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.
Mangipudi Vyagreswarudu and ors. Vs. Boddapati Bhadramma and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad721; (1942)2MLJ233
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioners here were defendants, 2, 3 and 4 in a Small Cause suit on two promissory notes. The promisor was their father the first defendant. The first and second defendants were adjudged insolvents on 7th August, 1935. The adjudications were disputed in appeal and eventually the adjudication of the second defendant was cancelled and that of the first defendant was confirmed. During the period between the adjudication and the decision in the appeal, there were endorsements on the two promissory notes which are relied upon as acknowledgments saving limitation under Section 1.9 and Section 21(3)(b) of the Limitation Act. The Official Receiver was not a party to the suit and the suit as against the first defendant has therefore been dismissed.2. It is argued in revision that the suit should also have been dismissed against defendants 2 to 4 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The first defendant is admittedly the manager of the family and the debt is a fami...
Amirthammal and ors. Vs. Vallimayil Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad693; (1942)2MLJ292
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether a congenital idiot has the status of a coparcener notwithstanding that he is excluded from the enjoyment of his share.2. The following genealogical tree will assist in the appreciation of the facts: Veerakumara Pillai - Vallimayil Ammal (died 1912) | (died 1917) | ____________________________________________________________ | | |Chellakrishna-Amirtharamal Karuppayee-Subbiah Pilial Maruthu-Chellam Pillai (died 1934) (Deft. 3) (Died 1926) (Died 1924) | | | Two sons (dead) and one | Vallimayil Ammal daughter. | (a minor)(Plaintiff) __________________________________________ | | | Karthikeyan Mangalathammal Ponnumuthammal(a minor) (Deft. 5) (Deft. 1) (a minor) (Deft. 2)3. Veerakumara Pillai's son Chellakrishna was a congenital idiot, but his father married him to Amirthammal and by her he had two sons and a daughter. Both the sons were born after the death of Veerakumara Pillai in 1912, but both of them had d...
Somayajulu Venkatanarasimham Vs. Govinda Suryanarayana Being Minor Rep ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad708; (1942)2MLJ412
Wadsworth, J.1. These revision petitions both contest the correctness of an order passed in an application under Section 23 of Act IV of 1938, whereby in November, 1938, one of the judgment-debtors under the decree in a rent suit, who had been impleaded as counter-petitioner, was transposed as a petitioner when a doubt was raised as to the competency of the original petitioner to maintain the application. The petitioners under C.R.Ps. Nos. 1663 and 1333 are the landholder and the auction-purchaser respectively. The sale was held in January, 1938. The contesting respondent who was a mortgagee from the 1st judgment-debtor filed an application under Section 23 on the 10th June, 1938, less than a fortnight before the expiry of the period allowed in Section 23. An objection being raised to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the applicant was not a judgment-debtor, the applicant seems to have sought to get round the difficulty by getting one of the judgment-debtors to ...
Matte Atchutarama Rao Vs. Solasa Bapanayya, Trustee Vijjapu Kamakshamm ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad748
Abdur Rahaman, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 73 (2), Civil P.C., for refund of certain assets paid to defendant 1 on his application for rateable distribution. The facts which led to the present suit are that one Vijjappu Kamakshamma executed a will on 16th September 1918 bequeathing her stridhanam properties of the value of Rs. 20,000 for the establishment of a public watershed and a public choultry for feeding people and appointed her brother Nalam Subrarnanyam as an executor and a trustee for carrying out her directions contained in the will. On the allegation that Nalam Subramaniam had failed to carry out the directions in his sister's will after her death, a suit O.S. No. 8 of 1932 under Section 92, Civil P.C., was instituted in the Court of the District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmundry for Nalam Subramaniam's removal from the trusteeship and for a settlement of a scheme. Nalam Subranianiam died before filing a written statement and his son and widow wer...
Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs. Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad646
1. The appellant company carries on business at Nagarcoil in the State of Travancore and at Bombay. The Nagarcoil office had a current account with the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Limited, which suspended business on 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 14th June 1938, the company instructed the Bombay branch of the Bank to colleot Rs. 5000, the amount of a cheque drawn in its favour on the Indian Bank at Bombay and to remit the proceeds to the Nagarcoil 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 of the cheque the next day, but did not carry...
Vakacherla Venkatasubbamma and anr. Vs. Gobbooru Subbiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad716
Abdur Rahman, J.1. A suit for specific performance of a contract to sell certain immovable properties exceeding Rs. 100 in value was instituted by the plaintiff. It was dismissed by the District Munsif of Nandalur on the ground that the document (Ex. A) on the basis of which it was brought was not an agreement to sell on which a suit for specific performance could be founded but a sale deed that was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. On appeal, the learned District Judge of Cuddapah did not accept this view. Having regard to the specific recitals in the document, he found it to be an agreement to sell and in the absence of any express words of conveyance he declined to hold it to be a sale deed. The plaintiff's suit was accordingly decreed. The defendant has preferred this second appeal. Since a great deal would depend upon the terms of the letter Ex. A, it may be reproduced in extenso:To Dated 25th April 1938Raja Sree Gubboru Subbayya Garu, son of Seshayya Garu. Afterw...
Dandamudi Narasayya and anr. Vs. Movva Subbayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad728; (1942)2MLJ266
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is one of limitation and we consider that it has been rightly decided by Abdur Rahman, J., from whose judgment this appeal has been preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The suit was filed by the respondents for a declaration of title to certain immovable property in the Kistna District and a decree for possession and mesne profits. On the 4th May, 1915, the first appellant gave the property in suit to the first respondent who is his brother-in-law under a registered deed. Thereupon the first respondent and his brother, the second respondent, went into possession and remained in possession until the 16th July 1918, when the appellants entered upon the property. On the 9th February, 1930, the respondents asserted their title and dispossessed the appellants who within six months brought a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. As they established their possession within six months of the suit, a dec...
Natesa Mudaliar Vs. M.T. Rajamanicka Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad729; (1942)2MLJ424
Wadsworth, J.1. The main contention in this appeal relates to a payment of Rs. 450 made by the 7th defendant pending the suit. In the decree which is dated 3rd October, 1936, this sum of Rs. 450 is appropriated to the amount of interest due on the mortgage. No objection appears to have been taken to this appropriation and when the appeal was filed before the lower Court, it was not contended that this appropriation was wrong. The lower appellate Court's decree is, dated 29th August, 1940. It is now contended that it is open to the defendants to urge that this sum, of Rs. 450 should be appropriated towards principal. I cannot accept this contention. The reopening of a decree under Section 19 of Act IV of 1938 is for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Act to that decree. There is no provision in the Act which permits the re-appropriation of payments made before 1st October, 1937, except only the proviso to Section 19 which deals with payments made under the decree. Although in...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›