Chennai Court December 1942 Judgments
Taranata Bhatta Vs. Gopalakrishna Mallayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad591; (1943)1MLJ422
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce an agreement whereby the defendant (appellant) promised to pay Rs. 100 every year as maintenance to the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the assignee of the arrears which had fallen due before the assignment.2. The defendant pleaded that the agreement was not supported by consideration and was therefore not enforceable. Both the lower Courts have held that there was no consideration to support the agreement but the suit was decreed on the ground that the agreement fell under Section 25 (1) of the Indian Contract Act. Under that provision an agreement without consideration is enforceable if it is expressed in writing and registered and is made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other. The agreement in this case recites inter alia that the second plaintiff is the defendant's father-in-law's divided brother's widow and that as it was impossibl...
Tag this Judgment!D.K. Aswatha Narayana Gupta Vs. J. Muneppa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad257; (1943)1MLJ160
ORDERByers, J.1. The only question which arises in this case is whether an order for restoration of possession can be made under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the criminal force attending the dispossession complained of is used not against the person dispossessed but against the property in his absence.2. The petitioner relies on the decision in Roda v. Autar Singh A.I.R. 1938 Lah. 839 as authority for his * contention that the words ' criminal force ' used in Section 522 of the Code are not limited to criminal force against a person but are wide enough to include criminal force against the property, such as breaking open the locks on the doors of a house, as in the present case. Skemp, J., took the view that as the definitions in Sections 349 and 350, Indian Penal Code, consider force and criminal force only in their application to a person and say nothing about force as applied to a thing, the demolition of a wall or the breaking of a lock involved the use of cr...
Tag this Judgment!A Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad250
Leach, C.J.1. This case raises the question whether the Court has power to award costs in a petition against a pleader charging him with professional misconduct. The charge was investigated by the District Judge of Nellore, who held that the petitioner's allegations had no foundation and consequently dismissed the petition. He ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent his costs, and he fixed the pleader's fee at Rs. 50. The case has been brought before this Court under Section 15, Legal Practitioners Act. We consider that the District Judge was, justified in dismissing the petition, but that he had no power to award costs. At the same time we are of the opinion that an order for costs can be passed by this Court.2. Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act, states the procedure to be followed when a charge of professional misconduct is brought in a subordinate Court. If the presiding officer finds the charge established and considers that the practitioner should be suspended or dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council by Its Agent the Collector ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad610; (1943)1MLJ347
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The suit out of which these appeals arise was filed in 1927 by Rajah Yarlagadda Ankineedu Prasad, the proprietor of the Devarakota zamindairi, which is in the Kistna District, to establish rights claimed by him in a stream which flows through the estate. The water from this stream is used by the zamindar and his tenants for irrigation purposes. The Government of Madras has always claimed the right of levying cess in respect of water so used and until after the plaintiff bad succeeded his father as the zamindar, the justice of the claim was recognised. The plaintiff's father died in 1921. For faslis 1334, 1335 and 1336 which correspond 10 the years 1924-25, 1925-26 and 1926-27, the Government required the plaintiff 1.0 pay in the aggregate Rs. 1,952-14-4, as water cess in respect of lands irrigated From this stream. The plaintiff decided to challenge the legality of the Government's demand for water cess and in his plaint he asked for a decree for repay...
Tag this Judgment!Gorrella Venkata Sathiyya and ors. Vs. Sait Anjarimal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-16-1942
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ443
Wadsworth, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal preferred by the judgment-debtors under a decree on a mortgage is whether the decree-holders are entitled as a result of the application of Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to their decree to claim not only the costs as decreed but also the costs already incurred by way of execution of the decree.2. The argument of the appellants is founded on a sentence in the judgment in Venkatammal v. Ramaswami Aiyar (1940) 2 M.L. 685. The main question considered in that judgment related to the nature of the substantive debt. At the end of the judgment we say,The plaintiff-respondent has contended that by reason of Section 11, the costs of execution can be recovered in addition to the amount recoverable under the provisions of Sections 8 and 9, We are of opinion that the provisions of Section 11, like those of Section 19, relate only to costs as decreed and do not cover costs of execution.3. The original papers relating to that case are not...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Ramalinga Chetti Vs. Petha Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-15-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad359; (1943)1MLJ275
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. This appeal raises a question with regard to the effect of Section 19 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936. On the 6th December, 1922, the respondents, who are brothers and constitute an undivided Hindu family, executed a mortgage in favour of the appellant to secure the sum of Rs. 600, the debt to be repaid within five years. On the 6th December, 1939, the appellant filed a suit to enforce the mortgage. On the 6th June, 1940, the first respondent, who is the eldest member and therefore the manager of the family applied to the Debt Conciliation Board of Dharmapuri for the settlement of his debts. The Court has been told that the only debt due by the estate was the debt due to the appellant. The Board directed notice to issue to the appellant under Section 10 (1) of the Act. He was duly served but he failed to file the statement required by that sub-section. Consequently, on the 5th May, 1940, the Board passed an order under Sub-section (2) cancel...
Tag this Judgment!Ratnaswami Goundan Vs. P.S.A.R.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar by Agent Siva ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad363; (1943)1MLJ162
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant executed a surety bond in favour of the respondent, who obtained a money decree against one Venkatachala Goundan. The question which the Court has to decide is whether the decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree against the appellant as the surety of the judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor was arrested in the execution of the decree on the 22nd April, 1927 and thereupon notified the Court of his intention of applying for adjudication in insolvency. The judgment-debtor was released from arrest on the condition that he furnished a security bond for his due appearance in the insolvency proceedings and when called upon in the executing Court. There were two sureties, the appellant and one Ponnambala Goundan, who is not a party to these proceedings. Within the time allowed by Section 55 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, the judgment-debtor applied for an order under the Provincial Insolvency Act adjudicating him an insolvent. The order...
Tag this Judgment!The Nagoor Durga, Represented by Its Managing Trustees Sultan Kalifa S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad562; (1943)1MLJ431
King, J. 1. The subject-matter of this appeal is the right to execute a decree granted in favour of the appellant in 1928. This decree was in a suit to recover arrears of rent due upon a holding under the Madras Estates Land Act. Before the decree was passed part of the holding had been sold by the original ryot, P. G. Subramania Ayyar, to A. Mahadeva Iyer and when the suit was decreed a joint decree was given against these two persons. There was of course a charge given over the property comprised in the original holding of Subramania Ayyar and as part of that holding had been alienated to Mahadeva Iyer, the items of the charged property were enumerated in two schedules, Schedule A dealing with the property then held by Mahadeva Iyer and Schedule B property held by Subramania Ayyar. There was also a direction that execution should be taken first against the property in Schedule A.2. Various execution petitions were filed and various items of property in Schedule A were in fact sold. T...
Tag this Judgment!Hindustan Gilt Jewel Works Represented by Thota Subba Rao and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad350; (1943)1MLJ186
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question whether in India statements made in pleadings are absolutely privileged or whether the privilege is qualified.2. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed by the respondents in the Court of the District Munsiff of Masulipatam for damages for defamation. The alleged defamatory words were contained in a plaint filed by the appellants in the same Court in a passing-off action instituted against the respondents. The parties arc rival traders and carry on business within a few miles of one another. The goods in which they trade consist of gilt and electroplated jewellery. In their plaint the appellants averred that the respondents had pursued a course of conduct with the object of ruining the appellants' business. The appellants were the successors in business of a firm known as T., Subba Rao and Brothers, who used to obtain their supplies from the respondents. In 1927, the appellants established a workshop of th...
Tag this Judgment!Peran Ambalagaran Vs. Venkatarama Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad656; (1943)2MLJ193
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. These are petitions to revise the order of the learned District Judge of West Tanjore in C:M.A. Nos. 37, 42, 43 and 44 of 1940 on his file dismissing them on the ground that no appeal lay. The order appealed against was an order on a petition filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The learned District Judge relies upon three rulings of this Court reported in Jagannatha Pillai v. Kathaperumal Pillai : AIR1927Mad1035 , Ramakrishnayya v. Naganna : AIR1933Mad865 and Gopalakrishnayya v. Narasimha Rao : AIR1939Mad609 , as authority for the position that no appeal lies against a decree or an order, not provided for in Section 189(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act. In Ramakrishnayya v. Naganna : AIR1933Mad865 all that was held was, that if in execution of a decree passed by the Revenue Court in a summary suit the decree-holder attached certain lands and another person claiming as purchaser from him put in a petition objecting to the attachment und...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »