Chennai Court April 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.
Pakshi Ramaswami Chettiar and anr. Vs. Kesavan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ248
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. There is only one question in this ' appeal, a question of limitation. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed by the appellants in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavaram to enforce payment of two mortgages, one dated the 1st November, 1921, for Rs. 1,000 and the other dated the 8th November, 1921, for Rs. 100. The first one was a usufructuary mortgage. The appellant obtained a preliminary mortgage decree on the 10th March, 1932, and a final decree on the 18th September, 1933, but did not apply for the sale of the mortgaged property until the 17th March, 1938. Throughout he had remained in possession of the property as a usufructuary mortgagee. The mortgagors contended that as more than three years had elapsed from the date of the final decree an application in execution was barred by the law of limitation. The District Munsif decided the question against the mortgagors and allowed the application for execution to proceed. His decision...
The General Agencies and Trades Ltd. by Its Managing Director, V. Dhar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad855; (1941)2MLJ417
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the managing agent of the Garland Petroleum Company (Madras) Limited which is being wound up by this Court under a compulsory winding up order passed on the 2nd April, 1938. The Court directed that all claims against the company should be presented by the 15th July, 1938. The appellant presented a claim for Rs. 25, 313-8-2, which was said to be due by way of commission and advances made to the company. The appellant's claim together with others were mentioned to the Court (Gentle, J.) on the 16th September, 1938. The Official Liquidator then informed the Court that he required the appellant to prove the claim in detail. The learned Judge decided that he would not enter upon an adjudication of the matter at that stage, and adjourned the matter for one month in order to allow the appellant to take such steps as he might deem necessary to enforce the claim. Apparently nothing was done, and when the matter came before Mockett, J., on the ...
Namburi Subbayya and anr. Vs. Ghaganti Chandrayya (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad811; (1941)2MLJ442
Abdur Rahman, J.1. Kotamma, a Brahmin girl, became a widow while she was very young. When she grew older, she fell into evil ways and had two illegitimate children one of whom Namburi Subbamma is the present plaintiff and the other Sundararamayya is the seventh defendant in the present litigation. Kotamma, died on the 12th October, 1919 and left some stridhanam property at the time of her death which forms the subject matter of the present suit.2. The property left by Kotamma, was sold by her son Sundararamayya to six defendants (defendants 1 to 6) under several sale deeds. Namburi Subbamma brought a suit out of which the present appeals arise for the recovery of their possession. If the children were not illegitimate, Kotamma's stridhanam property would, under the ordinary rule of Hindu law devolve on her daughter Namburi Subbamma in preference to her son. But it was contended that as Kotamma was an outcaste and lived in a degraded condition, the plaintiff would be no heir to her moth...
Swarupchand Rayanji and ors. Vs. Majeti Janakiramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad330; (1942)1MLJ318
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff against his father the first defendant and his uncle the second defendant, whose estates were on the date of the suit vested in the Official Receiver, Kistna, who was impleaded as the twenty-first defendant. The plaintiff claimed a fourth share in all the properties comprised in the plaint and incidentally prayed for a declaration that certain alienations effected by the Official Receiver, Kistna, were not binding on his : share. Defendants 3 to 20 are the various alienees but these appeals are confined to the alienations in favour of defendants 4, 11, 12 and 13, Appeal No. 427 of 1938 is by defendants 12 and 13 while Appeal No. 428 of 1938 is by defendants 4 and 11. The properties which are the subject-matter of Appeal No. 427 of 1938 are items 4 and 5 of B Schedule and items 2 and 3 of C Schedule and the properties which are the subject-matter of Appeal No. 428,of 1938 are items 8 of A ...
Kuruvella Subba Rao Vs. Kavi Satyanarayanamurthi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad750; (1941)2MLJ170
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is another example of the disregard of principles of elementary justice which Debt Conciliation Boards of this Province are apt to show. The petitioner is a creditor of the first respondent for Rs. 2,871-14-9, due tinder a registered mortgage. The first respondent applied to the Debt Conciliation Board, Rajahmundry, on the 15th September, 1939, for a settlement of his debts. In the schedule of debts he set out the amount due to the petitioner under his mortgage. The petitioner was required to file on the 16th December, 1939 the statement contemplated by Section 10 (1) of the Debt Conciliation Act. At this time the petitioner was a defendant in a partition suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Rajahmundry, and he had been compelled to produce in the Court his account books. On the 16th December, 1939, the petitioner appeared before the Board and explained the situation. He then applied for fifteen days' time to enable him to withdraw his books ...
K.M. Rangiah Chettiar Vs. Syed Karim Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad890; (1941)2MLJ453
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of a Small Cause suit on a promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant who endorsed the note to the plaintiff. The present petitioner, who is the plaintiff, does not object to the decree passed against the first defendant who has been given the benefit of Act IV of 1938. But as against the second defendant he contends that by reason of Section 10 (2) (it) of Act IV of 1938, the liability of the second defendant--the endorser--is one in respect of which a charge is provided under Section 55 (4) (6) of the Transfer of Property Act and that therefore cannot be reduced. It was held in Poovanalingam Pillai v. Nagaratnam Pillai : AIR1940Mad943 that the liability of the endorser of a promissory note is a personal liability incurred on the date of the endorsement. This Court has also held in a number of cases that Section 10 (2) (ii) of Act IV of 1938 protects . any liability for which at its inceptio...
Thimmappa Chettiar Vs. Thangavelu Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad762; (1941)2MLJ119
Gentle, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit obtained a decree against the defendant which he assigned to the appellant to whom he was indebted in some sums of money. The appellant was to execute the decree and give credit to the plaintiff in respect of any fruits he obtained from execution. After the assignment the defendant appealed against the decree which had been passed against him. The appellant as the assignee-decree-holder was made a party to the appeal and appeared together with the plaintiff by learned Counsel. The defendant's appeal succeeded and in his judgment the learned District Judge directed that the appellant should pay the costs of the appeal and also the costs of the trial Court.2. It is against the order for costs against the appellant that he files this appeal. It is contended that as the appellant appeared together with the plaintiff, no order for costs should be passed against him and further as he was not interested in the suit until after the decree, he should not b...
Valliammai Ammal Vs. Dharmalinga Muthirian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad762a
ORDERLakshmana Rao, J.1. The petitioner and the counter-petitioner were living together till 1930 and the recitals in Ex. 2 the compromise of 1927 are irrelevant. Further, the plea of adultery was belated and as observed by the Joint Magistrate the evidence is worthless. The petitioner was not even questioned and the notice issued by the petitioner in 1937 for her maintenance was refused. No reply was sent to the notice issued in 1939 and the claim for maintenance is irresistible. The indebtedness of the counter-petitioner is no ground for dismissing the petition and the order of the Joint Magistrate cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, set aside and the petition is remanded to him for awarding the appropriate maintenance after taking further evidence on the point if desired....
C. Thiruvengada Mudaliar Vs. M. Rajabathar Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad546; (1941)2MLJ35
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether the Madras Hindu Devasthanam Committee, created under the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, is bound, in appointing a trustee to make the appointment for life or whether it can make the appointment for a term of years. On the 8th March, 1929, the Committee appointed the appellant a trustee for life of the Sri Thiruvatteswarar temple in Madras. On the 18th November, 1935, the Committee appointed the respondent a trustee of the same temple, but limited his appointment to a period of three years. The appellant objected to the respondent entering upon the duties of his office. The reason given was that the appointment to be valid must be for life. On the 5th December, 1935, the appellant filed in the City Civil Court the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that the respondent's appointment is invalid and for an injunction restraining him from interfering with the appellant's management. The principal...
Valur Krishna Menon and ors. Vs. Puthan Veettil Kurungara Kunhu Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad36; (1941)2MLJ287
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition and recovery of possession of two-thirds share in the property bequeathed by the plaintiffs' father Narayanan under a will dated the 21st January, 1921, Ex. A, to his wife and children, one of whom had been born at the time when the will was executed and the other was born later. The suit was brought as the property was alleged to have been owned by the plaintiffs as tenants in common with their mother who had no right to represent them as a Karnavathi in the suit (O.S. No. 203 of 1932) instituted on the basis of a mortgage executed in favour of the second defendant by their father. To this suit the plaintiffs' mother alone was made a party and the plaintiffs were not impleaded. It was decreed but it was contended in the present suit that the decree was not binding on the plaintiffs and their shares which were two thirds in the property bequeathed by their father remained unaffected by the decree and the purchase of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »