Chennai Court February 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.
In Re: Chitravelu thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad763; (1941)2MLJ207
Burn, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Devakottai against the verdict of the jury in Sessions Case No. 130 of 194(3. The charge against the accused was for an offence of dacoity under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, but the dacoity was one in a very technical sense. There were eight persons put up for trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Two of them accused 1 and 3 were alleged to be pattadars holding ryoti lands in the Zamindari of Ramnad. It was alleged that they were in arrears with their rent, that when the estate authorities went and distrained their cattle, they and the other six accused came and forcibly rescued the cattle inflicting injuries upon the estate servants for that end. The accused were therefore supposed to have stolen their own cattle. The theft became an offence of robbery because they were said to have caused hurt to some of the prosecution witnesses in order to the commission of the theft, and since there were more...
Muthusamia Pillai Vs. R.S.A. Sankara Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad297; (1942)1MLJ86
Wadsworth, J.1. The account starting in 1933 has a series of settlements, each giving rise to a fresh principal. The lower Court has given a decree on the basis of the last settlement with interest thereafter at 5 per cent. on the amount so settled under Section 9 of Act IV of 1938. This is correct. Unless a debt falling under Section 9 relates back to a debt incurred before 1st October, 1932, so as to invoke the provisions of Section 8, there is nothing in Section 9 to justify the re-opening of settlements or the re appropriation of payments on the basis of a hypothetical original principal. The petition is dismissed with costs....
Kuntamukkala Venkateswara Rao Vs. Sree Raja Kunduru Lakshmikantharao B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad638; (1941)1MLJ633
Wadsworth, J. 1. Petitioner contended in defence to a suit on a promissory note that the amount was not due because it represented rent which must be deemed to be discharged by reason of Section 15 of Act IV of 1938. A Bench of which I was a member held in Ramadoss Reddiar v. Munuswami Reddiar : AIR1941Mad116 , following The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Zamindar of Kirlampudi (1931) 63 M.L.J. 20 : I.L.R.1931 Mad. 830 that a decree on a promissory note for arrears of rent is a decree for a debt and not a decree for rent and that it is to be scaled down under Sections 9 and 19 and not under Section 15. An attempt has been made to distinguish that decision on the ground that it related to a decree, whereas, here, we are concerned with a suit on a promissory note to which a plea of failure of consideration may be raised. The distinction made is, in my opinion, fallacious. The basis of our decision was that on the taking of the note the character of the liability changed and that i...
The Official Receiver Vs. Tadi Veereddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ951
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against an order granting a temporary injunction against the Official Receiver acting in the insolvency of defendants 1 and 2, restraining him from selling the interest of the minor plaintiffs in the family property in discharge of the debts incurred by their father, the first defendant.2. The history of this litigation is an illustration of the deplorable results flowing from dilatory procedure. The first defendant is the father of the second defendant' and also of the 2 minor plaintiffs. On the eve of the insolvency of the first and second defendants in 1931, the second defendant filed a suit for partition and after the adjudication of the first and second defendants in November, 1931, the minor sons were transposed as plaintiffs and continued the suit with their mother as guardian. Some three years later the mother was replaced by an uncle. The Official Receiver asked that the creditors, some ninety in number, should be impleaded so that any ...
Official Receiver Vs. Tadi Veerreddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad838
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against an order granting a temporary in-junction against the Official Receiver acting in the insolvency of defendants 1 and 2, restraining him from selling the interest of the minor plaintiffs in the family property in discharge of the debts incurred by their father, defendant 1. The history of this litigation is an illustration of the deplorable results flowing from dilatory procedure. Defendant 1 is the father of defendant 2 and also of the two minor plaintiffs On the eve of the insolvency of defendants 1 and 2 in 1931, defendant 2 filed a suit for partition and after the adjudication of defendants 1 and 2 in November 1931 the minor sons were transposed as plaintiffs and continued the suit with their mother as guardian. Some three years later the mother was replaced by an uncle. The Official Receiver asked that the creditors, some ninety in number, should be impleaded so that any decree might be binding upon them all so far as the minor's sha...
L.R. Rama Aiyar Vs. A.S. Madhava Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ376
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the mortgage debt for which the suit was laid is liable to be scaled down under Madras Act IV of 1938. The mortgage is dated 9th January, 1926 and purports to be a deed of usufructuary mortgage in and by which the property in suit was mortgaged under a stipulation that the mortgagee should be in possession of the property in lieu of interest, no rate of interest being stipulated as being payable to the mortgagee. Therefore, on the plain language of the document, it comes directly within Section 10 (2) of the Act, which distinctly provides that nothing contained in Sections 8 and 9 shall affect mortgages of the description of the suit mortgage. The learned Judge in the Court below took the view that this usufructuary mortgage was executed in renewal of two prior mortgages which were simple and as there is a clause in the present mortgage deed that those simple mortgages should be kept alive, the suit must b...
T.V. Ranga Rao Naidu (Died) and ors. Vs. Seth Balaksonlal Janaki Prasa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad940(1); (1941)2MLJ452
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. There is no ground in my opinion for restricting Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to mistakes or errors which occur for the first time in the plaint or the subsequent proceedings in Court. This Court has applied Section 152 also to cases where the mistake occurred earlier in the document evidencing the transaction itself and was copied in the plaint and the decree in the suit brought to enforce the transaction (see Satyanarayana v. Purnayya (1930) 61 M.L.J. 805. The Allahabad High Court has taken the view that the section is inapplicable to such cases (see Shujaatmand Khan v. Govind Behari : AIR1934All100 , but with all respect I am of opinion that the view taken by this Court is the sounder one and I have no hesitation in following it in preference to that of the Allahabad High Court.2. On the merits, the Court below has clearly found that the extent mentioned in the mortgage deed which was subsequently copied in the plaint and the preliminary and final d...
Athinarayana Konar and anr. Vs. V. Subramania Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad67; (1941)2MLJ722
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Court-auction purchaser for possession of the land which he had purchased, from the appellants who are alleged to have trespassed upon that land after delivery through Court, claiming title to it under a private sale made at the time when the attachment was pending. The essential facts are that the appellants, who, were defendants 1 and 2 in the trial Court, held certain mortgages over the land in question and they allege that on 10th March, 1932 the mortgagor who was not a party in these proceedings entered into an agreement with them to sell to them* the mortgaged land. The written statement does not describe this agreement, but it is said in the course of arguments that it was an unregistered written agreement. Nearly a month later, on 3rd April, 1932 the present respondent in execution of a money decree against the mortgagor attached that land. It is not in evidence whether this attachment was with or without notice of the contr...
Surisetti Rama Subbayya Vs. Palur Thimmiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ754
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question to decide in this appeal is whether an application for execution presented by the decree-holder more than three years after the dismissal of his first petition can be, in view of the pendency of a subsequent declaratory suit which he had brought to get rid of an order made by the executing Court accepting a third party's claim petition, held to be within time in spite of the fact that the suit instituted by the decree-holder challenging the validity of the order of the executing Court had failed. This would depend on the decision as to the character and effect of the order of dismissal passed by the executing Court on accepting the objections raised by the third party to the attachment and on the question whether the declaratory suit can be regarded to be a step in aid of execution of the decree within the meaning of that expression as used in Article 182, Sub-clause 5 of the Limitation Act. If the order accepting the claim petition and cancelling t...
Mutha Venkateswarlu Vs. Kotha Venkatraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad628; (1941)1MLJ718
Wadsworth, J. 1. This Civil Revision petition arises out of a Small Cause suit and raises questions under Sections 8 and 9 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The suit debt relates back to an original promissory note Ex. B dated the 15th May, 1930, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Krishnamurthi. Krishnamurthi died and after his death the plaintiff and Krishnamurthi's son agreed that the balance due under Ex. B should be divided between them in equal shares. The debtor accordingly executed two fresh promissory notes, one in favour of the plaintiff which is the suit promissory note (Ex. A) and the other in favour of Krishnamurthi's son. The lower Court has treated Ex. A as a renewal of Ex. B to the extent of plaintiff's share in that debt and has scaled* down the debt applying the explanation to Section 8 of the Act. It seems to us that this conclusion cannot be supported in view of our decision in the case of Ramasubbier v. Rama Aiyar : AIR1941Mad356 . We...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »