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.
Oruganti Venkatramiah Chetti Vs. Venkataswami Chetti and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad387; (1943)1MLJ80
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff in a batch of rent suits was called upon to pay process for the service of a copy of his amended plaint on the defendants. He was given time to do so; and on the day to which the matter was adjourned, which was also, the day to which the suits were adjourned, neither the plaintiff nor his pleader was' present. The suits were thereupon dismissed both on the ground that the plaintiff had not taken out process to the defendants and also on the ground that neither the plaintiff nor his pleader was present. An application was put in to set aside that order and it was dismissed. The plaintiff then approached the District Court in appeal; and the learned District Judge dismissed the appeals on the preliminary ground that no appeal lay. Hence these revision petitions.2. The learned District Judge referred to the provisions of Sections 189 and 199 of the Madras Estates Land Act and pointed out that before the recent amendment, Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure ...
C.S. Ananthanarayana Iyer Vs. Sivaramakrishna Iyer and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad370; (1943)1MLJ100
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The appellant as plaintiff instituted the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for partition and recovery of an one-fourth share in a piece of wet land bearing survey No. 18-A in the village of Avadaiyaparai, Erode Taluk. He purchased this share from one Sundaram Ayyar under a sale deed dated 5th November, 1937. Sundaram Ayyar is the youngest of four brothers who are all sons of one Anantharamalinga Ayyar now deceased. The three elder brothers executed a mortgage in favour of the first respondent on 10th June, 1911, to secure the repayment of a loan of Rs. 1,500 advanced to them. The suit property was one of the items comprised in the mortgage. Six years later there was a partition in the family of the mortgagors and the arrangements then made are embodied in a partition deed dated 24th July, 1917. By that deed the properties of the family were divided among the several members of the family, namely, the father and the four brothers. The suit property am...
The Manjeshwar Srimad Anantheshwar Temple by Its Executive Officer, K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad228; (1942)2MLJ757
Horwill, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one under the general law by the trustees in office against ex-trustees for an account of their trusteeship, with allegations of misfeasance, non-feasance, and malfeasance.2. The principal question that falls for decision is whether Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act bars such, a suit. The learned Subordinate Judge gave a precis of each of the numerous cases cited before him and then proceeded to draw his general conclusions. They were that the suit could not be brought in its present form and that the remedy of the plaintiffs was to get the accounts audited and to sue for the amount shown to be due. The learned District Judge in appeal did not attempt to discuss the various decisions. He says:I have been taken through a long chain of decisions on both sides and the matter is exceedingly intricate and difficult to come to a conclusion upon as slight differences in the facts of each case appear really to hav...
Jakku Papamma Vs. the Official Receiver and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad230; (1942)2MLJ778
Horwill, J. 1. The appellant is said to be the daughter of the insolvent. The Official Receiver proceeded to sell the suit property as if it were the property of the insolvent; and early in the administration the appellant filed an application under Sections 4 and 5; of the Provincial Insolvency Act asking for a declaration that the property in question belonged to her and for an injunction restraining the Official Receiver from including this land in the estate of the insolvent and selling it. She frequently defaulted in appearance; and at last, on 29th April, 1937, the District Munsiff, adopting the procedure to be followed in a suit, dismissed the application for default of appearance. She then filed an application to restore the petition, which was dismissed on the ground that she had frequently defaulted and that her application was not a bona fide one. She now seeks to get rid of those decisions by filing a suit against the Official Receiver, again setting up her title to the lan...
G. Abdul Khader Sahib Vs. G. Chinniah Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad271; (1943)1MLJ49
Horwill, J.1. The respondent held a decree in this Court for Rs. 5,000 odd against the petitioner; and he was desirous of executing it for about Rs. 600 against the sum of money lying to the credit of the petitioner in the Court of Small Causes, Madras. He got, it attached by this Court, but instead of getting the money transferred to this Court and then proceeding against that money in this Court, he got an ex parte order transferring his decree to the Court of Small Causes and there executed it. The petitioner raised the objection that the Court of Small Causes had no jurisdiction to execute this decree because the value of the suit was for a sum of more than Rs. 2,000. This objection was overruled by the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes on the ground that the transferee Court acts as the agent of the transferor Court, and he quoted Narasayya v. Venkatakrishnayya I.L.R. (1884) Mad. 397, Shanmuga Pillai v. Ramanathan Chettiar : (1894)4MLJ91 and Malabar Forests and Rubber Co....
The Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams Committee by Its Commissioner Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad631; (1943)2MLJ191
Horwill, J.1. On 16th February, 1889, one Ananta Reddy executed a document Ex. I, which is described as a permanent bilmuktha muchilika, in favour of a predecessor in title of the Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanams Committee; and presumably there was a counterpart in favour of Ananta Reddy. The appellant is the Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanams Committee. The respondents claim to be the ryots of the land which was the subject of Ex. I. The dispute between the Devasthanam and the respondents is whether Ex.I was a lease of the land to Ananta Reddy or whether it was a lease of the landlord's right to collect rent, which could not and did not affect the rights of the actual cultivators. The Devasthanam proceeded, when Ananta Reddy's successor failed to pay rent regularly under the muchilika, Ex. I, to attach the crops on the land. The respondents objected, claiming to have permanent occupancy rights in the land and asserting that the Devasthanam must proceed against the lessee personally and n...
S.A. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. M.P. Kasi Chettiar Alias Meyyappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-02-1942
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ452
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This is an appeal by the judgment-debtor from an order of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai transmitting the decree in O.S. No. 33 of 1927 for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Tanjore.2. The appellant raised two contentions in the Court below both of which have, however, been overruled The first was that by reason of an order for stay made by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai in pursuance of the direction of this Court in C.M.A. No. 403 of 1941, the respondents 1 to 7 were not entitled to execute the decree until the disposal of A.S. No. 243 of 1942 pending in this Court. The latter appeal is from a decision of the same Court in O.S. No. 29 of 1931 in which the appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents 1 to 7 were defendants. By the final decree passed in the lower Court it was found that there was a sum of Rs. 476 payable by the appellant to the respondents 1 to 7. This figure was arrived at after setting off the costs payable to t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›