Chennai Court July 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.
The Province of Madras Represented by the Collector of Chittoor Vs. Pa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad717; (1943)2MLJ199
Byers, J.1. These two appeals for which a common judgment will suffice, arise out of two suits instituted by the Government under Section 14 of the Madras Railway Protection Act to recover the cost of protective works executed by the Government on the landholder's default under Section 5 of the Act. The preliminary proceedings under the Act were commenced in the year 1928 and the local Government issued an order under Section 9 of the Act in September, 1931, which was served on the first defendant a month later. He made several applications for time and eventually the protective works were carried out by the Executive Engineer and notice under Section 10 was served on the first defendant on the 2nd March, 1937. By that time, however, the first defendant had no further interest in the two tanks, because his property had been sold in Court auction and purchased by the second defendant on the 8th August, 1934.2. In pursuance of this purchase possession was taken by him on the 6th February...
D.A. Rathnaswamy Pillai Vs. Rajaratnam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad50; (1942)2MLJ381
ORDERHorwill, J.1. A number of illegal and improper orders have been passed as a result of the proceedings arising out of a petition filed by the respondent requesting the Sub-Magistrate, Trichinopoly, to make a complaint under Section 211, Indian Penal Code.2. The Sub-Magistrate considered the petition and preferred a complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trichinopoly. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trichinopoly, instead of taking the . case on file, as he was bound to do under Section 476 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, said that he was not satisfied with the proceedings of the Sub-Magistrate and ordered him to make some further inquiries. About the same time, the respondent took the matter in appeal under Section 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code, to the District Magistrate. Instead of disposing of the matter himself, as he should have done, the District Magistrate sent it to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the very officer to whom the complaint had been made. The Sub-Divis...
Nori Ramasastrulu Vs. Teluguntla Balakrishna Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad682; (1942)2MLJ457
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal raises the important question whether the right of a manager of a joint Hindu family to sell family assets to discharge debts which are payable out of the joint estate devolves on the Official Receiver when the manager has been adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act.2. Two brothers, Ayodhyaramayya and Raghava Rao, were joint in estate. Raghava Rao died in 1923, leaving a son who is the 2nd defendant. After Raghava Rao's death Ayodhyaramayya and his nephew continued to be undivided. On the 24th November, 1927, Ayodhyaramayya was adjudicated an insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act, On the 12th March, 1931, in order to discharge debts binding on the family the Official Receiver sold to one Saravayya certain family properties, which included the properties in suit. The properties were subject to mortgages and the sale to Saravayya, was, of course, subject to the rights of the mortgagees. The plainti...
Mukku Venkataramayya Vs. Mukku Tatayya Alias Vasudevudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad538; (1943)2MLJ83
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for a declaration of his exclusive title to the properties set out in three schedules attached to the plaint and for possession thereof. The first respondent, his younger brother disputes the claim, and contends that they are the joint pro perties of both the brothers. Respondents 2 to 9 are said to be the adherents of the first respondent who have combined together for the purpose of keeping out the appellant from the enjoyment of the properties.2. The real fight however is between the two brothers, the appellant and the first respondent. Their father was one China Buchayya who had married two wives. By his first wife who died some time in 1893 he had three sons Venkataramayya (the appellant), Nagayya (now deceased) and Tatayya alias Vasudevudu, the first respondent. By his second wife whom he married soon after his first wife's death he had three daughters. As usually happens in such cases, diffe...
Pappammal Vs. Ramaswami Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad726; (1942)2MLJ498
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a pledged jewel and claimed to be entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act IV of 1938 by virtue of the possession of a leasehold interest in agricultural land. The trial Court came to the conclusion that she had not established the truth of the lease. The lower appellate Court, assuming but not deciding that the lease did exist for the period from 1st March, 1937 to 22nd March, 1938, held that at the date of the suit the appellant had no interest in agricultural lands sufficient to satisfy the definition of an agriculturist and that she was therefore not entitled to relief. The suit was filed in 1939.2. It is contended in second appeal that the question whether the appellant was or was not an agriculturist at the time of the suit is immaterial having regard to the wording of Section 7 which prescribes that all debts payable by an agriculturist at the commencement of the Act shall be sca...
J.A. Subba Rao Vs. Vommena Seshayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad7; (1942)2MLJ551
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the mortgagor under a mortgage of 1924, whereby he borrowed Rs. 11,000. He filed an application before the learned District Judge of Nellore under the rules framed under G.O. No. 2634, Development, dated 27th October, 1939, praying for a declaration of the amount of the debt having regard to the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938. His application contained two main averments. One was that on applying the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938, nothing would be found due to the creditor and the other was a plea that having regard to the nature of the payments relied upon to save limitation, the debt was time barred. The learned District Judge declined to go into the question of the amount of the debt unless the petitioner withdrew the averment that the debt was barred by limitation. The learned Judge states:As I read Rule 2, it is only a person who admits that a debt is due from him who can apply for a declaration of the amount of the debt due by him. He...
In Re: Siddappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad738; (1942)2MLJ616
Byers, J.1. The facts leading to these revision petitions are that the defendant in Small Cause Suit No. 299 of 1941 on the file of the District Munsiff of Dharmapuri filed an application under Section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act in respect of a mortgage debt due to the plaintiff. In due course the plaintiff was called upon to file a statement of his claims under Section 10 (1) of the Act. This he failed to do in spite of notices served upon him and finally the debt was deemed to be discharged under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit on a promissory note and the defendant's answer was that all debts due to the creditor had been wiped out under Section 10 (2) of the Act. The learned District Munsiff accepted this plea and dismissed the suit.2. The point which has been raised in , revision is that Section 10 (2) of the Act applies only to debts which have been shown by the debtor in his application under Section 4. This is not what the...
Vishnubhotla Ramayya Vs. Sajja Namayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad165; (1942)2MLJ607
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These appeals have been heard together. The facts are the same in each case and they both raise the same question of law, namely, whether Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies in the circumstances. Happell, J., who heard the second appeals out of which these appeals arise was of the opinion that it did not. Being appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent we are only concerned with the legal question.2. In 1927 one Chalasani Anjaneyalu filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulinatam against two defendants, named Lakshminarayana and Chalasani Ramayya respectively. The plaintiff failed to establish his case and consequently his suit was dismissed with costs, each defendant being given one set. On the 16th April, 1930, Lakshminarayana transferred his decree for costs to the appellant. Chalasani Ramayya filed E.P. No. 42 of 1932 to enforce payment of the costs decreed to him and in these proceedings attached on the 22...
Nallaiya Goundan Vs. Marappa Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: (1942)2MLJ626
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the order of discharge obtained by the respondent in the proceedings in insolvency in which he was adjudged an insolvent discharged him from the liability in respect of which he has been sued in the suit from which this appeal arises. 2. The appellant and the respondent and another executed a promissory note for Rs. 600 to a bank. The bank obtained a decree and a portion of the debt was recovered. The respondent was later adjudged an insolvent and he subsequently obtained an order of discharge. The bank assigned the decree to a third person to whom the appellant had to pay money. This was after the order of discharge was passed. It is not disputed that so far as the amount paid by the appellant is concerned it is an amount payable by the respondent and therefore recoverable by the appellant as money paid by him as surety for the respondent.3. The respondent's contention was that this liability which wa...
Chinnaturai Muthiriyan Alias Neelamega Muthiriyan Vs. the Official Rec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad252; (1943)1MLJ125
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly under Sections 4 and 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act made in 1938 to set aside a settlement deed executed by the insolvent in favour of his minor sons in the year 1927. The deed has been set aside by the Courts below, the finding being that no title was ever intended to pass from the father to the sons.2. It is argued in appeal that the decision of the Courts below is wrong because the interval between the execution of the settlement deed in .1927 and the adjudication of the father as an insolvent in 1936 was nine years and that Section 53 permits only two years' interval; and that even if Section 53 is not exhaustive and Section 4 applies, a suit by the Official Receiver or any of the creditors under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act would have been dismissed as barred by limitation. It is impossible that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »