Chennai Court June 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.
K.S. Nageswara Aiyar Vs. S. Ganesa Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad675; (1942)2MLJ198
Krishnaswumi Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an interpleader suit instituted by one S. Ramaswami Aiyar who has since been discharged from the suit by the judgment under appeal. This Ramaswami Aiyar purchased the joint family properties belonging to the respondent Ganesa Aiyar and his father Swaminatha Aiyar under a sale deed, dated 17th April, 1920, for a consideration of Rs. 23,000. Ramaswami Aiyar agreed to discharge the debts of the family to the extent of Rs. 18,000. He was allowed to retain the balance of the consideration, namely, Rs. 5,000 in view of the fact that the respondent was at the time a minor. The arrangement was that the money should be paid to the father on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 7,500 within one year but if he failed to do so, the money could only be claimed after the minor attained majority and executed a release deed in favour of the purchaser. This sum of Rs. 5,000 remaining in the hands of the purchaser as the unpaid balance of the pu...
Kuppuswami Naidu Vs. Varadappa Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad11; (1942)2MLJ345
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. All that can be said for the petitioner at best is that the order of the lower Court is wrong. But this by itself will not justify interference in revision under Section 115 of the Code. It was not a case of unintentional or accidental omission of assets, The Judge finds that it was a fraudulent suppression. The argument that, even if the particular asset that has now come to light had been disclosed, it would not affect the question of the alleged pauperism of the applicant does not take stock of the fact that the utmost bona fides is required of the petitioner in the matter of the disclosure of his or her assets and that any intentional departure from good faith, whatever the motive might be, must attract the consequence of a dismissal of the petition, because under Order 33, Rule 2 read with Order 33, Rule 5 (a) it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to make a full and accurate verified statement about his properties. Mt. Chamela Kuar v. Pursottam Das : ...
In Re: K. Chinnavadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ575
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Four persons were charged with committing theft of property from the house of the complainant. The defence of the accused was that they had committed no theft; that the property had been foisted on them, and that panchayatdars were brought to see the property recovered from them. The Magistrate accepted this defence and doubted whether theft had been committed. He therefore acquitted the accused and ordered the property to be returned to them, although the accused by their own defence asserted that the property did not belong to them. The District Magistrate considered that this order was wrong and referred the matter to this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. I agree with the learned District Magistrate that the property should not have been ordered to be returned to the accused because clearly the property did not belong to the accused. The prosecution alleged that the property belonged to the complainant, whereas the accused had no sugges...
Natesa Nilangiriyar Vs. V. Raju Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad322; (1943)1MLJ225
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The only questions that fall to be determined in this second appeal are,(a) whether the attachment before judgment of the lands situate at Chidambaram can be held to be an attachment in execution of the decree, although no application was made for their sale but only for the sale of other lands situate at Guddalore which were also attached before judgment by the same order?(b) Did the attachment before judgment cease to exist in respect of Chidambaram properties when the application in execution was dismissed in regard to those situate at Cuddalore?2. The two questions separately formulated for the sake of clearness depend for their answer on the first one. If the answer to that question happens to be in the affirmative, the answer to the second one would also be the same. But if the answer to the first question is in the negative, the reply to the second would have to be similar and this appeal will have to be, in that case, rejected.3. The facts which lead up to th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›