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.
K. Subramania Chettiar Vs. Visalakshi Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad109
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant before Court is the defendant. The appeal arises out of a suit for redemption. The properties in dispute were mortgaged on 1st May 1930 by one Srikanta Ayyar in favour of the appellant for Rs. 800. Under the terms of the document the property was to be enjoyed by the mortgagee in lieu of interest. The mortgage amount was payable in three years and in default of payment at the end of three years interest at 12 per cent, per annum was payable in addition. The property was leased subsequent to the mortgage by the mortgagee to the mortgagor and another. That was in 1930 itself. The rent was in arrears and a suit had to be filed in 1936 and decree obtained on 25th March 1937. In the meanwhile on 30th May 1935 the mortgagor Srikanta Ayyar sold the property to one Subramania Ayyar for Rs. 1000 and directed him to redeem the mortgage by payment of Rs. 800. Two years later subsequent to the passing of the decree for rent on 1st April 1937, Subramania Ayyar s...
T.P.R. Palania Pillai (Died) and ors. Vs. Amjath Ibrahim Rowther and a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad622; (1942)2MLJ321
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. One A. A. Mohamed Madar Rowther and his brother A. A. Mohamed Meeran Rowther held their properties in common. Mohamed Madar was married twice. His first wife predeceased him. By her he had a son and a daughter, who are the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively. His second wife is the 2nd plaintiff and by her he had a son, the 1st plaintiff. Mohamed Madar died on the 18th June, 1916. The date of the death of his brother Mohamed Meeran is not known, but it is known that he died before his elder brother. Mohamed Meeran was survived by his wife (the 5th defendant) and two sons (the 3rd and 4th defendants). The widow and the son of Mohamed Madar filed this suit for partition of the properties of the two brothers and for their shares in Mohamed Madar's properties. One of the questions in the suit was whether a usufructuary mortgage created by the 1st and 3rd defendants in favour of the 8th defendant was binding' on the plaintiffs. This mortgage was created on ...
Meesala Vijayaratnam Naidu and anr. Vs. Rao Bahadur Sripathi Sitapatir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-06-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad263; (1943)1MLJ90
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the decree in a mortgage suit. The appellants are the 3rd and 4th defendants. There is a petition on behalf of their father, the second defendant, praying that under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, he maybe granted the relief to which he is entitled on the grounds urged by the appellants. The mortgage Ex. J was executed on 19th June, 1930, by the first defendant and his mother and by defendants 2, 3 and 4. It bound properties of the first defendant and also properties standing in the names of defendants 2 to 4. The principal sum secured was Rs. 16,100 and the rate of interest was 13 1/2 per cent. compound. In the trial Court it was found that none of the defendants were agriculturists and this finding is not challenged so far as the first defendant is concerned. The lower Court held that defendants 2 to 4 were disentitled to relief under Act IV of 1938 by reason of proviso (D) to Section 3 (ii) of the Act, on the ground that the...
Vydialinga Swamigal Vs. Karuppanna Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad718; (1942)2MLJ355
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant had purchased same properties in execution of a decree and he filed a petition under Order 21, rule 95, Civil Procedure Code, for delivery of possession of the same. There were a number of items and all of them except one item S. No. 187-A of Punjai Lakkapuram village were delivered. With regard to this item delivery was not given as the purchaser apprehended that the defendant was likely to obstruct and he endorsed on the warrant that he would take possession later on with police help. This was recorded by the Court on 21st September, 1936 and the petition was dismissed. This petition out of which this second appeal arises was filed on 26th August, 1939 three years after the date of the confirmation of the sale. The petitioner (i.e., the present appellant) stated that this petition must be considered to be a continuation of the prior petition referred to above and that therefore it was in time. Both the Courts found against him and dismissed the pe...
Nanduri Sarangapani Vs. Yanduri Venkata Ratnam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad733; (1942)2MLJ421
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question in this revision petition is. whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. Admittedly he is a mokhasadar paying Rs. 150 per annum to the Zamindar of Talaprole under an ancient tenure, the origin of which is rather obscure. We know that a proposal to enfranchise the inam fell through at the time of the Inam, Commission, and that the lands continued to be held on a payment varying with the yield, of Rs. 4 per putti up to 1889, on which date there was an agreement between the Zamindar and the mokhasadar, that instead of this varying payment an annual sum of Rs. 600 should be paid 'towards the cist,' the mokhasadars pledging themselves to pay the meras and cesses. It is contended that this annual payment, of which the defendant's share is Rs. 150, cannot be described as quit-rent, jodi, poruppu or the like so as to disqualify the defendant under proviso D to Section 3(ii) of the Act from being an agriculturist. It seems to me appar...
In Re: Gunda Narasimham
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad744; (1942)2MLJ418
ORDERKrishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The matter relates to a question of court-fee. The plaintiff who is the appellant purchased the property in suit under a sale-deed in his favour, dated 26th June, 1936. The seller was the 1st defendant and he is the 1st respondent here; and the sale-deed was executed pursuant to a written agreement between the parties, dated 22nd June, 1936. On the next day namely 23rd June, 1936, the 1st defendant along with certain others entered into a similar written agreement with respondents 5 and 6 to sell the same land to them. This agreement also was followed by a regular sale-deed, dated 30th June, 1936. The appellant founding himself on the earlier agreement and the sale-deed in his favour instituted the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen for possession of the property sold to him and in the alternative for the recovery of the consideration money paid by him. He valued the suit at Rs. 955 made up of Rs. 925 representing the value of the property,...
Veerabahu Pillai (Deceased) and ors. Vs. Kavanna Seena Chittiram Pilla ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad81; (1942)2MLJ535
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal arises out of an application purporting to be filed under Order 23, rule 3, and Order 21, rule 2, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for recording an adjustment between the parties as per agreement, dated 15th January, 1935, and for passing an order in terms thereof.2. The appellant was the plaintiff in the suit in which this application was filed and had obtained a preliminary decree for the sale of the hypotheca. The 1st respondent (defendant) filed this application subsequent to the passing of the preliminary decree for recording adjustment. His case was that subsequent to the passing of the ex parte preliminary decree there was an agreement between the parties on 15th January, 1935, that Rs. 100 was to be paid then and Rs. 900 a few days later, that for Rs. 1,000 two items of properties were to be conveyed and possession given to the plaintiff and that the balance of Rs. 1,000 was to be paid in six m...
P. Sankara Rao, (Wrongly Described as D. Sankara Rao) Vs. Modepalli Ba ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad734; (1942)2MLJ520
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The 2nd defendant is the appellant. His father who was the 1st defendant in the suit had executed a mortgage in favour of the respondent for Rs. 4,000 on 28th February, 1930. He died pending the suit and before the preliminary decree was passed. The preliminary decree was passed on 9th February, 1934. It was followed by a final decree, dated 22nd September, 1936. The respondent then sought to execute the decree by filing E.P. No. 4 of 1940 on the file of the Court below. The appellant pleaded an agreement, dated 24th August, 1931, in bar of execution. The question is whether the agreement can be allowed to be pleaded so as to prevent the decree from being executed.2. The agreement recites that the adoptive father of the appellant (1st defendant) had become a gambler and had been utilising his properties for illegal purposes and consequently there was disagreement between the father and the son. It then states that for the purposes of safeguarding the propert...
Sundaresam Pillai Vs. Ramachandra Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad38(1); (1942)2MLJ572
Horwill, J.1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsiff of Negapatam was respeatedly unready. When the suit was called for hearing on 31st July, 1940, his vakil reported no instructions. The District Munsiff gave the plaintiff a further day to enable him to proceed with the suit. The evidence indicates that the plaintiff was busy until 12-30 the following day in trying to raise money. As he failed to do so, he went home and made no attempt to reach the Court. His suit was consequently dismissed. He put in an application under Order 9, Rule 9 to have the decree set aside, alleging that he had been taken ill and was unconscious for two days. The District Munsiff rightly rejected that plea and dismissed the application. In appeal, the District Judge argued that as it was of no use for the plaintiff to come to Court without money or witnesses, he was quite justified in staying away and that his not having either money or witnesses was a sufficient cause for hi...
Thotapalli Dharmayya Vs. Nelabarla Yanadi Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1942Mad731; (1942)2MLJ585
Wadsworth, J.1. The petitioner was the judgment-debtor under a decree in a suit of 1935. On 17th March, 1938, his property was sold in execution of the decree. He took no action in the matter of the sale until after Madras Act IV of 1938 came into force when on 28th April, 1938 (not 1939 as the trial Court wrongly states) he filed an application under Section 23 of that Act and got the sale set aside. Both the Courts below, misled by the error of date in the trial Court's judgment, have assumed that this application under Section 23 was preceded by an application for stay under Section 20. That is not the case. In the Memorandum of Appeal to the appellate Court this error was clearly pointed out, but it does not appear to have been impressed upon the learned Judge at the time of the arguments.2. After the appellant had got the sale set aside in April, 1938, he took no action at all until the decree-holder, a year later, once more brought the property to sale. Then on the 25th April, 19...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »