Chennai Court September 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.
Namberumal Naidu Vs. Muthukalathi Mudali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-23-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad241; (1941)2MLJ1038
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The accused in C.C. No. 17 of 1941 on the file of the Joint Magistrate of Tirupattur was charged under Section 409, Indian Penal Code, with misappropriating amounts paid to him as Village Munsif by the petitioner as kist. In passing an order of discharge the Joint Magistrate wrote:I find that P.W. 1 (petitioner) has not only failed to prove the charges but also admitted in effect that they are false, frivolous, and vexatious. I therefore discharge the accused under Section 253 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and direct that P.W. 1 shall pay the accused a compensation of Rs. 30.The only question that arises is whether the Joint Magistrate has complied with the provisions of Section 250, Criminal Procedure Code, which requires of him that if he considers the case to be false, frivolous or vexatious, he should call upon the complainant to show cause why he should not pay compensation. Sub-section (2) requires that:The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause wh...
Karuppa Goundan Vs. T.R. Narayanaswami and Co., by Partner Rao Bahadur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad169; (1941)2MLJ808
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note. The note in question was executed by the appellant in favour of one Aiyasami Naicken on 30th July, 1931 for a sum of Rs. 1,000 of which Rs. 500 was advanced in cash at the time of the execution, and the balance represented a payment towards interest on an earlier mortgage, Ex. Ill in favour of one Rangasami Naicken. In February, 1936 the note was assigned to the plaintiff by an endorsement. The trial Court held that the defendant was entitled to plead Act IV of 1938 and that, to the extent to which the note was in discharge of interest on the prior mortgage, the principal was liable to be reduced to the sum actually advanced in cash. He gave credit for a payment of Rs. 100 made towards principal, passed a decree for Rs. 400, scaling down the interest under the Act, The lower appellate Court, without going into the question whether to the extent of the payment towards the prior mortgage, the promissory note was a ren...
Sunkarapalli Ranganayakulu and anr. Vs. Gona Gopayamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad323; (1942)1MLJ341
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application under Section 23 of Act IV of 1938. The petitioners here arc the decree-holder and the Court auction-purchaser in execution of the decree. The decree in question was passed in a Small Cause suit and is dated 30th October, 1933. The present second respondent was the judgment-debtor. In June, 1934 the decree-holder in execution attached a mortgage debt due to the judgment-debtor, the second respondent. The attachment was made under Order 21, Rule 46, Civil Procedure Code. On the 9th October, 1935, while the attachment was still pending, the judgment-debtor transferred her mortgage right to her daughter, the first respondent. In November, 1937 the mortgage right was sold by the Court in execution of the Small Cause decree and it was purchased by the second petitioner here. On the 7th January, 1938, as would appear from the execution records, full satisfaction of the Small Cause decree was recorded. On the 15th June,...
Amara Narasimhulu Chetty Vs. Thamidalapati China Ramayya Naidu and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-22-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad502; (1942)1MLJ400
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner purchased a plot of land in Court; auction for a sum of Rs. 239. He was unable to obtain possession and brought the suit out of which this petition arises for possession of the property. He valued the suit at the amount which he had paid in Court auction. The Court thought that insufficient and arbitrarily fixed the valuation at Rs. 1,000 ; and the District Munsif asked the plaintiff whether he would accept that figure or whether he would prefer to have a commission issued to determine its value. The plaintiff accepted the valuation of Rs. 1,000 and paid the additional court-fee. The defendants contended in their written statement that the value of the property was considerably over Rs. 3,000 and that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif, although he did not determine the actual value of the property, came to the conclusion on the data available to him that it was clear that whether the value of the property was as high as the d...
Muthukumaru Maniakarar and anr. Vs. Pethia Maniakarar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad154; (1941)2MLJ717
Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are precluded by Section 66, Civil Procedure Code, from praying for a declaration that the fourth defendant has no right to item 1 of the property in the schedule to the plaint in the suit out of which this appeal arises. The relevant facts are few and may be briefly stated. The defendants 1 and 2 executed a deed of mortgage dated the 18th July, 1924, in favour of the plaintiffs' undivided father, one Ramasami Maniagarar. Five items of property were mortgaged thereunder and they are items 1 to 5 of the schedule to the plaint. Item 1 was brought to sale in execution of a decree for arrears of rent by the revenue Court and purchased by the fourth defendant on the 4th July, 1934. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, sons of the said Ramasami Maniagarar, to recover a sum of Rs. 150 as being the balance due under the said mortgage. In the plaint they allege that item 1 though purchased b...
Rangaswami Aiyangar Vs. Sivaprakasam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1941
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ883
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which falls for decision in this appeal is whether a payment made after partition by a member of a Hindu family of interest due on a promissory, note which was executed by the managing member when the family was joint starts a fresh period of limitation against the other members of the family, the payment having been duly, acknowledged by the person who made it, There are conflicting decisions of this Court and it is for this reason that this appeal has been placed before a Full Bench for decision.2. The facts present no complication. On the 12th March, 1925, the appellant's father, one Thiruvenkatachariar, and his youngest son Srinivasachariar, executed a promissory note for Rs. 2,384 in favour of one Gnanatnbal Achi. Thiruvenkatachariar had three sons, and at the time of the execution of the promissory note the family was joint. It is common ground that the debt was incurred for a family necessity. On the 25th March, 1925, the father die...
In Re: Narayana Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad316; (1942)1MLJ226
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a revision against an order refusing an application for the grant of a certificate in respect of court-fee paid by the plaintiff to the extent of Es. 183-14-0 on the 11th January, 1939, in the following circumstances. A suit for money due on a hypothecation bond was instituted by the plaintiff in the Court of the District Munsif of Cuddalore. The plaint had a stamp of rupee one to start with, but it appears that a stamp of Es. 70 was paid later on while the suit was pending. The plaint should have had a stamp of the value of Rs. 254-14-0. There was thus a deficit of Rs. 183-14-0. Since the plaintiff did not make up this deficiency, his plaint was rejected on the 9th January, 1939. Two days later he applied for a review of this order by I.A. No. 139 of 1939, and along with this application for review he tendered the deficit court-fee of Rs. 183-14-0; but his application was rejected on the 25th April, 1939. The petitioner therefore asked for a certificate auth...
Bysani Venkataratnam Chetti Vs. R. Venkatayya of Kadiri and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad172; (1941)2MLJ778
1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether a certain Sathrasala Appayya has or has not been rightly adjudicated an insolvent. The petition upon which the order of adjudication has been passed was originally filed by one of his creditors on 25th August, 1934 and stated that the act of insolvency was the execution of a mortgage deed by the debtor on the 17th of August, of that year. In 1937 the second petitioner was allowed to continue the insolvency under the provisions of Section 16 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, as the Court was satisfied that the original petitioner was not proceeding with due diligence. At the enquiry into the petition it was held that the second petitioner's debt entitled him to ask for the adjudication of the insolvent as such and on the question of the nature of the mortgage executed by the insolvent there was no contest. His adjudication accordingly followed.2. One of the arguments taken against the adjudication was by the present appellant who is ano...
In Re: Karathammathintakath Kunhamad
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1941
Reported in: AIR1942Mad753
Horwill, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of North Malabar of offerices punishable under Sections 193, 467 read with Section 109 and 471 read with Section 467, Penal Code and has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. P.W. 3 filed two suits for arrears of rent against the accused for the Malayalam year 1114 and for a part of the rent due for the year 1113. The accused then produced Ex. C, which purports to be a receipt for the balance of rent due for the year 1113 and during the course of the trial he paid the rent due for the year 1114. The District Munsif who tried the suits came to the conclusion that Ex. C was a forgery. He therefore issued notice to the accused and inquired into the matter; and he came to the conclusion for reasons expressed by him that a complaint ought to be laid against the accused for forgery and other kindred offences. He therefore laid a complaint. His order was carried ...
Sreemat Prativadhi Bhayankaram Venkata Narasimhacharyulu Vs. the Secre ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1941
Reported in: AIR1941Mad933; (1941)2MLJ904
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The substantial question in this appeal is whether Chinnammal Achi v. Saminatha Malvaroyan I.L.R.(1907) Mad. 367 was rightly decided by this Court. The appellant contends that the decision conflicts with the judgment of the Privy Council in Baijnath Sahai v. Ravngut Singh and therefore cannot be allowed to stand.2. The appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada for a decree setting aside a sale of immovable property which had taken place under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act. The allegation was that the fourth defendant had by fraud secured the order for the sale of the property. The sale took place on the 18th July, 1932, and was confirmed by the Deputy Collector on the 28th September, 1932. The appellant discovered the fraud on the 15th November, 1932, and three days later applied to the Collector for an order setting aside the sale. By an order dated the 30th June, 1933, the Collector refused to int...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »