J.1. This petition raises a point under Madras' Act XI of 1936 (The Madras Debt Conciliation Act). The short facts are that the petitioner obtained a mortgage decree in March, 1936 for a large sum. On the 19th September, 1938 it. was scaled down under Madras Act IV of 1938. 23rd October, 1939 was the date fixed for sale. The 2nd respondent then put in an application to the Debt Conciliation Board. That application was marked No. 62 of 1939 and all the creditors were made parties to it. The first respondent in this petition was the 5th respondent. Following on that application on the 18th October, 1939 a stay of sale was ordered in respect of the present petitioner's sale. This order necessarily -was made under Section 25 of Act XI of 1936. On the 24th June, 1940 the application was dismissed under Section 9 (5) of the Act. So it will be seen that the application before the Board was pending from October, 1939 until, June 1940. Section 9 (b) provides that an application may be ...
Tag this Judgment!Jayanthi Rudrayya Vs. Jayanthi Subbarayappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad742
King, J.1. The appellant in this appeal obtained a decree in 1921 and in execution of the decree brought certain property to sale. The property was purchased by the predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiffs and the purchase money was duly paid over to the decree-holder on 12th March 1925. Before the sale of the property had taken place, there had been a claim petition put in by a mortgagee and that petition had been dismissed. The mortgagee subsequently filed a suit to set aside the order on the claim petition and to that suit the auction purchaser was made a party. The suit was decreed on 4th December 1926 on the ground that the judgment-debtor had no interest in the property and this finding is of course res judicata as against the auction purchaser and his representatives. On 12th June 1928 the legal representatives of the auction purchaser filed the suit from which the present appeal arises to recover from the decree-holder the money which they had paid for the property purcha...
Tag this Judgment!V. Sreenivasachariar Vs. Bysani Krishnayya Chetti Transferee Decree-ho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad697; (1941)1MLJ833
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of our learned brother Venkataramana Rao J., on an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to scale down the debt due under a decree on a mortgage. The mortgage was for an amount of Rs. 7,500 and it was dated the 30th August, 1925. It was assigned to one Jagannatham Chetty who sued on the mortgage in C S. No. 42 of 1933. There was a preliminary decree for the principal amount with Rs. 3,311-140 interest and Rs. 336-8-0 subsequent interest up to the date fixed for redemption and Rs. 1,515-8-0 taxed costs. Final decree was passed in February, 1935. In October 1935, the judgment-debtors obtained the leave of the Court to raise a sum of Rs. 8,500 on a first mortgage of one item of the hypotheca, the amount so raised being paid to the credit of the decree. And in pursuance of this arrangement, on the 14th November, 1935 the Insurance Company which had taken the mortgage deposited Rs. 8,500 towards the decree. In June of the fo...
Tag this Judgment!P.L.P. Devarayan Chettiar Vs. Sp. Subramania Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad829; (1941)2MLJ257
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition is preferred by the plaintiff in a small cause suit and it raises a question as to the interpretation of the explanation to Section 8 of Act IV of 1938. The debt in question starts with a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 and one Toongan. This was discharged by another note of 1932 executed by the same three persons. On the 29th July, 1935 the suit note was executed by defendants 1 and 2 alone discharging the earlier note of 1932. It is not a case of a joint family debt, the 1st and 2nd defendants being of different castes. We have no information whether Toongan was or was not an agriculturist. It was proved that in May, 1937 the 1st defendant purchased lands which qualify him as an agriculturist under the Act. The 2nd defendant appears to have been an agriculturist throughout. Three contentions have been placed before us on behalf of the petitioner to show that the lower Court was wrong in scaling down the debt as against both ...
Tag this Judgment!Vankadari Somappa Vs. Chippagiri Nagi Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ1050
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some importance. The facts are these. A promissory note was executed on the 24th July, 1930, by one Linga Reddi for Rs. 400 in favour of D. W. 1 Bhimakka. A suit was brought on the basis of the promissory note by the promisee (O.S. No. 166 of 1932) which resulted in a decree. In execution of that decree, a house and certain lands belonging to the joint family consisting of Linga Reddi and his nephew, the present plaintiff respondent, were attached and purchased on the 22nd September, 1933, by the defendant appellant who is a stranger. A sale certificate was accordingly granted to him on the 27th November, 1933, (Ex. II). The sale certificate describes that the whole of the property mentioned therein and not merely the share belonging to Linga Reddi was sold in execution of the decree. When the auction-purchaser proceeded to recover possession of the property purchased by him, he was obstructed by the other member of the joint family o...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Kuttia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ499
ORDERBurn, J. 1. The learned District Munsif has not called upon the petitioner to pay any particular court-fee, and the question of what is the proper court-fee is not in my opinion before me. If it were I should be obliged to decline it, because the duty of fixing the court-fee is past by law on the trial Court, and the trial Court's decision is ordinarily final.2. The learned District Munsif has however exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the plaintiff to add to his plaint certain prayers which the plaintiff does not want to add. The Court has no power, so far as I am aware, to compel any party to pray for any particular relief.3. In this case the petitioner alleges that the decree and subsequent proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1932, are null and void, and not binding on him. But he does not ask the Court to make any declaration to that effect, or to set them aside as void against him. The learned District Munsif has ordered him to add a prayer for the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Venkadari Somappa Vs. Naresepally Venkataswamy Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad672; (1941)1MLJ782
King, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is an agriculturist entitled to claim the benefit of Act IV of 1938. The learned District Judge of Bellary has held that he is not an Agriculturist firstly because he has been assessed to income-tax under proviso (A) to Section 3 and secondly because he has paid house-tax under proviso (c). We may say at once that the second reason cannot be substantiated. The language of proviso (c) is that he should be assessed to house-tax. The only evidence is an admission by the appellant that he had gifted certain houses to his wife and that his wife pays taxes on those houses. There is nothing in the case to show, whether this statement could be believed or not, that the houses have been assessed as the property of the appellant.2. On the first ground however the order of the learned District Judge must, we think, be upheld. The facts are that the appellant was a partner in a ginning factory and was entitled to one-fou...
Tag this Judgment!Venkadadri Somappa Vs. Narasepally Venkataswami Chetty.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1941
Reported in: [1941]9ITR284(Mad)
KING, J. - The only question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is an agriculturist entitled to claim the benefit of Act IV of 1938. The learned District Judge of Bellary has held that he is not an agriculturist, firstly because he has been assessed to income-tax under proviso (A) to Section 3 and secondly because he has paid house tax under proviso (C). We may say at once that the second reason cannot be substantiated. The language of proviso (C) is that he should be assessed to house-tax. The only evidence is an admission by the appellant that he had gifted certain houses to his wife and that his wife pays taxes on those houses. There is nothing in the case to show, whether this statement should be believed or not, that the houses have been assessed as the property of the appellant.On the first ground, however, the order of the learned District Judge must, we think, be upheld. The facts are that the appellant was a partner in a ginning factory and was entitled to one-fo...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Ghulam HussaIn Sahib Vs. Ayesha Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad481; (1941)1MLJ800
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The seventh respondent is the mother of the eighth, ninth and tenth respondents in this appeal and of the sixth defendant in the suit out of which the appeal arises. The sixth defendant died pending the litigation and is now represented by the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth respondents. The father, one Shumsudeen, died before 1922. In that year, the seventh respondent was appointed the guardian of the properties of her sons and daughters all of whom were minors. On the 24th of September, 1924, the seventh respondent, acting on her own behalf and as guardian of the ninth and tenth respondents and the sixth defendant, sold to the appellant a house which had been left by Shumsudeen. The eighth respondent was at this time a major and she joined in the conveyance. The seventh respondent did not obtain the sanction of the Court to the sale, as she was bound to do by reason of Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Her failure to obtain the necess...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »