Chennai Court December 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 Salem Municipal Council Vs. G.F.F. Foulkes
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad674; (1943)2MLJ183
Krishnaswami Ayangar, J.1. This revision petition arises out of a small cause suit instituted by the respondent against the Municipal Council of Salem for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 66-15-6 claimed by way of a vacancy remission under the provisions of Section 87 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920. The respondent is the owner of a bungalow situate within the Municipal limits. His case is that on 15th March, 1940, he vacated his bungalow and left for Coonoor to stay there during the hot season and returned only on 25th June, 1940. During that period it is admitted the bungalow was not occupied by the respondent.2. Section 87(1) enacts as follows:When any building whether ordinarily let or occupied by the owner himself has been vacant and unlet for thirty or more consecutive days in any half year, the executive authority shall remit so much, not exceeding one half of such portion of the tax as relates to the building only as is proportionate to the number of days during whi...
In Re: M.L. Abdul Salam Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad281; (1943)1MLJ99
ORDERByers, J.1. This petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2124 of 1942 on the file of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, arises in the following circumstances. In respect of a sale of sugar on 15th July, 1942, at a price in excess of that fixed by the Collector of Madras under Rule 81(2)(b) of the Defence of India Rules the salesman of a local shop belonging to the petitioners was convicted under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. At the time of this offence Rule 81 (4) in its unamended form provided no punishment for the contravention of an order made under the rules but only made punishable a contravention of the provisions of Rule 81. This conviction was therefore illegal, although the fact that Rule 81 (4) in its unamended form did not cover the case was not raised at the time. No appeal or revision petition was preferred and the conviction therefore stands. Subsequently the petitioners have been charged under Rule 122 o...
Thottoli Meethale Vittil Kaitheri Sreedevi Akkamma Vs. Murichandiyil A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad314; (1943)1MLJ164
King, J.1. The appellant in these appeals is a landlord in North Malabar who had obtained a decree to evict his tenant in 1932. The decree declared that a certain sum was due to the tenant by way of compensation for improvements and also gave a set-off of rent due by the tenants to the landlord. Up till the date of the applications with which I am concerned the decree had not been executed, though in 1936 the landlord applied to execute the decree and his application had calculated the amount of rent due up to that time for which he claimed a set-off as against the amount payable as compensation for improvements. However the execution application was not pressed and was eventually dismissed. After the passing of the Madras Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act, two applications were made by the tenant under Section 15. He deposited the rent due on his holding for faslis 1346 and 1347 and applied for an order that the arrears of rent due for previous faslis should be regarded as discharged. O...
S.S. Sv. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar Vs. S.S.S. Sv. Somasundaram Chettiar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad409; (1943)1MLJ195
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar is the appellant in this appeal. He was the first defendant in the suit out of which it has arisen. That suit was filed by the first respondent for partition and recovery of a half share in the joint family properties in the possession of the appellant. There were two other defendants who are respondents 2 and 3 here. The second defendant is a purchaser of a half share of a house which originally formed part of the joint family property and the purchase was from the first defendant. The third respondent is the minor son of the first respondent.2. The plaintiff-respondent claims that he has been duly adopted on 20th April, 1923, to one Sevugan Chetty who was the elder brother of the appellant. Sevugan and Kasiviswanathan are the sons of Sevugan Chetty whom we shall call Sevugan the senior. The adoptive father Sevugan junior had died on 27th March, 1908, leaving a widow Meyyammai who died in 1918. The adoption would thus appear to have...
Godavarti Raja Vs. Uttaradi Matam Sri Ramachandraswami Varu Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad354; (1943)1MLJ253
Wadsworth, J. 1. (C. R. P. Nos. 2392 of 1939 and 1647 of 1940). These two civil revision petitions arise out of applications under Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938 with reference to the same land. The amount due on this land is due under a decree for mesne profits. It seems to us quite clear that a decree for mesne profits passed by a Civil Court in a suit for ejectment is not a decree for rent within the meaning of Section 15 of Madras Act IV of 1938; and the fact that at a date subsequent to the passing of this decree the village in which this land is situate has become an ' estate ' under the amended Madras Estates Land Act will not alter the character of the decree already passed--vide Narayana Gajapati Raju v. Narasimhulu : AIR1942Mad746 .2. The civil revision petitions are therefore allowed with costs and the order of the learned Deputy Collector is set aside.3. (G. R. Ps. Nos. 2393 of 1939 and 1641 of 1940).--These two revision petitions arise out of successive applications m...
K. Manathunainatha Desikar Vs. Gopala Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1944Mad1
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant Manathunainatha Desikar for an injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering with his possession of the suit properties jointly along with the respondents. He also prayed that he might be put in joint possession of the suit properties; if that course was found necessary. The properties in respect of which these reliefs were asked admittedly belong to a Siva temple situate in Jaffna in Ceylon founded by Vaithilinga, an ancestor of the parties in or about the year 1790. It would seem that this temple dedicated to Sri Viswalinga Vaitheeswaraswami owns extensive properties in Jaffna besides the properties in suit which are situate in the village of Meppalam in Mannargudi Taluk, Tanjore District. Before the year 1900 these lands were the property of one Thangathachi who held apparently a widow's estate. But in that year there was an agreement entered into between her on the one ha...
Kandaswami Goundan and ors. Vs. Subbarama Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad414; (1943)1MLJ193
Horwill, J.1. The Official Receiver of Coimbatore held a sale of certain lands, which were purchased by the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 2244 of 1939, who is a respondent in C. M. A. No. 480 of 1940. Prior to the sale the insolvent had put in an application to scale down the debt under Act IV of 1938 and some creditors, who are the appellants here, put in an application under Section 68 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to set aside the sale. The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the sale on three grounds. One was that the purchaser, the 7th creditor, had been appointed a receiver of the property in a mortgage action and that it was against public policy to permit a receiver to purchase the property. The second ground was that the scaling down application was pending and that the probable result of that application would be a considerable scaling down of the mortgage debt, with the result that the lands would fetch a very much higher price. The third ground was that there was no proper ...
Alluri China Bapanna Garu and ors. Vs. Muthangi Jaggiah Alias Jagga Ra ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad407; (1943)1MLJ271
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The first respondent has raised a preliminary objection. He says this appeal does not lie. We consider that this contention must be upheld. At the same time the Subordinate Judge has not followed a provision of law which he was bound to follow. In order to appreciate the situation and the directions which we propose to give in respect of future proceedings it is necessary to set out the facts.2. On the 9th September, 1913, the first defendant executed a mortgage of immovable property in favour of the Rajah of Bhadrachallam to secure the sum of Rs. 1,16,650. This mortgage was assigned to three groups of creditors of the mortgagee. One group is now represented by the first respondent, the second group by appellants 6 and 7 and the third group by appellants 1 to 5. In O.S. No. 21 of 1931 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor a mortgage decree was passed in favour of the assignees of the mortgage. Appellants 1 to 5 collected from the mortgagor...
Malireddi Venkatapathi and ors. Vs. Malireddi Veerayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad609; (1943)1MLJ429
ORDERByers, J. 1. The petitioners are the decree-holders in Original Suit No. 56 of 1940 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cocanada, and against the decree an appeal has been filed in this Court by some of the defendants. The sixteenth defendant in the lower Court is not a party to the appeal but the decree-holders seek to file a memorandum of cross-objections against him under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sixteenth defendant objects on two grounds, firstly, that it is not open to the respondents in the appeal, to file a memorandum of cross-objections against a person who is not a party in the appeal, and secondly, that it is not open to the Court to add him as a party to the appeal merely for this purpose.2. The learned advocate for the petitioners relies on the decision in Ponnuswami Asari v. Palaniandi Mudali (1920) 11 L.W. 602 in which it was held that the appellate Court has jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to...
K. Satyanarayanappa and ors. Vs. Rahimatullah Sahib and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad560; (1943)1MLJ287
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The question in these appeals is whether the suits out of which they arise are maintainable. They were filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Anantapur. The District Munsif held that by reason of Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932, they were not maintainable and this decision was concurred in on appeal by the District Judge of Anantapur. The appeals are from the decrees passed by the District Judge. As we are of the opinion that the suits are maintainable to. a limited extent it is necessary to set out the facts.2. The Plaintiffs in both the suits are the sons of one Venkataramappa, who is now dead. Venkataramappa was a member of the Alamur Co-operative Credit Society. He was indebted to that Society in respect of two loans made by the Society to him. Each loan was secured by a mortgage of immoveable property. The father was joint with his sons and the property mortgaged was family property. The debts were not repaid and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »