Chennai Court November 1942 Judgments
U. Muthuramalinga thevar Vs. R. Shanmuga Rajeswara Naganatha Sethupath ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad321; (1943)1MLJ45
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. In this case the Court below has dismissed an application for relief under Section 15 of Act IV of 1938 filed by the petitioner against whom a decree had been passed for poruppu payable to the respondent. The ground of dismissal was that the application was barred by limitation. The Court relied on the decision in Venkata Rajagopala Krishna Yachendra Bahadur Varu v. Venkataseshacharlu : AIR1942Mad78 in support of this conclusion. That decision no doubt holds that a procedure analogous to that laid down in Section 19 should be followed with reference to decrees for rent which do not strictly fall within that provision. This does not however mean that in dealing with applications of this kind, the Court ought to apply the time-limit specified in Section 20 of the Act which in terms applies only to applications for relief under Section 19. It is one thing to say that the Act having indicated no appropriate procedure for scaling down decrees for rent as provided by S...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmasamarajayya Vs. Sankamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad453; (1943)1MLJ166
King, J.1. The appellant here is the 3rd defendant in the Court of the District Munsiff of Karkal. He was a lessee of certain properties under a permanent lease from the first defendant. The first defendant was the widow of one Nagaraja Shetty. In 1926 Nagaraja Shetty made a gift (Ex. II) in favour of his wife, the first defendant, of the properties now in suit. In October, 1926, he was adjudicated insolvent and in March, 1927, the gift deed was set aside. In March, 1928, the adjudication was annulled. Although the gift deed had been set aside it had not been necessary for the Official Receiver to dispose of the property which was dealt with by the gift deed. Between these dates Nagaraja Shetty executed a will on the nth August, 1927. In that will he assumed that as the gift deed had been set aside the property had reverted to himself and he could dispose of it. He bequeathed it to his wife and after his wife's death to their three daughters. The suit was filed in the Munsiff's Court b...
Tag this Judgment!Piramanayaga Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad390; (1943)1MLJ126
ORDERByers, J.1. This reference has been made by the Additional District Magistrate of Tinneveliy at the instance of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Shermadevi under the following circumstances. In Calendar Case 443 of 1942, forty-one persons were convicted by the Stationary Second Class Magistrate of Nanguneri of offences punishable under Section 147, Section 380 and various other sections of the Indian Penal Code of these, twenty-eight were sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and the remaining thirteen were sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 562 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as they were adolescents, whom the Sub-Magistrate considered should be dealt with accordingly. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered that it was not open to the Sub-Magistrate to sentence some of the accused to imprisonment and refer the remainder for the application of Section 562 of the Code relying for his view on the decision in Emperor v. Narayanaswami Naidu (1936) M...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasalu Chetti and anr. Vs. Munisami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad378; (1943)1MLJ157
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiffs who are the appellants in this second appeal filed the suit for a declaration that certain alienations of the properties of their maternal grandfather are not binding on them after the death of their mother who was impleaded as the second defendant. The suit was dismissed by both the lower Courts but on different grounds.2. The defendant raised two defences; one was that as a' result of a certain compromise, the second defendant became the absolute owner and the other was that the suit was barred by limitation.3. The trial Court holding that the compromise conferred an absolute right on the second defendant dismissed the suit on that ground. The appellate Court held that under the compromise the second defendant did not get an absolute interest; but upheld the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation.4. The plaintiffs appeal and urge that the suit is not barred and the respondents urge that the compromise validly conferred an absolute right on the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Raja Jagaveera Rama Muthu Kumara Venkateswara Ettappa Naicker A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad337; (1943)1MLJ278
Byers, J. 1. The petitioner has been awarded compensation under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and on his application under Section 18 of the Act, a reference has been made to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. At the time he asked for a reference under Section 18 the petitioner claimed compensation at the rate of eight annas per square foot, although he had in his claim under Section 9 (2) of the Act demanded compensation at the rate of twelve annas per square foot. After the case had been referred to the Subordinate Judge by the Collector under Section 19 of the Act, the petitioner filed a superfluous statement before the Subordinate Judge in which he reiterated his claim to compensation at the rate of eight annas per square foot. Subsequently, in consequence of something which had happened in another Land Acquisition case relating to some land in the neighbourhood, the petitioner desired to enhance his claim from the eight annas specified by him to the twelve ...
Tag this Judgment!H. Sitarama Reddy Vs. Bilehal Somappa and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad549; (1943)1MLJ402
Horwill, J.1. The appellant obtained a decree and brought property of the judgment-debtor to sale in execution of his decree. Before the property had been brought to sale, the judgment-debtor had applied to the Debt Conciliation Board, and under Section 25 of the Debt Conciliation Act the Court was therefore bound to stay its proceedings. The Court was not however made aware of the existence of an application before the Debt Conciliation Board, and so it proceeded with the sale. Subsequently, the judgment-debtor applied to have the sale set aside on the ground that it was void. The executing Court declared that it was. On appeal, the learned District Judge said he would not have hesitated to confirm the sale if it had not been for the fact that the decree-holder appellant, who was a practising advocate, was aware of the existence of those proceedings before the Board and failed in his duty to inform the Court.2. A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lies. That objection seem...
Tag this Judgment!Maharbhan-i-dosthan Sree Rajah Ravu venkatakumara Mahipathi Suryarao B ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad377(2); (1943)1MLJ150
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff in Small Cause Suit 269 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Cocanada seeks to have the decree therein revised tax dismissing his suit for recovery of a portion of the amount paid by' him as property tax for a building within the limits of the municipality of Cocanada. The building in question belonged to the plaintiff Maharajah on the date on which the property tax was levied. Subsequent to the levy but during the half-year in which the tax was levied he made a gift of it to an educational institution. He therefore sought to recover the portion of the tax paid by him which according to him represented the tax for the period during which the building was used by the educational institution. The learned District Munsiff held that the levy Was proper as on the date of the levy the building was a private building and that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund because there is no provision in the Act for a refund of the tax paid u...
Tag this Judgment!Bethanasami Naidu Vs. Minor Kannan Alias Sanjeevi Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-25-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad415; (1943)1MLJ268
Horwill, J. 1. The respondent was the nearest agnate of one Muthukrishna. The deceased man left two sisters who, soon after his death, purported to lease the property of their brother to certain persons who were the third and fourth defendants in a suit brought by the respondent. Defendants 3 and 4 were not members of the same family; but were impleaded as persons who had trespassed on the property under colour of a lease which the lessors had no power to grant. A decree was obtained against the third and fourth defendants. The present appellant is the son of the third defendant, who. died in 1936 after the decree had been passed. Prior to the passing of the decree, however, the third defendant divided from his son, the appellant. The respondent now seeks to execute his decree against the appellant, although he was not a party to the original decree. The respondent contends that the appellant's father was sued in a representative capacity as the manager and father of the family. He als...
Tag this Judgment!Syed Abdul Wajid Sahib and ors. Vs. Oosman Abdul Rubb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad254; (1943)1MLJ78
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent on the original side of this Court to recover from the appellants, who were sued as the legal representatives of his deceased brother Abdul Wahid, the amount due to him in respect of the management of his estate. The suit was tried by Somayya, J., who granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 29,348-14-2. The appellants object to the decree only in respect of two of the sums which make up the aggregate of Rs. 29,348-14-2. The first objection is with regard to a sum of Rs. 2,730-1-0 allowed as a one-fourth share of a fixed deposit and the second objection is with regard to a sum of Rs. 9,760, allowed in respect of interest from the date of death of Abdul Wahid, which, took place in the month of September, 1932.2. The respondent is the youngest son of the late Dr. N. Mohamed Oosman Sahib of Madras. Dr. Mohamed Oosman died on the 10th April, 1929. He was survived by three sons and two daughters. The re...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Vembu Ayyar, Adopted Son of the Late Ramaswami Iyer, by Guardian ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad273; (1943)1MLJ85
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The defendant is the petitioner and he seeks to have the decree passed against him in S.C.S. No. 261 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Tiruturaipundi revised. He is a minor and the suit was for recovery of money due on a promissory note executed by one Viswanatha Iyer, his natural father, as his guardian on the 7th September, 1936, in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was filed only in 1941 and an endorsement of payment signed by Minakshi Animal, the natural mother of the defendant as his guardian, was alleged as saying the suit from being barred by limitation. It was pleaded that the natural father was not the lawful guardian of the defendant and that therefore the defendant cannot be made liable for a debt incurred on a promissory note executed by Viswanatha Iyer as his guardian and it was also pleaded that Minakshi Ammal was not the lawful guardian and that the endorsement of payment by her will not save the suit from the bar of limitation...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »