Chennai Court April 1942 Judgments
Tatikonda Subbarow Vs. Malladi Sitarama Lakshmi Narasimham and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad600; (1942)2MLJ170
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only question arising for determination in this second appeal relates to the construction of Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act, 1918.2. The facts are simple and not in dispute. The appellant brought the suit to enforce a mortgage for a sum of Rs. 800 carrying interest at Rs. 1-0-6 per cent, per mensem payable annually and in default of such payment, compound interest at Rs. 1-4-6 per cent. per mensem with yearly rests. On 26th July, 1937, there was a payment of Rs. 700 which was endorsed oh the bond thus:Rs. 617 being interest in full due up to this date according to the terms of the bond and Rs. 83 towards the principal of the bond...The balance of the principal of the bond is Rs. 717.The suit was for recovery of this balance of Rs. 717, no interest being claimed from 26th July, 1937, up to 14th October, 1939, when the suit was filed. It was argued in the Court below that the rate of interest provided in case of default was excessive and should be reduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundaramurthi Nainar Vs. Chotti Bibi Alias Bacha Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad641; (1942)2MLJ164
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought for the recovery of possession of a tope of which a lease was granted to the first defendant's grandfather on the 22nd January, 1891 (Ex. I) for a period of 83 years by two brothers Quadir Khan and Sikhandar Khan as mutavallis of a mosque and a graveyard situate in Sirukadambur (Ginjee taluk). It was described to be a bilmuktha lease and the lessee was to recover the money alleged to have been advanced by him to the mutavallis both before and at the time of the execution of the lease from out of the income of the land received by him during its continuance. Quadir Khan died in 1902, leaving several sons and daughters as his heirs. Sikhandar Khan died on the 8th April, 1925. He left only one daughter Chotti Bibi. She has brought the present suit impleading her own sons (defendants 17 and 18) and Quadir Khan's children (defendants 10 to 16 and 19 to 2'2) as defendants.2. The plaintiff came to Court with the allegation that Ismai...
Tag this Judgment!P. Subbamma Vs. Ch. Venkata Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad260(1); (1942)2MLJ356
ORDERByers, J.1. This petition seeks the restoration of C.R.P. No. 968 of 1941, which was dismissed on 20th March, 1942, for default of appearance. The facts, which are very much in the petitioner's favour, were that the time of sitting was altered from ' 2 p.m. to 12 noon at somewhat short notice and there was consequently some confusion. Although the petitioner's application is not without merit the respondent's learned advocate contends that the petition is not maintainable and he relies on the decision of Burn, J., in the case of Khizar Muhammad v. Abdul Razack Sahib C.M.P. No. 6550 of 1941 (1941) 2 M.L.J. (N.R.C.) 88. In that case the restoration of a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure 'Code was sought under Section 107 read with Order 9, rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was held that neither of these provisions applied and the application was dismissed. The petitioner's learned advocate contends that inasmuch as the revision petition now in que...
Tag this Judgment!Jikkini Bibi Sahiba Vs. Ranganayaki Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad258; (1942)2MLJ487
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal has been brought by the defendant in a mortgage suit from a decree disallowing his claim to have the mortgage debt scaled down in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. The respondents put forward two grounds for excluding the appellant from the benefits of the Act, namely, that the appellant was disqualified under proviso C to Section 3 (ii) of the Act from claiming to be an agriculturist, and secondly, that the debt itself was exempted from the operation of the Act by Section 4 (d).2. As regards the first ground the relevant facts are these. The appellant was assessed within the period mentioned in the proviso to tax on property of an annual rental value of Rs. 500-8-0 of which she was the sole owner. She appears to have been assessed also to house-tax in respect of a house in which she was entitled to a seventh share. Ex. G-l the certificate issued by the Commissioner, Madura Municipality, under Section 27 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshamma Shedthi Vs. Vasudeva Bhatta and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad711
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The question that arises in this second appeal is whether the charge oreated under the partition deed Ex. 'C' between the two brothers Anni Bhatta and Narayana Bhatta over the properties allotted to Narayana Bhatta's share and in favour of Anni Bhatta can be enforced by the plaintiffs who have got a sale of the properties from Anni Bhatta against the defendant, who is a purchase of Narayana Bhatta's properties. The charge was created for the purpose of meeting the expenses of certain ceremonies, namely the samaradhana of Srinivasa Devaru, Navarathri Puja, the Mahalaya and the sradhas of Narayana Bhatta and his wile Venhamma. It may be mentioned that Narayana Bhatta is the maternal grandfather of Anni Bhatta and Narayana Bhatta, the brothers. He made a will Ex. B, appointing his son-in-law Rama Bhatta as the executor and directing him to get the ceremonies performed perpetually by himself and his sons. At that time, the son-in-law Rama Bhatta had two sons, Ann...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. Subramania Pattar Vs. Porathana Andi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad709; (1942)2MLJ303
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit promissory note, Ex. A, was materially altered after it was executed and that certain words were introduced later. The words appear above the signature of the defendant and below the date and their translation is 'the Proprietor of the Karthika Stores.' The plaintiff is the assignee from the 2nd defendant who was the original payee.2. As the alteration is apparent on the face of the document the onus is on the plaintiff to explain it and to show that it is not a material alteration which renders the instrument void and unenforceable. The plaintiff has made no such attempt. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the alteration is material in that the defendant Andi was sought to be converted into 'Andi, Proprietor of the Karthika Stores.' The answer given by the plaintiff is that it does not amount to anything more than a mere description and that in this case it happens to be a wrong description because Andi was n...
Tag this Judgment!Kosuru Ademma Vs. Chevuru Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ491
Abdur Rahman, J.1. A decree was obtained by one P. Rama Naidu against Ramanappa Setti and his minor sons in the Court of the District Munsiff of Kavali, in O.S. No. 91 of 1932. Rama Naidu assigned this decree in 1935 to one Kotappa Naidu who assigned it in his turn to the plaintiff on the 11th July, 1935. The assignment was recognised by the Court on the 26th. August, 1935. But before this a decree was obtained by the 4th. defendant against Kotappa Naidu in O.S. No. 815 of 1932. Ramanappa Setti was adjudged insolvent on his own petition in I.P. No. 1 of 1934. A private composition was arrived at during the course of these proceedings between the insolvent and his creditors under which defendants 1, 2 and 3 were appointed trustees. They were to take possession of a portion of the insolvent's property and to sell the same with the object of distributing the sale proceeds amongst the creditors. They appear to have done so and had some money in their hands when the plaintiff proceeded to e...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Prabhu Vs. Minor Chandrasekhara by Guardian and Mother Triveni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad648; (1942)2MLJ272
Abdul Rahman, J.1. A suit to recover a sum of Rs. 34-14-0 was instituted in the Panchayat Court of Shankaranarayana under the Madras Village Courts Act against one Gundu alias Narasimha Bhandari. It was dismissed on the 7th April, 1940, as the parties failed to appear before the Panchayat Court for a number of hearings. After the dismissal the plaintiff brought a suit for the same amount in the Court of the District Munsiff of Kundapur. But as Gundu had died by that time, the suit was instituted against his minor son Chandrasekhara and his widow Triveni. It was denied on their behalf that Gundu had any dealings with the plaintiff and it was contended that the suit was barred by limitation. But the District Munsiff overruled their contentions. A third contention was advanced on behalf of the defendants. It was to the effect that Gundu had died while the suit was pending before the Panehayat Court and as no application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under sections, 68 and 69 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Puthiottil Chathiyelan Kanna Kurup Vs. Mayimmoli Raman Nayar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad51; (1942)2MLJ425
King, J.1. This petition arises out of an application by the petitioner to set aside an ex parte decree passed by the District Munsiff of Badagara sitting on the small cause side. The procedure in regard to the presentation of such applications is laid down in Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It provides that at the time of the presentation of the application there must be either the deposit of the amount due under the decree or such security for the performance of the decree as the Court may on a previous application made by the applicant in this behalf have directed. The facts are that in this case the application was made on the 7th April, 1941, which was four days after the ex parte decree had been passed. The application was not accompanied by the deposit of the decree amount nor by the offer of any security. On the 9th April, however, there was a further affidavit in which certain property was offered as security to the Court in connection with the application...
Tag this Judgment!Gokaraju Venkataraju and ors. Vs. Pannulapati Govindayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad168
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants were the judgment-debtors in a suit on a promissory note decreed in 1931. They applied to scale down this decree under Section 19 of Act 4 of 1938. The learned Subordinate Judge, on a basis which cannot now be defended, scaled down the debt only with reference to the principal of the promissory note immediately preceding that which was sued on. It is clear from the evidence that the suit promissory note has a long antecedent history. The accounts filed in the case show that it goes back historically to certain advances made to the appellants during the minority of the decree-holders who were under the guardianship of their sister Rattamma. These advances were embodied in promissory notes which have not been produced and are alleged to have been destroyed. In 1916 the account contains an entry to the effect that the indebtedness of Rs. 1788-3-1 has been transferred-the word used being Avalti-to be paid by the debtor to Rattamma and that the debtor has on t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »