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.
Koothoor Cherappan and anr. Vs. T.K.S.S. Sankara Aiyar and Subbayya Ai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad680; (1941)2MLJ63
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The main question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the application of the petitioners under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code out of which this petition arises is sustainable. The relevant facts are few and are these. In execution of a decree obtained by the first respondent against the second respondent, one-fourth share in certain items of immoveable property were attached, and sold. The second respondent and the petitioners were co-owners entitled each to a third share in all the properties that were attached. But subsequent to the attachment there was an agreement to refer the matter to arbitration and there was an award in and by which the properties were divided into three equal shares and some of the items which formed the subject-matter of the attachment exclusively fell to the share of the petitioners. The sale in court-auction in execution of the decree of the first respondent took place subsequent to this division. This ap...
Donda Bhagavantulayya Dhora and ors. Vs. Adapa Venkandhora and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad484; (1941)1MLJ788
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal involves two questions. The first question is whether the mortgagors of certain immovable properties were entitled to redeem the mortgage before the 10th September, 1928. The second question is whether a tender of Rs. 760 is, to be regarded as invalid because it fell short of the amount due by Rs. 4. The mortgage was created by the first, second and third defendants in favour of Donda Godavarayya, the appellants' father, on the 10th September, 1926. The mortgagors covenanted to repay all the principal and interest payable under the deed 'by' the 10th September, 1928. In the month of June, 1927, the fourth defendant, who. is now the first respondent, tendered to the mortgagee the sum of Rs. 760. The first respondent had purchased the equiry of redemption and therefore stood in the shoes of the mortgagors. In tendering the sum of Rs. 760 the first respondent did so in the full belief that this was the correct Amount. There had been a miscalcu...
The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. S.V. Subba Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad684; (1941)2MLJ75
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a small plot of land in Calicut measuring 2 cents which has been acquired for the purpose of a telephone exchange. Notification was issued in 1935. The evidence shows that at the time of the notification a building was standing upon the site which had originally consisted of four rooms on the ground floor and three rooms in the upper storey. In 1932, however, one of the rooms on the ground floor had been destroyed, and the whole of the upper storey had also been destroyed on account, as the claimant puts it, of a portion of the Anjuman building falling upon it. The owner of this property claimed Rs. 22,000 for it. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 2,700. He arrived at this figure by calculating the annual rental actually derived from the property (it should be mentioned here that the rooms in the lower storey were let out as shops at Rs. 15 a month). Deducting three months' rent as necessary expenditure for repairs and the payment ...
Subba Nayakkar and anr. Vs. Akkammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-04-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad392; (1942)1MLJ373
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The other claims made in the suit, out of which this appeal arises, having been decided Against the plaintiff, the only point to decide now is whether the plaintiff has Succeeded in establishing her right of easement on' the western space lying to the north of the defendant's house and abutting on the Union lane near the line marked AG in the plan Ex K-l. 'The plaintiff V suit was totally dismissed by the District Munsif of Palni but an appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Dihdigul was partially allowed and the plaintiff was found to have established her right of way in regard to the plot indicated above. The defendant appeals and contends that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge decreeing the plaintiff's right of easement to the disputed plot is incorrect. The question to decide is whether it is so.2. It is undoubtedly true that the plaintiff came to Court with two inconsistent allegations claiming both ownership and, in the alternative, easement in regard t...
The Madura Municipality Through Its Executive Authority, the Commissio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-03-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad650; (1941)1MLJ768
Venkataramana Rao, J. 1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant Municipality from constructing a public latrine behind the plaintiff's fruit stall in Madura. Both the lower Courts have concurrently found that the erection of a latrine would constitute a nuisance to the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed. Hence this appeal by the Municipality.2. The finding that the erection of a latrine is a nuisance to the plaintiff is a finding of fact and cannot therefore be challenged in second appeal. The contention of Mr. Rajah Aiyar who appeared for the appellant is that under the District Municipalities Act the Municipality is empowered to construct public latrines in suitable places and Section 145 of that Act confers on them such a right and that no action can lie against them. The question is whether this contention is tenable. Section 145 of the District Municipalities Act runs thus:The Council, shall, as far...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›