Chennai Court April 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.
M.A. Subramania Aiyar (Died) and anr. Vs. the Province of Madras, Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad660; (1942)2MLJ223
King, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the owner of part of two islets in the Mammili river in South Malabar against the Government for a declaration of his title to certain other portions of these islets which have, according to the findings of the learned District Judge, come into existence in more recent times and for an injunction restraining the Government from assessing him to any land revenue on these portions of the islets. The suit has been dismissed by the first Court and dismissed again in appeal by the learned District Judge of South Malabar on two grounds, firstly on the merits because the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to the newly formed portions of the islets, and secondly because the suits were barred by limitation. Both these points were argued in second appeal before me.2. It seems to me that on the question of limitation the Courts below are wrong. They say that the suit was barred because it was not brought within six months of the 12...
Shenbagavadivammal Vs. Mupidathi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad720; (1942)2MLJ364
King, J.1. This appeal is concerned with part of the estate of one Thangappa Pillai, who died in 1934 leaving; no issue but two widows, a sister and a sister's son. The two widows are plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. First defendant is Thangappa Pillai's sister and 2nd defendant is 1st defendant's son. There was a dispute amongst these persons as to the disposal of Thangappa Pillai's estate and the dispute was submitted to arbitration. The award of the. arbitrators was to the effect that the portion of the estate which forms the subject-matter of the present suit was to be conveyed by plaintiff and the 3rd defendant to defendants 1 and 2 and that in return for this, the defendants 1 and 2 should release all their rights as prospective reversioners to the other portions of Thangappa Pillai's estate and defendant 2 should perform the funeral ceremonies of Thangappa Pillai. It has been found therefore that the consideration for the transfer by the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant to defend...
Dasari Murugappa Mudali Vs. the Official Receiver and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad303; (1943)1MLJ24
Abdur Rahman, J.1. Six alienations were effected by one Nagappa for himself and as guardian of his minor son Subramaniam, his minor brother Srinivasa Mudali, his minor cousin Govindaswami Mudali and by his adult brother Elumalai (who were all members of a joint Hindu family) in August, 1932 (Ex. VIII and Ex. IX), in March, 1933 (Ex. VI) and in May/1933 (Ex. IV, Ex. V and Ex. VII). Out of these, the alienations covered by Ex. VIII and Ex. IX are substantial The consideration for the transaction embodied in Ex. VIII is stated to be . Rs. 22,500 and for the one contained in Ex. IX a sum of Rs. 6,000. Nagappa' was adjudicated insolvent on a creditor's petition presented on the 21st June 1933. Six applications were made by the Official Receiver, Chittoor to annul these alienations. He asked for these sale-deeds to be set aside both on the ground that they were nominal transactions, (not being transfers for consideration and in good faith) and on the ground that they fell, in any case, withi...
In Re: Erasi Subba Reddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad492; (1943)1MLJ383
Horwill, J.1. Six persons were charged before the Sessions Judge of Kurnool of rioting armed with deadly weapons, of murder, either because they killed a man themselves, or constructively by virtue of Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and of offences punishable under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. All the accused were acquitted of all the charges, with the solitary exception that the appellant, who was the fourth accused in the Sessions Court, was found guilty under Section 326 of causing the fatal injury on the deceased person. He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment.2. A number of persons of the prosecution party and the accused gathered to fight against one another and both parties sustained casualties. P. Ws. 3 to 6, the principal members of the party of the deceased asserted that the accused were entirely the aggressors. P. Ws. 7 to 9 belonged to neither party and appeared casually at the scene. Their account of what happened differed considerably from that of P. Ws....
Mattapalli Raju and ors. Vs. Challa Mahalakshmamma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad597; (1942)2MLJ185
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 seeking to scale down a compromise decree. The appellants here who are the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, applied to the lower Court alleging in general terms that the decree obtained by the second respondent and transferred by him to the first respondent, had been satisfied by the payments made if the benefit of Act IV were given to the applicants who were agriculturists. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent alleged that a substantial amount is still due under the decree and denied that the applicants were entitled to the benefits of the Act. When the case came on before the lower Court the right of the applicants to the benefits of the Act was established and the contentions urged centred round certain specific allegations relating to consideration and interest. We are now only concerned with the allegation of the appellants that the interest due u...
Rangaswami Goundan and ors. Vs. Kandaswami Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad335; (1942)2MLJ361
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings in O.S. No. 723 of 1935. That was a suit brought by the assignee of a promissory note executed by one Nanjappa Goundan in 1930, and was brought against Nanjappa Goundan alone. A decree was granted against Nanjappa Goundan in 1935. Subsequently Nanjappa Goundan became insolvent. In 1937 Nanjappa Goundan and his four sons partitioned their property. In 1938| the decree-holder sought to execute his decree against the family property which had thus passed into the ownership of the sons. Three of the four sons claimed that this could not be done. Both the learned District Munsiff of Udumalpet and the learned District Judge of 'Coimbatore decided against them and ordered execution to proceed. This is a second appeal by the three sons.2. It is first objected by the decree-holder (respondent 1) that no appeal lies, the argument being that as the appellants filed a claim petition their only remedy is by suit. But the very point upon whi...
Maddali Sreeramulu and anr. Vs. Kavur Thandavakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad77; (1942)2MLJ452
ORDERAbdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought on the basis of a mortgage-deed (Ex. A) executed by the 1st defendant for himself and as guardian of his minor sons, defendants 2 and 3 on the 25th November, 1929, for a sum of Rs. 700. The defence raised on behalf of the father was to the effect that the mortgage was without consideration and executed with a view to preserve the property against his own bad ways. A separate written statement was put in on behalf of the minor sons in which the validity of the mortgage was also contested. Two issues were framed by the District Munsiff of Narasaraopet:(1) Whether the suit mortgage is true and valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants 2 and 3?(2) Whether the suit mortgage was executed in the circumstances stated by the 1st defendant and as such is unenforceable? On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial Court decided both these issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the...
The Indian Hume Pipe Company, Limited Vs. the Travancore National and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ128
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant company carries on business at Nagercoil in the State of Travancore and at Bombay. The Nagercoil office had a current account with the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Limited, which suspended business on the 20th June, 1938 and is in the process of liquidation under an order for its compulsory winding up passed by this Court. It will be convenient to refer to the appellant company as 'the Company' and to the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Limited, as 'the Bank'. The Bank had a branch at Bombay, but the Company had no account there. On the 14th June, 1938, the Company instructed the Bombay branch of the Bank to collect Rs. 5,000, the amount of a cheque drawn in its favour on the Indian Bank at Bombay, and to remit the proceeds to the Nagercoil branch of the Bank to the credit of the Company's account. The cost of collection and remittance was Rs. 4-11-0, which the Company paid. The Bombay branch of the Bank collected the amount ...
Kannambra Nayar Veettil Valia Ammukutti Neithiar's son Kunhunni Elaya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad74; (1942)2MLJ120
1. The question, raised in. this appeal is whether there can be a valid pledge of shares by the deposit of the share certificate when it is not accompanied by an instrument of transfer. The appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Palghat to recover what was due on a promissory note executed by one Subramania Pattar in favour of one Ramakrishna Pattar, the instrument having been endorsed to the appellant. When the appellant demanded the amount due under the promissory note, the maker deposited with, him as security for payment a. share certificate in respect of shares held by him in the Parli Tile Works, Limited. The certificate was not accompanied by a deed transferring the shares to the appellant, but he claims that notwithstanding this there was a valid pledge of the shares. The suit was contested by the fourth defendant, who is the first respondent in this appeal. On a date subsequent to the deposit of the share certificate with the appellant the first res...
Chellathammal Alias Ammamuthuammal and ors. Vs. Kalitheertha Pillai an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad606; (1942)2MLJ206
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is one of Hindu law and there is no authority which has direct bearing upon it. The question is whether the widow of a member of a joint family can adopt a son to her deceased husband with the assent of the nearest divided sapindas when the only surviving coparcener is insane. It is well-settled law in this Presidency that a widow who has not been authorised by her husband to adopt a son to him cannot do so unless she has received the assent of his nearest sapindas, and that she can lawfully adopt with the assent of the remoter reversioners if the nearest reversioners improperly withhold their assent. It has never been decided whether she can go outside the family when there are no joint sapindas capable of advising her, or, if there are they refuse their assent on improper grounds.2. On the 6th January, 1926, one Sethuramalingam Pillai died leaving two widows and a daughter, the first, second and third defendants respective...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »