Chennai Court November 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.
Angammal and anr. Vs. Punnammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1942
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ155
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 26th August, 1912, one Kesavan granted to the first defendant a usufructuary mortgage of the property in suit. The deed provided that if the mortgage was not redeemed within two years the mortgagee should become the absolute owner of the property. The mortgagor defaulted in payment of the amount due under the mortgage and the first defendant considered himself to be the absolute owner. On the 14th February, 1931, the first defendant and his son purported to mortgage the property to one Devasikamani Mudaliar, who on the 29th August, 1932, assigned the mortgage to the third defendant. The third defendant instituted C. S. No. 121 of 1934 in this Court to recover from the first defendant the amount due on the mortgage. He obtained a decree and in due course the property was put up for sale in the execution proceedings. The plaintiff was the purchaser. When he went to take possession he was resisted by the fourth defendant, the son of Kesavan, and th...
Yerabalu Chennabasappa Vs. the Official Receiver of Bellary
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad266; (1943)1MLJ127
Horwill, J.1. The appellant was adjudicated an insolvent, but because he did not apply for discharge within the time allowed, his adjudication was annulled. In annulling the adjudication the Insolvency Court passed an order continuing the property in the Official Receiver.2. The primary duty of the Official Receiver being to realise the property and sell it and to distribute the proceeds, he advertised the property for sale; and on the day before the sale took place the insolvent put in an application asking for two reliefs; one to stay the sale, and the other to scale down the debt. The application, as far as the prayer for stay was concerned, was dismissed; but the application to scale down was adjourned. The sale took place on the advertised date; and ten days later, on 14th March, 1941, the insolvent put in another application to stay all further sale proceedings and to set aside the sale on account of certain irregularities. As that application, too, was dismissed, the insolvent c...
M.M. Ponnuswami and ors. Vs. M. Mariappa Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad420
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for injunction brought with the object of restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of an open space marked DLHG in the commissioner's plan, dated 30th September 1941. The suit was decreed by the trial Court, but the decree was reversed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly and the suit was ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred a second appeal to this Court. When it came up for hearing before me, I held the decision of the lower appellate Court confessing its inability to localise the plot in suit to be unsatisfactory and called for a fresh finding on that point with reference to Ex. A (the deed relied on by the plaintiff) and to Ex. 9, (the deed relied on by the defendant). As some reference was made in the judgment of the lower appellate Court to Ex. 4 and Ex. 5, I permitted those two documents to be taken into consideration as well.2. The second contention adva...
In Re: Ottappalam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad130; (1943)1MLJ8
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising at Ottappalam. On the 21st August, 1942, he was convicted under Rule 34 (6) (c) read with Rule 38 (5) of the Defence of India Rules by the Joint Magistrate of Malappuram, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The evidence in that case showed that he had interrupted the work of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottappalam, by shouting Congress slogans and exhorting the Subordinate judge to resign his position as a protest against the arrest of the Congress leaders. As the result of the respondent's disorderly conduct the Subordinate Judge was forced to retire to his room. The respondent was then ejected from the Court. The respondent afterwards went to the Court of the District Munsiff and made a similar demonstration. In consequence he has been called upon to show cause why he should not be dealt with under Section 13 (f) of the Legal Practitioners' Act. The respondent has not appeared but has...
Venkamamidi Balakrishnayya Vs. Nannapaneni Linga Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad449; (1943)1MLJ198
Krishnaswamy Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tenali in execution of a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla in O.S. No. 63 of 1922 on his file. The appellant is the legal representative of the fourth defendant in the suit which resulted in the decree now sought to be executed. The respondent is the legal representative of the decree-holder. The appellant's contention in short was that there was no valid executable decree so far as he is concerned. This contention having been overruled by the Subordinate Judge he has appealed to this Court against his order.2. In order to appreciate the question that arises for consideration in this appeal it is necessary to state a few facts. O.S. No. 63 of 1922 was instituted by one Lakshmiarayana to recover a sum of Rs. 9,282-5-4 being the balance due on a mortgage dated 1st April, 1910, executed in his favour by the husband of the first defendant in the suit. There were numerous other ...
Lakshmana Koro and anr. Vs. Malladi Visweswara Patrudu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad346; (1943)1MLJ174
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The decree-holder is the appellant. An interesting question of law arises in this appeal and relates to the applicability of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code in the following circumstances. The decree in the present case was passed in O.S. No. 35 of 1928 on the 20th April, 1928. On the 25th March, 1940, a few days before the decree became completely barred by limitation under Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, an execution petition which was numbered as E. P. No. 132 of 1940 was filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Sompeta. The amount which was sought to be recovered by attaching the immovable properties of the judgment-debtor was Rs. 3,640-13-6. The learned District Munsiff fixed the 18th July, 1940, for filing sale papers and encumbrance certificate and adjourned the execution petition to that date. On that date the order made is in the following terms:. . . . the judgment-debtor (respondent) is ex parte. Sale papers and encumbrance certificate a...
Sri Alluri Satyanarayana and anr. Vs. Ramineedi Rayalamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad501; (1943)1MLJ386
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is one of limitation. The suit out of which it arises was instituted originally for a declaration that the sale of 25 acres of land which forms portion of patta No. 74 was illegal and invalid. But as during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had succeeded in getting possession of the property, the suit was allowed to be converted into one for possession. The contention raised on behalf of the defence was that the suit was barred by Article 12 (d) or Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. The trial Court held that the suit was barred under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. This view did not find favour with the learned District Judge of East Godavari on appeal who held that the suit was not barred by either of these articles and remanded the case for fresh disposal on the other issues that had not been determined by the trial Court. The defendant has consequently come up to this Court in second appeal.2....
Peddiboyima Viswanatham and ors. Vs. Sreemat Kilambi Srinivasa Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad377; (1943)1MLJ168
Mockett, J.1. The petitioners are the defendants in O.S. Nos. 294, 311 and 312 of 1940 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Gudiwada; the plaintiff-respondent is the landholder. He brought these suits for rent; and he also brought a suit, O.S. No. 268 of 1940, against another tenant who is not before me. The defence was that the Court had no jurisdiction because the land concerned was an estate within the Madras Estates Land Act and therefore only the Revenue Court could . try the suit. On the 3rd July, 1941, it was held that the Court had jurisdiction and that the property concerned was not an estate. No appeal was filed against this order. On the 13th September, 1941, O.S. No. 268 of 1940, was decided by the same Munsiff in which he held that a similar property was an estate. An application was filed before the learned District Munsiff who had decided O.S. Nos. 294, 311 and 312 of 1940 to review his judgment and order in these suits. He refused to do so stating quite correctly tha...
Osuri Narayanaswami and ors. Vs. Savanam Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad372; (1943)1MLJ82
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Narasapur directing the plaintiffs to pay additional court-fee on the basis that the claim for specific performance of the contract should be valued at Rs. 24,000 and not at Rs. 4,006 as shown in the plaint.2. The plaintiff had a mortgage right over certain properties and it was arranged in 1937 that in view of the amount due under the mortgage the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit should be conveyed to him, and there was a further clause that in case the properties are not conveyed he will be entitled to recover the money due under the mortgage. Subsequently the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act was passed and if the amount payable to the mortgagee was scaled down it entitled the plaintiff to recover only Rs. 4,000. Naturally the mortgagors refused to execute a conveyance, and a suit had to be filed for specific performance of the contract, for sale or in the alternative...
Grandhi Hanumantha Rao Vs. Yeduvaka China Ramu Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad338; (1943)1MLJ190
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit on a mortgage bond, Ex. A, executed on 22nd November, 1924, for a sum of Rs. 6,000. At the time of the execution of the mortgage the respondents were indebted to the appellant under a previous promissory note (Ex. B) on which a sum of Rs. 6,566 was due. On the date of Ex. A an endorsement of discharge was written on this earlier promissory note which recites that the promissory note amount of Rs. 6,566 has been paid by the execution of two documents, one the mortgage Ex. A for Rs. 6,000 and the other, a promissory note (Ex. I) for Rs. 631 of which Rs. 566 was part of the amount due under Ex. B. The lower Court applying Madras Act IV of 1938 to the debt has treated the mortgage Ex. A as a renewal of the promissory note Ex. B and has scaled down the debt with reference to the antecedent history of the promissory note.2. It is objected in appeal that this cannot be done for the reason that the liability under the promissory note (E...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »