Chennai Court February 1942 Judgments
Timiti Venkata Charlu and anr. Vs. the Rajah of Vizianagaram and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad725; (1942)2MLJ415
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is a portion of Survey No. 1973 in the village of Kagam. The appellants-claim that the whole of the survey number and therefore the portion now in dispute belongs to them as part of their inam. The contesting respondents on the other hand contend that the property in dispute is jeroyiti property of the Vizianagaram estate. The suit was one for rent based upon the assertion that the rent was leviable from the jeroyiti property. The suit has. been dismissed by the Sub-Collector and has been decreed in part by the learned District Judge of Vizagapatam. The learned District Judge holds that in respect of a part of the land no-decree can be given to the plaintiffs because there is a survey decision against them establishing the title of the defendants to the property. On the other hand he has held that the survey decision does not extend to the remainder of the field and that although the defendants have been in possession of this part of the fie...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Kuttia Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad445
ORDERBurn, J.1. The learned District Munsif has not called upon the petitioner to pay any particular court-fee and the question of what is the proper court-fee is not in my opinion before me. If it were, I should be obliged to decline it, because the duty of fixing the court-fee is cast by law on the trial Court and the trial Court's decision is ordinarily final. The learned District Munsif has however exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the plaintiff to add to his plaint certain prayers which the plaintiff does not want to add. The Court has no power, so far as I am aware, to compel any party to pray for any particular relief. In this case the petitioner alleges that the decree and subsequent proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1932 are null and void and not binding on him. But he does not ask the Court to make any declaration to that effect, or to set them aside as void against him. The learned District Munsif has ordered him to add a prayer for the cancellati...
Tag this Judgment!izaradar R. Muniswami Goundan and anr. Vs. A.K. Hanumantha Roya Gounda ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad8; (1942)2MLJ283
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a somewhat curious point under Act IV of 1938. It arises out of a small cause suit brought by the present 'petitioner as assignee from a Zamindar of the right to collect jodi on inam lands within the Zamindari. The defendant pleaded that he was entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act and sought to scale down the arrears under Section 15 of that Act. This plea was met by a contention that the plaintiff was not a landholder under the Madras Estates Land Act and that therefore the jodi could not be scaled down. A landholder under the definition in the Madras Estates Land Act includes a person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of an estate by virtue of any transfer from the owner. The term 'rent' under the Madras Estates Land Act does not include jodi, although the same term when used in the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act does include jodi. The lower Court has held' that because 'rent' ...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Receiver Vs. K. Sambasiva Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad118; (1942)2MLJ178
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In these appeals the Court is concerned largely with the effect of Section 51(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act and several interesting questions of law are involved.2. In O.S. No. 4 of 1933 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of West Tanjore the 4th respondent in L.P.A. No. 38 of 1940 obtained a money decree against one Kasinatha Aiyar, who in that year was adjudicated insolvent. In execution of the decree he attached immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. There were three lots of properties, two of them being situate in the village of Anakkudi and the third in the village of Manikandi. The Court ordered all the properties to be sold on the same date, but in separate lots. The sales took place on the 30th June, 1933. The two lots in Anakkudi village were sold for an aggregate sum of Rs. 7,500, which was paid into Court by the purchasers on the day of the sale. The lot in Manikandi village was sold for Rs. 4,520, of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Subramania Aiyar Vs. Annavi Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad522; (1942)1MLJ556
King, J.1. The appellant here held a decree against one Doraiswami, the second defendant in the suit from which this second appeal arises. Another decree-holder against the same Doraiswami was one Nalluswami Nayudu. Nalluswami Nayudu had brought certain property belonging to Doraiswami to sale in execution of his decree on the 29th August, 1934, and three other decree-holders including the present appellant had applied for rateable distribution. Meanwhile, however, Doraiswami applied first under Rule 90 and then under Rule 89 of Order 21, for setting aside the sale. Upon filing the application under Rule 89, he no longer pressed the application under Rule 90, which was dismissed. The application under Rule 89, was eventually allowed and the sale set aside on the 31st of October, 1934.2. In the meanwhile two events happened. On the 20th of September, the judgment-debtor sold the property which was the subject-matter of the sale to the plaintiff and on the 29th September, the appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Ps. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar by Agent, Sivaraman Chettiar Vs. Govi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad519; (1942)2MLJ38
1. C.R.P. No. 2458 arises out of an order restoring an application filed under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 and returned for presentation in a proper Court. The facts necessary to understand the matter are as follows- The decree in question was passed on a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and the 11th defendant. Defendants 1 to 5 represented the mortgagors. Defendants 6 and 7 are the wives of defendants 1 and 2. The latter had paid off one of the co-mortgagees, the 11th defendant, but got him to transfer his interest to their wives, defendants 6 and 7. The lower Court's decree contained a clause safeguarding defendants 6 and 7 if they should in proper proceedings claim any equities as against the plaintiff. An appeal was taken against this part of the decree and also a minor correction was sought in another matter. While this appeal was pending, Act IV of 1938 came into force and an .application was filed by the 1st defendant, who was not contesting the appeal in the High Court, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Variath Krishna Warriar Vs. Malayalee Bank Ltd., Managing Director T. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad449; (1942)1MLJ466
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the first defendant in a suit on a promissory note and he claimed relief under Madras Act IV of 1938. He admitted, however, in the lower Court that he had been paying profession-tax to the District Board for the last seven or eight years and on this admission the suit was decreed in full against him. It is contended in revision that the petitioner is not disqualified under proviso B to Section 3 (2) of Ac* IV of 1938 because he has been paying profession-tax not on the income derived from the actual exercise of a profession other than agriculture, but on his pension as a retired police officer.2. The words of the proviso are:has within two years immediately preceding the 1st October, 1937, been assessed to profession-tax on a half-yearly income of more than Rs. 300 derived from a profession other than agriculture, etc.3. If the words 'derived from a profession other than agriculture' are read in their strictest sense, the effect would be to confine th...
Tag this Judgment!Yerranki Papayya Sastri and anr. Vs. Kola Appa Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad677; (1942)2MLJ211
Wadsworth, J.1. This matter arises out of an application under Section 15(4) of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) praying for the cancellation of arrears of rent on the deposit of the rent for faslis 1346 and 1347 at the rate of Rs. 300 per annum. The deposit was accepted and in revision it is contended firstly that the lower Court was wrong in assuming that the , applicant was a tenant paying rent to a landholder under the Madras Estates Land Act so as to come within the terms of Section 15 of Act IV of 1938, and secondly that the lower Court was wrong in finding that the proper rate of rent was Rs. 300 per annum. The argument on the first point rests on the tenure of the land. The documents filed show that the land was granted by the zamindar to the present petitioners in the year 1811, that the grant was a 'sarva inam' not subject to jodi and was in the enjoyment of the grantee at the time of the inam settlement. It is contended that on these facts the lower Court w...
Tag this Judgment!P.N. Madhava Rao, Executive Officer of Perdoor Sri Ananta Padhmanabha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad468; (1942)1MLJ535
Happell, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the promissory note Ex. A, dated 12th June, 1930, executed by one of the trustees of the Sri Anantha Padhmanabha Devaru Temple of Perdur, is binding on the temple itself. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought in the Court of the District Munsif of Udipi by an assignee of the promissory note, and the suit was defended by the other trustees of the temple who contended that the money borrowed under the promissory note had not been borrowed for the necessary purposes of the temple and that the executant of it had not pledged the credit of the temple but only his own credit. The learned District Munsif gave a decree against the first defendant, the executant of the promissory note, alone on the grounds that there was no necessity for the temple to borrow, that the executant was not competent to bind the temple without the authority of the other trustees and also on the ground that on the face of it the promissory not...
Tag this Judgment!Kunnamangalath Palakunnath Kolai Sankaran Nayar Vs. Palakunnath Kolai ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad534; (1942)1MLJ573
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition arises out of an application under Section 15 of Act IV of 1938. There was a previous application under which the petitioner was permitted to make a deposit of the rent for the Malabar year corresponding to fasli 1347 at the same rate as that now deposited. I am informed that an appeal was filed against that decision and rejected. The petition recites that the purappad of the holding was originally fixed at Rs. 62-7-0, of which Rs. 49-10-0, was payable to the respondent's tavazhi (that is the tavazhi of the present petitioner) and the balance to the Kolai tarwad and that the three items assigned to the petitioner from the original kanomdar have to pay the amount of Rs. 49-10-0 payable to the respondent's tavashi. In the counter-affidavit the contention is raised that the deposit should be of the rent for the entire holding. There was no evidence at all and the judgment of the lower Court is concerned mainly with a contention as to the date o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »