Chennai Court March 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.
Katambot ThazhaThe Kovila Kath Vikkara Vellodi, Managing Partner of K. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad32; (1942)2MLJ237
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings instituted under Sections 15 and 19 of Act IV of 1938, a reference to Order 21, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, being also added in the application. The applicants in the trial Court were persons liable to make periodical payments known as panaya purappad and the present appellant was an assignee of the right to collect those payments. We have no doubt held that these periodical payments of panaya purappad are not rent for the purpose of Section 15 of Act IV of 1938, and also that an assignee of the right to collect arrears of rent is not a jenmi or intermediary for the purpose of the same section. The trial Court, however, treated this payment as one of rent and treated the respondent as a person standing in the position of a jenmi or intermediary and recorded satisfaction of the decree for arrears of this periodical payment, except for the amount of costs, on the deposit of the arrears for the two years contemplated in Section...
Sri Sri Sri Narayana Sooru Devu Garu Rajah of Tarla and anr. Vs. Gudur ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ242
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the Rajah of Tarla and he seeks to escape from liability in respect of a promissory note executed by himself and his father who is now dead. The appellant's case is entirely devoid of merits, but, notwithstanding this, he would be entitled to succeed on technical grounds if the legal arguments advanced on his behalf were sound. The Subordinate Judge of Chicacole, from whose decree this appeal has been preferred, found against the appellant on the facts and on the law and we concur in his findings. The attitude of the appellant towards his creditor is certainly one which does not commend itself to the Court.2. On the 16th June, 1931, the appellant and his father executed a promissory note in favour of the Zamindar of Pata Tekkali for the sum of Rs. 6,000, which the payee had advanced to them in order that they might discharge in part a mortgage of the family estate. It is admitted that the mortgage had been created for family purposes. ...
Munnangi Sumitramma Vs. Mudunuru Subbadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad22; (1942)2MLJ97
King, J.1. The appellant is the owner of about 15 acres of land in the village of Paidemukkala Agraharam Chellapalli taluk of the Kistna District. He sued the respondents for arrears of rent. originally in the Court of the Deputy Collector of the Nuzvid Division. When that suit was filed, the respondents took the objection that, upon the allegations in the plaint, the appellant had not established that the property formed part of an estate and therefore that no suit lay in the Court of the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector accepted this contention and passed an order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The appellant accordingly filed his plaint in the Court of the District Munsif of Gudivada who gave him a decree for the greater portion of the amount claimed. There was then an appeal by the defendants to the learned Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam who held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, on the ground that the appellant had n...
Pottentakath Kunholan Vs. Krishnan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad652; (1942)2MLJ154
Happell, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether a usufructuary mortgagee from a subkanomdar is entitled to the benefits of Section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act. The appellant was the assignee of certain properties in respect of which the jenm right had been sold in Court auction, and on the same day on which the jenm right was assigned to the appellant the kanomdar also assigned his rights in the property to him. The appellant then brought a suit O.S. No. 82 of 1938, in the Court of the District Munsif of Parappanangadi, to redeem and recover possession of the suit properties. This suit was contested by the sub-kanomdars from the 16th defendant, defendants 1 to 8; and the present respondents, who were the 9th to 11th defendants in the suit and were in possession of the suit properties as usufructuary mortgagees from defendants 1 to 8, filed a petition, I.A. No. 186 of 1938, under Section 33 of the Malabar Tenancy Act, claiming that they were entitled to purchase the house ...
The Province of Madras Represented by the Collector of Madura Vs. Rao ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad599; (1942)2MLJ162
Byers, J.1. This appeal has been brought against a decision of the District Judge of Madura in A.S. No. 183 of 1939, against a decision of the Collector of Madura under Section 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act. It is sufficient to state for the purpose of this appeal that an application was filed under Section 20-A of the Madras Estates Land Act, by the Zamindar of Kannivadi in respect of four plots of land which he sought to have converted into ryoti land on the ground that they were 'old road' which was no longer required for public purposes. The collector threw the burden of proof on the Zamindar to show that the reversionary right did not vest in the Government as the land appeared to have been lakhiraj land. On appeal the learned District Judge held that the burden of proof had been wrongly cast on the Zamindar and on the evidence available he came to the conclusion that the reversionary right vested in the landholder. The order of the Collector was set aside and the four plots...
inampudi Srinivasa Rao and ors. Vs. Gadamsetti Papa Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ417
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This is a hatch of three appeals. The suits which gave rise to these appeals were for damages for wrongful arrest alleged to have been made by the defendants who are police officers that is to say, servants of the Crown. The defendants alleged that they had arrested the plaintiffs in the discharge of their duties. The lower appellate Court did not believe the evidence of the plaintiffs, believed the evidence of the defendants and dismissed the suits. It was of the opinion that the allegations made on behalf of the plaintiffs had not been substantiated by them. The plaintiffs appeal.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the onus of proving want of bona fides was on the defendants but in this he was mistaken. When his attention was invited to Section 270, Sub-clause (2) of the Government of India Act he had to admit that in cases which fall within the ambit of that section the onus of proving want of bona fides would lie on the plaintiff and not on the serv...
Majety Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Koduri Kanakaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad673
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The present petitioner filed a small cause suit for a sum of Rs. 232-11-0 being the balance due under a promissory note dated 11th April 1937 for Rs. 415-7-3 and subsequent dealings. The promissory note itself was a settlement in the account of dealings going back to 14th February 1932. The Court trying the suit in the first instance dealt with it on the basis that it related to transactions subsequent to 1st October 1932 and that the debt was one to be scaled down under Section 9 and it pronounced that the plaintiff was entitled to recover interest at five per cent, down to 22nd March 1938 and at 6 1/4 per cent, subsequent to that date without expressly stating with effect from what date the interest would begin to run. The decree based on this judgment assumes that interest runs from the date of the settlement of 11th April 1937 and the calculation is made accordingly. After the decree had been drafted the defendant filed an application for the amendment of the d...
K.S. Muthuswami Chettiar Vs. Ramaswami Samiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad751; (1942)2MLJ444
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is whether a transferee of immovable property is entitled to a charge on it in respect of the amount disbursed by him in paying off a mortgage on the property when he is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee by reason of the fact that there does not exist a registered agreement of the nature of that contemplated in the third paragraph of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The first paragraph of the section states that any of the persons referred to in Section 91 (other than a mortgagor) and a co-mortgagor shall, on redeeming the property subject to the mortgage, have, as regards redemption, foreclosure or sale, the same rights as the mortgagee whose mortgage he redeems may have against the mortgagor or another mortgagee. The second paragraph says that the right conferred by the section is called the right of subrogation and a person acquiring such right is said to be subrogated ...
In Re: Hariappa Patla
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad135; (1942)2MLJ555
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of two offences by the Bench Magistrates of Udipi, one for selling firewood without a license and the other for selling hay without a license. He was sentenced to pay a fine of eight, annas in the one case and four annas in the other. The petitioner seeks to have his conviction and sentence set aside in revision on the ground that it is no offence to sell firewood or hay without license.2. Section 193 of the Local Boards Act makes punishable the selling or storing without license of articles mentioned in Schedule VII of the Act. Schedule VII of the Act does not however include either firewood or hay. In this respect it differs from Schedule V of the District Municipalities Act and Schedule VI of the City Municipalities Act. This was pointed out by me in Venkatachala Aiyar v. Emperor 1941 M.W.N. (Cri.) 100.3. It is suggested by the learned Public Prosecutor that although firewood and hay are not specifically mentioned in Schedule VII ...
P. Balavenkatarama Chettiar and ors. Vs. Maruthamuthu Chettiar and anr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-05-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad247; (1942)2MLJ742
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These second appeals arise out of three suits brought for amounts due respectively on three promissory notes. Two of them, O.S. Nos. 92 and 93 of 1936, were tried together and dismissed by the trial Court. The other O.S. No. 260 of 1937 was decreed. On appeal to the lower Court, the first respondent succeeded in obtaining decrees in all the suits. It may be mentioned here that in O.S. No. 260 of 1937 out of which S.A. No. 765 of 1939 arises the respondent also sought a decree against the temple of which the defendants who executed the promissory notes were trustees at the time of such execution, but this part of the claim was dismissed in both the Courts below and no question now arises with reference to it.2. The promissory notes on which the two earlier suits were brought contained no reference to the trusteeship of the executants and the amounts were stated to have been borrowed 'for expenses in connection with our trade'. It appears however that the first res...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »