Chennai Court February 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.
Yendamuri Subba Rao Vs. Kovvuri Tata Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ435
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This petition raises the question whether a person who files an application for an order permitting him to file an appeal in forma pauperis is entitled to be heard in support of the application. Two Judges of this Court, Sadasiva Aiyar, J., and Wadsworth, J., have held that he is not entitled to be heard. On the other hand Patanjali Sastri, J., has held that he is.2. Order 44, Rule 1, states that a person entitled to prefer an appeal, who is unable to pay the fee required for the memorandum of appeal, may apply to be allowed to appeal as a pauper, subject in all matters, including the presentation of the application, to the provisions relating to suits by paupers, in so far as those provisions are applicable. Then follows this proviso:Provided that the Court shall reject the application unless, upon a perusal thereof and of the judgment and decree appealed from, it sees reason to think that the decree is contrary to law or to some usage having the forc...
Sri Rajah Rao Niladri Rao Garu Vs. R. Venkatarama Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1942
Reported in: (1942)1MLJ538
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. It is not necessary to enter upon a discussion of the merits of this appeal because a preliminary objection taken by the first respondent must prevail.2. On the 30th July, 1930, the third respondent obtained a final decree for sale in a mortgage suit instituted on the original side of this Court against the second respondent and others. The preliminary decree was for the payment of Rs. 4,64,059-6-9, with interest. The security comprised a number of immovable properties, some in Madras and some in Salem. As the result of an arrangement between the third respondent (the decree-holder) and the second respondent (the judgment-debtor)' all the properties except two lots were released on payment by the second respondent to the third respondent of their values. On the 20th June, 1934, the unrealized security included 22 acres of land in Mambalam, a suburb of Madras. The decree-holder had applied for the sale of these lands and a proclamation had been settled,...
Gali Rama Naidu and anr. Vs. Muppala Gangi Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad483; (1942)1MLJ588
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These two second appeals have been referred to a Bench for decision as a question of limitation arises and there is no direct authority on the point.2. An examination of the record discloses an unfortunate state of affairs. The second and third respondents are the sons of one Muneappa Naidu, who died in the month of February, 1931. The father and the sons were joint. On the 29th January, 1931, a fortnight before the death of Muneappa, he and his sons disposed of the whole of the family property. By a registered conveyance ' they transferred to the appellant in S.A. No. 910 of 1940, part of the family estate and the rest of it to the appellant in S.A. No. 1071 of 1940. The consideration for the transfer first mentioned was said to be Rs. 2,000 and for the second Rs. 1,000.3. On the 5th December, 1931, the second and third respondents were adjudicated insolvents by the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor on a petition filed by the first respondent and two othe...
Sri Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapati Raju Bahadur Varu Vs. Takuru Nar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad746; (1942)2MLJ359
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant obtained a decree on the 18th March, 1936 for what is described in his plaint as rent or damages for use and occupation the period covered by these arrears being from the 15th December, 1932 to 15th October,, 1935. He also got a decree for land cess in respect of the same lands for the period from the 30th June, 1931 to 30th June, 1935. At the time when he obtained this decree in the ordinary Civil Court no question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the Court. When Act IV of 1938 came into force the judgment-debtor filed an application under Sections 8, 15 and 19 of that Act praying the Court to scale down the amount due under the decree. He did not make any deposit of rent for faslis 1346 and 1347 as contemplated in Section 15 and the District Munsiff dismissed the petition for want of such deposit. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the rent which was decreed was not rent as defined by Act IV of 1938 and that the decree had to be scaled...
In Re: S.N. Vittal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad437; (1942)1MLJ369
Horwill, J.1. The three appellants have been convicted and fined by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, under S- 51 of the Madras City Police Act for winning from the complainant money by means of fraud or malpractice in betting.2. The case of the complainant is that he betted with the appellants, that the horse on which he had bet won and that although he thereby became entitled to be paid the money promised by the appellants on the bet, they did not pay him. He complained to the police; and the present case was brought against the appellants under the City Police Act.3. Section 51, makes it clear that what is punishable under that section is fraud, unlawful device, or malpractice in betting or gaming i.e., the fraud must be during the betting or gaming and not prior to it or subsequent to it. It seems to me that a breach of contract such as the appellants committed by not paying over money that was due to the complainant is not a malpractice or fraud at all, still less an unlawf...
The Official Assignee Vs. C. Manickavelu Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad512; (1943)1MLJ265
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J. 1. The Official Assignee took out this application for an order to direct the insolvent Manickavelu Mudali to pay to him from and out of the commutation sum received by him a sum of Rs. 5,700. The insolvent was the Head Clerk in the Office of the Post-Master General, Madras, on a salary of Rs. 220, per mensem. He retired from service from the 1st June, 1941 on a pension of Rs. 101-10-0. He commuted one half of his pension and received a consolidated sum of Rs. 7060-14-0 as commutation. He did not pay any portion of this com-mutation sum to the Official Assignee, nor did he appear before him for examination though called upon to do so. The Official Assignee had to obtain a warrant on the 11th September, 1941.2. The insolvent told the Official Assignee that he had paid most of the amount received by him to his creditors and he handed over a sum of Rs.. 500 only to the Official Assignee. He then gave a list of persons to whom he made payments and of what amounts. ...
Maharani Gurucharan Kaur of Nabha and anr. Vs. the Province of Madras, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad539; (1942)2MLJ14
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for damages brought by two ladies, the first plaintiff being a wife and the second plaintiff a minor daughter of the ex-Maharaja of Nabha against the Province of Madras through the Collector of Madura and four police officials one of whom was the then District Superintendent of Police at Madura, the other a Sub-Inspector of the Government Railway Police at the Madura Railway Station and the remaining two, head constable and constable of the Government Railway Police stationed at Kodaikanal Road Railway Station in the Madura District. The facts that have led to the institution of this suit may be first stated.2. Nabha is an. important Sikh state in the Punjab which was being ruled since 1911 by the first plaintiff's husband. He was interned in 1928 at Kodaikanal--a hill station in the Madura District--by an order of the Government, of India to which reference is made in a memorandum (Ex. VII-b) issued by the Government of Madras to the...
T.K. Ramachandra Rao Vs. Jomalagadda Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad53; (1942)2MLJ420
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the defendant in a suit on a promissory note. The promissory note was admittedly made up entirely of interest on three previous debts. With reference to two of these debts the lower Court has granted relief on the basis that the promissory note is merely an embodiment of the interest on these debts. With reference to the other debt which is a mortgage debt Ex. II, the lower Court has refused to grant relief because the security for Ex. II is house property within a union panchayat coming within Section 4 (d) of Act IV of 1938. It seems to me that the view taken by the lower Court is correct.2. The petitioner was not content to stand by the promissory note as the contract but wished to treat the promissory 'note as nothing more than a settlement of account under the previous mortgage transactions. By this process the promissory note is, in fact, treated as a mere statement of the interest on the previous transactions. When it is shown that one of these...
Sowdra Bai and ors. Vs. Saraswathi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad590; (1942)1MLJ441
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 7th January, 1938, one Gangadhara Mudali falsely representing himself to be Govindaraja Mudali, the owner of a house and land known as No. 5, Muthia Naicken Street. Purasawalkam, Madras, induced the appellants to lend to him Rs. 2,000 on a mortgage of the property. The real owner had no knowledge of the fraud. As Gangadhara Mudali had no interest in the property the mortgage deed of course conferred no title. Again falsely representing himself to be Govindaraja Mudali, Gangadhara Mudali induced the respondent on the llth February, 1938, to advance Rs. 3,500 on a second mortgage of the property. Out of the Rs. 3,500 which the respondent agreed to advance she was to pay to the appellants Rs. 2.000 in discharge of the first mortgage. V. G. Sambasivamurthi Mudali, the son of Govindaraja Mudali, was a party to this second transaction, but a again his father had no knowledge of what was happening. Believing that Gangadhara Mudali was Govindaraja Mudal...
V.E.R.M.K. Krishnan Chettiar by Agent Rama Aiyangar Vs. Nachimuthu Gou ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad453; (1942)1MLJ500
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioner in these connected civil revision petitions obtained a decree for Rs. 4,678 against the respondent on 23rd October, 1930 and, after recovering various amounts from time to time, applied on 7th January, 1938 for execution of the decree in E.P. No. 18 of 1938 for realising the balance of Rs. 627. The respondent's property was in due course brought to sale on 8th February,. 1939 and was purchased by a third party. The respondent then applied on 3rd March, 1939 under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act to enter satisfaction of the decree as no amount would, according to him, be payable to the petitioner if the provisions of the Act were applied to the decree. When this application was pending, he also applied under Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale of his property making the necessary deposit on 8th March, 1939, the last day of the period limited for making such application. The petitioner as well as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »