Chennai Court July 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.
Avana Mana alias Kanhiyur alias thekkiniyedath Kirangat Manakkal Vasud ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ293
Somayya, J.1. Mr. Pocker, the learned advocate for the respondent, reported no instructions and the respondent does not appear. I have therefore to decide the appeal in the absence of the respondent. The sole question that arises in this second appeal is whether Ex. A the registered hypothecation bond executed by the first defendant, the sole respondent in this second appeal, operates as a valid hypothecation of a fund in Court O.S. No. 238 of 1920. The lower appellate Court found that the mortgage was not properly attested and therefore declined to give a mortgage decree. It gave a simple money decree against the defendant. Hence the second appeal.2. The necessity for attestation is to be found in Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. Chapter IV in which that section occurs relates to mortgages of immoveable properties and charges. Section 58(a) which defines a mortgage says:A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing paym...
Mundla Gangi Reddi Vs. Golla Narasimha Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad895; (1941)2MLJ362
Burn, J.1. This appeal is from the order passed by the learned District Judge of Cuddapah dismissing I.P. No. 90 of 1936. This petition was filed by a oreditor named Alladu Nagiah against one Golla Narasimha Eeddi. The present appellant Mundla Gangi Eeddi was substituted as the petitioning oreditor in 1937. The learned District Judge has dismissed the petition on the ground that the case involves the decision of complicated questions of law and fact before it can be held that a subsisting relationship of creditor and debtor has been satisfactorily established. The debtor objected to adjudication at the instance of the present appellant, alleging that this creditor had agreed to a composition scheme which had been accepted by other creditors also. The appellant, as appears from the order of the learned Judge, did not file any counter affidavit to this statement and the agreement set up by the debtor was sent for examination to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents. After that ...
Rajah V. Rajeswara Rao Garu and anr. Vs. Chintapatla Venkata Rayanim G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad846; (1941)2MLJ304
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioners were the transferee decree-holders against whom the respondents filed an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 praying the Court to scale down the decree debt and to record full satisfaction. In objection to this application it was urged that the applicants as members of an undivided Hindu family paid more than Rs. 100 as kattubadi and were therefore not entitled to claim relief as agriculturists having regard to proviso D to Section 3 (ii) of the Act. The contention of the present petitioners that the respondents were members of an undivided Hindu family was based upon an assertion that in the respondents' family there had been a reunion. The lower Court held the view that a reunited family could not be described as an undivided. Hindu family. Against this decision the present petition is filed.2. It has been pointed by the learned Advocate-General for the petitioners that the Privy Council has laid down, vide Prankishen Paul Chowdry v. ...
Muthilakath Krishna Menon Vs. Chathankandath Chamunni's son Kunjandi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad826; (1941)2MLJ351
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner in this case filed an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938, praying that the amount due under a decree in favour of the respondent might be scaled down. The petitioner mortgaged his property to the respondent with possession and on the same day there was a lease back to the petitioner whereunder the petitioner was to pay rent to the respondent. He defaulted and in 1937 the mortgagee got a decree for the principal sum due under the mortgage and for the amount of rent due under the lease. In the lower Court the petitioner contended firstly, that the annual payments under this double transaction were interest and were to be scaled down as such and alternatively that these annual payments were rent to which Section 15 of the Act applied. The lower Court negatived both the contentions.2. The contention that in a transaction of this kind the rent is really interest is no longer tenable so far as Act IV of 1938 is concerned since the decision in...
In Re: Periya Yelumalai Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad814; (1941)2MLJ353
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Inspector of Police, Ponneri, who was examined as P.W. 1 in this case, obtained a warrant from the Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 5 (i) of the Madras Gaming Act (III of 1930) to search the house belonging to the 1st and the 2nd accused. He went to that house and saw two persons lying inside the door and others busy writing something. He posted a constable and a bus conductor to see that nobody ran away and went to the front of the house. There he found the first and the 3rd accused keeping watch. He knocked on the door and it was opened by the 2nd accused after the 1st and the 3rd accused had called to those inside. The Inspector entered the house and found accused 6 and 9 lying down on the pial while others were busy writing slips of paper. He made a search and amongst other things found a large number of papers of various kinds relating to the business of betting on horse racing. He made out a charge sheet, and on his evidence the Stationary Sub-...
Manbuval Hasanath Hamedia Madrasa School, Represented by Its Trustee, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad834(1); (1941)2MLJ347
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the owner of a private market in a municipality is entitled to prevent the municipality from opening a new market. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff.2. Two grounds are urged before me : (1) that under the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act a private owner has got such a right. The sections referred to are Sections 259 to 267 and Mr. Desikan relies very strongly on Section 267-A as conferring that right by necessary implication. I am not able to see how Section 267-A gives rise to such a necessary implication at all. All that the section says is that it is open to the Municipal Council to acquire the rights of any person to hold a private market. That does not confer any right on the owner of a private market to compel the municipality to acquire his right and not to open a new market.3. The second ground is that under the common law of England the owner of a private mark...
In Re: A. Venkataraghava Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ348
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted--and the conviction has been upheld in appeal--under Section 193 of the Local Boards Act, read with Section 207 and Schedule VII, for failure to obtain a license for storing and selling firewood during the year 1939-1940 within the limits of the Panchayat Board of Uttaramerur and he has been fined Rs. 5.2. Schedule VII of the Local Boards Act, unlike Schedule VI of the City Municipal Act, does not require that a license should be taken out for storing firewood. It was unnecessary therefore for the petitioner to have taken out a license; and by not taking out a license he committed no offence in storing firewood. Whether he could sell firewood without a license may depend on whether by doing so he was exercising a trade. But this case did not turn on that. It was assumed that a license was necessary for storing firewood and both Courts seem to have been under a misapprehension on that point. The conviction is therefore set aside and t...
Muniappa Mudaliar Alias Muniswami Mudaliar Vs. Kuppuswami Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ181
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The only question for decision, in this second appeal is whether a person, who is not possessed of any joint family property, is under any obligation under the Hindu law to maintain his adult illegitimate son. Both the lower Courts seem to have assumed that the father is bound to maintain his, illegitimate son during his own lifetime. It seems to me that this assumption is wrong. It, is a well settled principle of Hindu law that where the father is not possessed of any joint family property, he is under no personal obligation to maintain his, legitimate son and the latter has no claim over the separate property of his father--vide Ammakannu v. Appu I.L.R.(1887) Mad. 91. An illegitimate son cannot claim higher rights than the legitimate son and the same principle ought to apply to him. Mr. M. Natesa Aiyar who appears for Mr. V. Ramaswami Aiyar has not been able to cite any authority in sup- port of the view taken by the lower Court. It seems to me therefore that ...
G. Narappa Naidu Vs. Thummalur Chinna Asethu Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad396; (1942)1MLJ217a
Wadsworth, J.1. In both these appeals the appellant is the purchaser from a mortgagor and the suit was filed by a receiver appointed to collect the mortgage debt and apply the proceeds towards the discharge of the debt due by the mortgagee in that suit. The only contention of law urged in these appeals is that the appointment of the receiver was invalid without the prior attachment of the mortgage debt and that therefore the receiver was not entitled to get a decree on the mortgage. Assuming that this is a contention open to the defendant in the mortgage suit, it seems to me that it is a contention which is devoid of substance. It is based on certain observations in Palikandy Mammad v. Krishnan Nair : (1916)30MLJ361 , where it is stated that the- Court cannot appoint a receiver except where it has seisin of the property either by a suit being pending or by proceedings in execution of a decree made in a suit being pending and attachment having been made. These observations seem to be ba...
Manbuval Hasanath Hamedia Madrasa School, by Its Trustee, S. Muhammad ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad834
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the owner of a private market in a municipality is entitled to prevent the municipality from opening a new market. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff. Two grounds are urged before me : (1) that under the provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act, a private owner has got such a right. The sections referred to are Sections 259 to '267 and Mr. Desikan relies very strongly on Section 267A as conferring that right by necessary (implication. I am not able to see how Section J267A gives rise to such a necessary implication tit all. All that the section says is that it is open to the Municipal Council to acquire the rights of any person to hold a private market. That does not confer any right on the owner of a private market to compel the municipality to acquire his right and not to open a new market.2. The second ground is that under the common law of England the owner of a private mar...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »