Chennai Court March 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.
Santhappa Vs. Eswarappa Holiappa Bulla, by L.R. Siddalingappa Bulla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad810; (1941)2MLJ295
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The question that falls to be decided in these appeals is whether interest payable under a decree passed by a Court in the Bombay Presidency but transferred for execution to a Court in this Province is liable to be scaled down under Section 8 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The respondent obtained two decrees against the appellant in O.S. No. 167 and 168 of 1923 in the Court of the Additional First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, and got these decrees transferred to the District Court of Bellary for execution as the appellant was residing in Bellary and owned properties there. The decrees were passed on 10th March, 1927, and provided for payment of the amount due in instalments which were, in each case, charged on immoveable properties situate in the Bellary District and carried interest at 9 per cent, per annum. The appellant claiming to be an agriculturist applied to the Court below in the course of the execut...
Gopala Maller Vs. Vallithokuvayil Velloth Krishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad134; (1941)2MLJ340
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. There is no serious dispute as to the facts. The 1st defendant here and another person were indebted under a contract which was anterior to 1932. That debt ripened into a decree of 1933. To discharge that decree a fresh promissory note was executed by the 1st defendant (one of the two judgment-debtors) and by the 2nd defendant who was not apparently concerned in the earlier debt. Both the defendants are agriculturists and they applied under Section 19 to scale down the debt. The lower Court has scaled down the debt as against both the defendants on the basis of its being a renewal of the original liability. The plaintiff decree-holder has filed the present revision petition in which he contests, firstly, the validity of Act IV of 1938 and secondly, the propriety of the scaling down order. It is conceded now that the question of the validity of the Act is settled by the Full Be...
Minor Shanmugham Chettiar Through Guardian Shanmugham Chettiar Vs. N.M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ550
Burn, J.1. This appeal is from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Madura dismissing an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code to set aside a sale of immovable property held in execution. The sale was held on the 13th of July, 1936. The application under Order 21, Rule 90 was presented on the 11th of August, 1936 and was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge on the 16th of November, 1937. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there were no material irregularities or fraud established in the case and that therefore the application to set aside the sale could not be allowed. He dismissed it accordingly.2. We have heard a very lengthy argument from Mr. K.S. Ramabhadra Aiyar on behalf of the appellant, the 2nd defendant in the suit, O.S. No. 114 of 1925. The appellant is the son of the 1st defendant in the suit and the suit was filed on a mortgage executed by the first defendant who represented when he took the money from the lender that the hypotheca ...
In Re: Shaik Mastan Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad748
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The Sub-Magistrate should have committed the accused to the Court of Session under Section 348, Criminal P.C., and the irregularity could have been cured by the Sub-divisional Magistrate by a reference to the District Magistrate under Rule 97 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Orders. But the materials on record do not warrant further proceedings and the records will be returned....
Oyyappa Kone Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar, President, Vallalappatti Pancha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad764
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The information was not given to the complainant or any public servant subordinate to him and an offence under S.182, Penal Code, cannot be taken cognizance of except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. A complaint of the District Munsif would be necessary for a prosecution for an offence under Section 193, Penal Code, and the proceedings cannot be sustained. The reference is therefore accepted and the proceedings are quashed....
In Re: Syed Gaffar Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad621; (1941)1MLJ715
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act of being in unlawful possession of a quantity of arrack and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Court is asked to quash the conviction and sentence in the exercise of its powers of revision on the ground that in prohibiting the possession of intoxicating liquor the Madras Prohibition Act is ultra vires the Provincial Legislature but this contention obviously cannot be accepted so far as this case is concerned.2. Clause 31 of the Provincial Legislative List in the seventh schedule to the Government of India Act 1935 gives the Provincial Legislature full power to legislate with regard to the production, manufacture, possession, transport and sale of intoxicating liquors. Section 4 (1) (a) of the Prohibition Act prohibits inter alia the possession of intoxicating liquors. It is said that the Act is ul...
In Re: Bendapudi Venkataratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad639; (1941)1MLJ721
Wadsworth, J.1. The question which we have to decide relates to the court fee payable on an appeal filed under Rule 9 of. the rules framed under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) and issued under G.O. No. 2634. These rules provide for an application either by the debtor or by the creditor for a declaration as to the amount of the debt due. It is expressly provided that the application shall not be maintainable under the rules if a suit for the recovery of the debt be pending and it is also provided that every such application shall bear a court-fee stamp of the value of twelve annas. Rule 9 states that the order of the Court declaring the amount of the debt under Rule 7 shall be 'subject to appeal and second appeal as if it were a decree in an original suit' and it was the view of the office that the effect of this provision is to make appeals preferred against orders declaring the amount of a debt taxable as appeals from declaratory decrees under Article 17-A of the C...
Naina Muhammad Rowther Vs. Periappa Rowther Alias Muhammad Abdul Khadi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad745; (1941)2MLJ167
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant from an order passed in execution by the learned Subordinate Judge of Dindigul. The appellant was the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 44 of 1929 which was a suit upon a promissory note. He was one of the executants of the promissory note. The decree in the suit was passed on the 18th March, 1930. On the 22nd December, 1935 the decree was assigned to the respondent and E. P. No. 85 of 1938 was filed by the respondent to execute the decree by arrest of the 1st defendant, the present appellant. The first defendant objected to execution against him. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled his objections and hence this appeal.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the defendant's plea was barred by limitation. He has taken the defendant's plea as being one of satisfaction or adjustment of the decree and since he finds that the adjustment or satisfaction had not been certified under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code within ninety day...
Km. K.R. Km. Kuppan Chettiar by Agent S. Krishnamachariar Vs. Kaliamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-24-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad886; (1941)2MLJ360
Wadsworth, J.1. The facts which led up to this appeal are the following : One Madar Sahib executed two mortgages to Thangammal, one for Rs. 2,000 in 1921 and the other for Rs. 1,000 in 1922. In 1926 Thangammal purchased certain properties from one Ramanatha Aiyar for Rs. 20,000 and by way of making up part of the sale price she assigned to her vendor her rights under the two mortgages from Madar Sahib, the value thereof being estimated at the time as Rs. 5,290. In 1931 Ramanatha Aiyar assigned his rights under these mortgages to the plaintiff who is the appellant here. In 1935 the plaintiff brought a suit claiming as against defendants 1 to 6 (the heirs of Madar Sahib) a decree on these two mortgages and as against defendants 7 to 9 (the heirs of Thangammal) a decree on the basis of the covenants of title contained in the deeds, of assignment. The trial Court found that Madar Sahib had no title to the lands mortgaged and dismissed the suit on the mortgage documents as against his heirs...
Bhuloganatham Pillai and ors. Vs. Rajagopala Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad669; (1941)2MLJ105
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondents instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Chidambaram for the issue of a mandatory injunction against the appellants requiring them to remove a wall which they have built close to the respondent's house. The wall is six feet high and according to the respondents it has been built across a public road. The respondents say that as the result of the obstruction to the road they are unable to approach their house from the left and the enjoyment of their property has been seriously interfered with. They have not stated all this in the plaint, but have left it to be inferred from a plan which they filed with the plaint. If the respondents' allegations are true, there can be no doubt that the appellants' action does seriously affect them as the owners of the house, and therefore they have suffered special damage. Before the District Munsif the appellants raised the plea that the suit could not be maintained because the responden...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »