Chennai Court October 1942 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.
The Province of Madras, Represented by the District Collector of Vizag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad284; (1943)1MLJ53
Happell, J.1. These eleven revision petitions arise out of eleven suits brought by Sri Sri Sri Vikrama Deo Varma Maharajulungaru, Maharaja of Jeypore and Zamindar of Madgole, under Section 14 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act. In all these suits the Province of Madras represented by the District Collector of Vizagapatam was the first defendant and the first defendant is the petitioner in each of these eleven revision petitions. The petitioners contended in all the suits that at any rate as against them the suit should be dismissed in limine for the reason that the two months' notice of suit as required by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had not been served on them. The learned District Munsiff tried this question as a preliminary issue and found that all the suits were maintainable as against the Provincial Government. There were really two questions decided by the learned District Munsiff. The first was whether in the circumstances of the case the two months' notice was r...
Mahabala Holla and anr. Vs. the Canara Banking Corporation, Udipi, Lim ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad270; (1943)1MLJ172
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 by defendants 3 and 5 to amend a decree based on an award. The contesting respondent is the Canara Banking Corporation, Udipi, Limited, which is a scheduled bank as defined by Section 2 (e) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The Bank advanced a series of loans to the defendants, the two loans with which we are primarily concerned being one of Rs. 37,285 on 20th June, 1931 and another of Rs. 1,165 advanced on 4th December, 1931. On the latter date the borrowers executed a security bond in favour of the bank mortgaging their properties as security for the whole of the amounts advanced. Thereafter there was a partition in the family of the debtors and some trouble arose concerning the proportionate liability of the different branches and of the property mortgaged which had come to be separately owned as a result of the partition. In October, 1933, a reference was made t...
K.R. Sankaralingam Pillai and anr. Vs. Veluchami Pillai, Minor by Adop ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad43; (1942)2MLJ678
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the important question whether a son adopted to a deceased coparcener is entitled to reopen a partition of family property effected by the surviving coparceners before the adoption took place.2. One K. Ramaswami Pillai had four sons, two of whom survived him. They are the 1st and 2nd defendants in this suit. The other two sons were K. R. Karuppanna Pillai, the deceased husband of the 6th defendant, and K. R. Ramaswami Pillai, the deceased husband of Chellathayi, the adoptive mother of the plaintiff, who is a minor. The father and his sons were joint in estate. Both Karuppanna and Ramaswami died without issue in 1924. The father died in 1929 and in 1936 the 1st and 2nd defendants partitioned the family estate between themselves. Admittedly each is still in possession of a moiety of the estate. On the 25th January, 1937, Chellathayi adopted the plaintiff and a week later Karuppanna's widow adopted the 3rd defendant.3. The suit out of w...
Ranga Aiyar Vs. Lingappa Gounder's son, Subbayya Gounder and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ739
1. The petitioner here was the second respondent in the lower Court. The petitions arise out of an application by a tenant under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to scale down rent due under a perpetual lease of the kind known as saswatham in Malabar. The jenmi of the land was the first respondent in the lower Court. The petitioner here is a usufructuary mortgagee from the jenmi and it is common ground that the tenant has attorned to him and the rent is payable to him. The lower Court held that the deposit made by the tenant of the arrears for the Malabar year 1113 could be accepted under Section 15 in order to entitle the petitioner to a proportionate reduction of the arrears for earlier years.2. It is objected in revision, firstly, that the usufructuary mortgagee is neither a jenmi nor an intermediary and therefore the rent payable to him cannot be scaled down under Section 15 of the Act, secondly, that whatever be the position with reference to an ordinary lessee under a usufruct...
Bobba Varalakshmamma Vs. Kosaraju Jannayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad318; (1943)1MLJ62
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These arise out of an application to execute the decree in O.S. No. 53 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Masulipatam. It was a simple money decree. The properties of the judgment-debtor were attached and sold in a Court sale held-on the 2nd July, 1936. The decree-holder had obtained permission to bid and set off and his bid for Rs. 1,562 was accepted. The amount shown in the sale proclamation as due under the decree was Rs. 1,010. On the date of the sale he deposited into Court Rs. 390-8-0. On 11th July, 1936, he deposited a further amount of Rs. 161-8-0 which represented the balance payable by him to make up the difference between the amount for which he purchased and the amount realisable under the sale proclamation.2. Another creditor of the judgment-debtor, who is the 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, laid a claim for rateable distribution of the assets realised. It was ultimately found that Rs. 601-2-3 was due to her. On the...
Chippagiri Nagireddi Vs. Venkadari Somappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad1; (1942)2MLJ691
1. One Linga Reddi and his nephew, the plaintiff in this case, were joint in estate. On the 24th July, 1930, Linga Reddi executed a promissory note for Rs. 400, in favour of one Bhimakka, who in 1932 instituted a suit to enforce payment. The payee obtained a decree and in execution proceedings attached immovable property belonging to the family. The property was sold by the Court and was purchased by the defendant, to whom a sale certificate was granted on the 27th November, 1933. When the defendant attempted to enter into possession he was obstructed by the plaintiff. Consequently the defendant applied to the Court for an order directing the removal of obstruction and on the 6th February, 1936, his application was granted. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal. He contended that as he was not a party to Bhimakka's suit his share in the property attached by the decree-holder was not liable to be sold. Although Linga Reddi was the manager of the fami...
Annam Venkatakutumba Rao Vs. Yenduri Veerabhadrudu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1942
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ211
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioner was second defendant in a suit which was decreed against him and his uncle first defendant. He has been refused relief under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 on the ground that he was not an agriculturist having been assessed to income-tax. In fact he became divided from his uncle as a result of a partition suit decreed on 30th March, 1936. In ignorance of this division the Income-tax Officer assessed the first defendant to income-tax as manager of a joint family for 1936-37. This assessment is valid with reference to Section 25-A (3) of the Income-tax Act and having regard to Section 14 (1) of that Act the assessment cannot be regarded as the assessment of the second defendant's share of the income.2. Under Act IV of 1938, the family which has been assessed to income-tax notwithstanding its disruption, cannot be deemed to be a person after 30th March, 1936. The petitioner is himself a person who has not in fact been assessed to income-tax and whose in...
Annam Venkatakutumba Rao Vs. Yenduri Veerabhadrudu and Others.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad469; [1943]11ITR181(Mad)
The petitioner was second defendant in a suit which was decreed against him and his uncle, the first defendant. He has been refused relief under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 on the ground that he was not an agriculturist having been assessed took income-tax. In fact he became divided from his uncle as a result of a partition suit decreed on March 30, 1936. In ignorance of this division the Income-tax Officer assessed the first defendant to income-tax as manager of a joint family for 1936-37. This assessment is valid with reference to Section 25A(3) of the Income-tax Act and having regard to Section 14(1) of that Act the assessment cannot be regarded as the assessment of the second defendants share of the income.Under Act IV of 1938, the family which has been assessed to income-tax notwithstanding it disruption, cannot be deemed to be a person after March 30, 1936. The petitioner is himself a person who has not in fact been assessed to income-tax and whose income could not be deemed to ...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-05-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ621
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising in the Bellary District. He was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Rayadrug of an offence under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a week. The nature of his offence was this. His client was in the witness box under cross-examination and he was tutoring her with regard to the answers she should give. He was warned by the Magistrate, but he persisted in his improper conduct. The conviction and sentence were concurred in by the District Magistrate of Bellary on appeal and by this Court in revision. As the result of this conviction the respondent has been charged with professional misconduct.2. That he was guilty of gross professional misconduct is not now open to question. It is very improper for a legal practitioner to tutor a witness inside or outside Court and when the tutoring takes place in Court and in spite of ...
Haji Kadir Murthuza HussaIn Saheb, Represented by His Power of Attorne ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad234; (1942)2MLJ672
King, J.1. This petition arises out of an application by the petitioner under Sections 3, 5 and 10 of Act XLII of 1923 to the learned District Judge of Chingleput with reference to a certain wakf. The learned District Judge held that the wakf in question was excluded from the purview of Act XLII of 1923 by reason of the definition found in Section 2 (e). That definition says that wakf does not include any wakf such as described in Section 3 of the Mussalman Wakf Validating Act VI of 1913 under which any benefit is for the time being claimable for himself by the person by whom the wakf is created or by any member of his family or descendants. The facts in regard to this wakf are undisputed that it was originally created about 70 or 80 years ago to provide facilities for travellers on the road from Madras to Nellore; i.e., to subserve a charitable purpose. Provision was also made in the document which established it for the enjoyment by the original creator of the wakf and the members of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »