Chennai Court August 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.
Moongan and ors. Vs. Mir Roshan Ali Sahib
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad910; (1941)2MLJ534
ORDERHorwill, J.1. All the petitioners entered into a forest which had been leased to the complainant and cut certain trees. They were all tried together, although separate charges were framed with regard to two sets of the accused who were cutting trees in different parts of the same forest. They have all been convicted. In this petition it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there was a misjoinder of persons and that the conviction is therefore illegal and should be set aside.2. Although the matter was taken in appeal, neither of the Courts say that there was any intention or object common to the two sets of persons cutting trees in different parts of the forest; so that I agree with the learned advocate for the petitioners--as well as with the learned Public Prosecutor--that there was a misjoinder of parties. Mr. V.T. Rangaswami Aiyangar for the complainant contends that there was no misjoinder and quotes Sambasiva Mudali In re (1930) 35 L.W. 98 but it is clear from the j...
Subbaraya Chettiar Vs. the Debt Conciliation Board and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad26; (1941)2MLJ581
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the purpose of quashing an order of the Debt Conciliation Board, Cuddalore. The record shows that the order complained of has been passed without jurisdiction and the application will be granted.2. On the 18th September, 1939, the debtor respondents filed a petition under Section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, asking for the settlement of their debts. Section 5 of the Act states that every application shall be in writing and shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code for signing and verifying plaints. Section 6 sets out the particulars which a debtor must give in his application. If the application does not comply with the requirements of Section 5 or Section 6, Section 7 requires the Board to reject it. When an application has been accepted as complying with the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 the Board must by reason of Section 8 ...
Athiappa Chettiar Vs. Ibramsa Pulavar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ690
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This second appeal arises out of an application made by a mortgage-decree-holder for a personal decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code against the second defendant. The relevant facts are these. The appellant who is the mortgagee obtained a preliminary decree for sale of the property mortgaged to him on 16th August, 1929. A final decree was also passed on 10th December, 1930. The mortgaged property was brought to sale on 27th August, 1934 and the sale was confirmed on 29th September, 1934. But the second defendant who was adjudicated insolvent on 21st July, 1933 after the final decree was passed obtained an order of absolute discharge on 10th August, 1934. This application for a personal decree against the second defendant was made on 28th September, 1937. Both the lower Courts have taken the view that the order of absolute discharge precludes any relief being granted to the appellant. The question is whether this view is sound.2. On this point ther...
A. Rangaswami Aiyar Vs. Jainabu Bibi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad507; (1942)1MLJ448
1. These two appeals both arise out of a suit on an usufructuary mortgage. Appeal No. 107 of 1938, is the plaintiff's appeal against the disallowance of a part of his claim for rent on the hypotheca which was leased back to the mortgagors. C.M.A. No. 169 of 1940, is preferred against the order scaling down the decree under Sections 8 and 19 of Act IV of 1938. The suit is based on a mortgage, dated 29th September, 1930 executed by the first defendant and her husband, Shaik Farid Mohamed Vavu Khan Rowther for a sum of Rs. 25,000, of which admittedly only Rs. 19,000 was paid. There was a lease to the mortgagors on the 1st October, 1930, under Ex. C for two years. This was renewed in 1933 for one year by Ex. D and by Ex. E for a further year which terminated on the 29th November, 1934. According to the terms of Ex. E, the rent of Rs. 1,995 was payable on the 29th September, 1934. There was no fresh lease deed, after Ex. E. was executed; but it has been found--and the correctness of the fin...
Swaminatha Pillai Vs. Krishna Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad28; (1941)2MLJ601
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant shall be allowed to profit by a 'scheme (for which he himself was responsible) to defeat the provisions of Rule 16 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One Srinivasa Aiyangar obtained a money decree against the appellant and one Idumban Chettiar. The appellant had become the surety for money owing by Idumban Chettiar and the decree was obtained in a suit filed to enforce repayment of the loan. In order to avoid execution proceedings being instituted against him the appellant paid the decree-holder, and naturally he desired to recover the amount from the principal debtor. Instead of adopting the proper course, which was to file a suit against Idumban Chettiar, the appellant arranged with the decree-holder to transfer the decree to one Murugesa Padayachi. The decree-holder, having been paid, raised no objection to this course. It has been established that Murugesa was acting as the bena...
Prabhulal Madhavlal Desai Vs. Jeshing Bhai Bala Bhai and Sons and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad86; (1941)2MLJ598
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant and one Ramanlal Trikamlal Desai carried on business in partnership in Madras under the style of Prabhulal Madhavlal Desai. On the 14th October, 1940 the first and second respondents filed a petition in this Court asking for an order adjudicating the appellant and his partner insolvents. On the 17th February, 1941 an order of adjudication was passed. This appeal is against that order. It may be mentioned that the correctness of the order has not been challenged by Ramanlal.2. In the petition three acts of insolvency were alleged namely: (1) with intent to defeat and delay the firm's creditors Ramanlal had absented himself from the firm's usual place of business; (2) with similar intent he had secluded himself so as to deprive the creditors of the means of communicating with him and (3) the debtors had intimated that they had suspended payment of their dues. The learned Judge sitting in Insolvency (Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.) has found that...
Thadi Murali Mohan Reddi Vs. Chinta Brahmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad327; (1942)1MLJ173
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to recover the amount due under two promissory notes dated 12th November, 1930 and 5th December, 1930, executed by one Bulli Gangireddi. the deceased father of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. At the date of the execution of the suit promissory notes the defendant and his father were members of a joint family and undivided. The father was carrying on a family business and the suit debts were incurred in the course 01 that business. The father was adjudicated insolvent on 13th November, 1931, on a petition filed by his creditors. Before the order of adjudication, the defendant represented by his next friend filed a suit for partition against his father and on 16th November, 1931, a preliminary decree for partition was passed and it has since been brought to our notice that a final decree was passed on 6th. April, 1935. The plaintiff proved his debt before the. Official Receiver but no dividend was paid to him on t...
Mangineddi Varadiah Chetty Vs. the Province of Madras Represented by t ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ564
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff challenges the act of the Collector of Chittoor cancelling a darkhast assignment made in his favour by the Tahsildar. He says that the cancellation was illegal and ultra vires the powers of the Collector. Having lost in both the Courts below, he has preferred this Second Appeal.2. The contention advanced for him is that the revisional power vested in the Collector under Board's Standing Order 15, Sub-rule (18) can be exercised by him only if certain conditions therein specified are satisfied but that in this case he exceeded his revisional jurisdiction because no such conditions were satisfied as a matter of fact.3. After the Tahsildar had granted the land on darkhast to the appellant, a petition is said to have been filed by some of the villagers objecting to the assignment and stating that the land was required for communal purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer made a local inspection and found the objection to be well-founded. The Collecto...
Uppinangadi Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Devara Bhandaram, Represented by I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ636
Somayya, J.1. The trustee of Sri Sahasralingeshwara temple filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of a sum of Rs. 288-1-6 under the following circumstances. Two brothers Narayana Bhat and Keshava Bhat executed a Karar (Ex. A.) in favour of the plaint institution on the 18th of July, 1899 undertaking to perform certain charities or viniyogams as they are called in the suit temple every year. Some properties of the brothers were charged with the performance of these viniyogams at a cost of Rs. 60 every year. These viniyogams were not performed during the years 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935 by the defendants and thereupon the temple performed them and seeks to recover the sum of Rs. 288-1-6 and to enforce the charge over the properties mentioned in the plaint schedule. The trial Court granted a decree but the appellate Court reversed it holding that Ex. A., was not valid either as a trust or a contract and that the plaint institution has no right to sue.2. The plaintiff a...
In Re: Peeram Chenna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad23; (1941)2MLJ644
ORDERSomayya, J.1. It is argued that this application for review can be heard only by a Bench as it relates to a decree in a first appeal. The point is directly covered by the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Aubhoy Churn Mohunt v. Shamont Lochun Mohunt I.L.R.(1889) Cal. 788 and Maksud Mahi v. Secretary of State (1911) 9 I.C. 532. Both cases related to second appeals which were heard by two Judges as they used to be even in this Court till a few years ago. In the former case the Judges say this at pages 792 and 793:As I said just now, at the time this rule was returned Mr. Justice Wilson had gone away on furlough and another gentleman had been appointed to perform his duties, and, consequently, he had ceased to have any jurisdiction as a Judge of this Court for the time. He was not at the time attached to the Court, and, consequently, Mr. Justice Beverley was the only one of the Judges who heard the appeal who remained attached to the Court, and was, in my opinion, the only Judg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »