Chennai Court August 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.
Chittoori Venkataraju and ors. Vs. Chekka Suryanarayana Receiver to th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad248; (1942)2MLJ791
Happell, J.1. The appellants in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal obtained a decree in O.S. No. 58 of 1933 and in execution of that decree attached two items of movable properties. In respect of these properties, the receiver to the estate of Pydah Venkatachalapathi filed two claim petitions, E.A. Nos. 945 and 1152 of 1933. Both these petitions were dismissed with costs on the 5th March, 1934, and the receiver who is the respondent in this appeal paid their costs to the appellants. He, however, filed suits under Order 21, rule 63 of the Civil Procedure Code, O.S. Nos. 150 and 149 of 1934, to have the orders on the claim petitions set aside. These suits were decreed in his favour and appeals by the present appellants failed. The decrees in the suits which were confirmed by the appellate Court set aside the orders on the claim petitions and gave the respondent the declaration of title for which he prayed and the costs of the suits. No mention, however, was made in the decrees of the costs ...
Pazhaniappa Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Narayana Aiyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad157; (1942)2MLJ753
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) who were carrying on business as bankers, for recovery of the balance due to them on account of dealings had with the appellants. The dealings are said to have commenced in or about 1903 and though there were payments by the appellants from time to time, it would appear that their account was largely overdrawn during most of the period. The main contention of the appellants in the Court below--and their sole contention before us--was that they were 'agriculturists' within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, and as such were entitled to the benefits thereof, and that if the debt due to the respondents was scaled down in accordance with the provisions of that Act, practically nothing would be found payable in respect of the debt. It is not disputed that the appellants are agriculturists as that term is defined in the Act, but their...
Kadali Mangamma and Anr. Vs. E.P.R. Chettiar Firm, by Its agent's powe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad276; (1943)1MLJ36
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Several questions of law arise in this appeal but in order to understand them the facts must be examined in detail. On the 10th of April, 1909, Narasayya Chetti, the father of the first appellant, died. He left a will which he had executed four days before and by it he bequeathed to his daughter some 19 acres of agricultural land in the East Godavari District. The land was mortgaged and there was then due to the mortgagee Rs. 15,800., The testator appointed his brother Subbarayadu, his nephew Yerrappa and his grandson Satyanarayana as his executors. The will did not expressly state that they were to be his executors, but there can be no doubt from the wording of the document that this was his intention. Subbarayadu applied to the Chief Court of Lower Burma for a grant of letters of administration with the will annexed, the testator having left considerable property in Burma. Subbarayadu claimed to be entitled to the grant as an executor and Yerrappa as...
Mammu Kurukkal Vs. C. Kunhimoideen Kutti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-26-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad690; (1943)2MLJ313
Wadsworth, J.1. This civil revision petition raises a question under Section 15 of the Madras Agriculturists'Relief Act (IV of 1938). One Viriya Kutti Umma, a Mopla woman, was given a life interest in the kanom rights in land under a partition arrangement. She assigned her interest to one Moidin Kutti on 5th January, 1926. A week later Moidin Kutti leased the property orally to the present respondent, who is the eldest son of the life tenant Viriya Kutti Umma. In 1928 the kanom right assigned by Viriya Kutti Umma was transferred to the present petitioner and he filed a suit, O.S. No. 437 of 1928, against the present respondent for possession and arrears of rent. That suit was still pending in 1932 when the life tenant Viriya Kutti Umma died and her death, of course, put an end to the petitioner's title in the land. The Court which tried O.S. No. 437 of 1928 accordingly gave him a decree only for arrears of rent up to the date of the plaint and directed him to file a fresh suit for the ...
V.S. Ramanuja Chariar Vs. VeenA. AvannA. ManA. Vatapathra Sayee Thatha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad172; (1942)2MLJ698
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit under paragraph 20 of Schedule II, Civil Procedure Code, to enforce an award in a matter referred to arbitration without the intervention of the Court. The plaintiff is the younger brother of the defendant and it was his case that the division of their joint family properties was by consent of parties referred to the arbitration of their brother-in-law, P.W. 4, who passed an award on 21st November, 1934, which award the defendant had wrongfully refused to accept. The defendant raised many contentions, most of which have been held to be unfounded in fact. He denied the truth of the reference to arbitration, setting up another reference of a completely different character, denied the existence of a joint family at the time when the reference was made and made various allegations suggesting partiality on the part of the arbitrator. The trial Court has found that the muchilika Ex. A, which contains the reference to arbitration is tr...
Muthukaruppa Ethandar and ors. Vs. Appavoo Nadar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad161
Leach, C.J.1. The case for the appellants is completely devoid of merit, but questions of law have been raised and it is necessary to consider them. The appellants and respondent 4 are the managers of the communal lands of the village of Natarajapuram (also known by the name of Ethandarpatti) in the Trichinopoly Taluq. They sued in the Court of the District Munsif of Trichinopoly for a declaration that the deoree obtained in Order Section No. 82 of 1929 was not binding upon them or upon the other ryots of this village. In that suit defendants 1 to 4, as the representatives of the village of Arasankudi, sued four ryots of the village of Natarajapuram, as the representatives of that village, to recover a sum of Rs. 1667-4-0 which they claimed was due to the villagers of Arasankudi by the villagers of Natarajapuram in respect of the construction of a road connecting the two villages with the main road. Both the villages had asked the Taluk Board authorities to construct the road and promi...
Moorayil Achutha Kurup Vs. Kandath Veluthedeth Govindan Nayar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad220; (1942)2MLJ775
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant filed a suit for possession and rent on the basis of a lease deed which is contemporaneous with a contract of possessory mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. The lease was to the mortgagor and it is common ground that the terms of the mortgage were such that the rent due on it was secured by the contract of mortgage. The lease provided for rent at Rs. 24 per annum and it was executed on 2nd February, 1896. The claim was for arrears of rent for 19 years and though the contract provides for interest on arrears at 24 per cent., the amount of interest claimed in the plaint works out to a little over 12 per cent. The suit was decreed in full by the trial Court. There was an appeal by the fourth defendant who claims under a subsequent demise from the original lessee-mortgagor and in that appeal no ground was taken regarding the rate of interest for arrears of rent, though the fourth defendant had pleaded in his written statement that the rat...
Murikipudi Satyanarayanacharlu Vs. Madanamchedu Narasamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad708; (1943)2MLJ282
Horwill, J.1. The respondent executed a promissory note in favour of the father of the petitioner; and the petitioner, as the son of the payee, brought this suit on it. The defence was that under the Hindu Woman's Rights to Property Act of 1937, the widow became entitled to a half share of the property and that the plaintiff was not therefore entitled to bring the suit without impleading his mother. The District Munsiff of Narasaraopet accepted this argument and passed a decree for half the amount, the plaintiff's share in the debt.2. The learned District Munsiff does not set forth clearly what he considers to be the effect of the Hindu Woman's Rights to Property Act, but he seems to think that after the payee's death the debt vested in two people who became co-promisees and that therefore the plaintiff was only entitled to one half of the debt. But if the plaintiff and his mother were co-heirs, then the suit should have been dismissed entirely.; for a suit by one co-heir without imple...
Visalakshi Ammal Vs. Pl. Sp. Nk. Nagappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad509
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the dancing girl community and the respondent a Nattukottai Chetti. They apparently went through some form of marriage, and as the respondent afterwards abandoned and neglected the petitioner, she was obliged to file a petition under Section 488, Criminal P.C., before the Divisional Magistrate of Devakottah for maintenance for herself and for the son of the union. The Magistrate dismissed the application as far as the petitioner was concerned on the ground that though she had been married to the respondent she had not proved that she had remained chaste from the date when the respondent had abandoned her. He found that the son of the petitioner was also the son of the respondent and awarded him a maintenance of Rs. 25 a month. The petitioner has filed this revision petition on the ground that the Magistrate dismissed the application as regards herself for very improper reasons and that in view of the fact that the respondent was a very w...
M.V. Mahalinga Aiyar Vs. the Union Bank, Limited
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Mad216; (1942)2MLJ532
King, J.1. This suit was brought in 1938 by the Union Bank, Limited, Kumbakonam, against a number of defendants of whom the case of the 1st defendant only need now be considered. It was based upon a promissory note signed by one V. E. Srinivasan on the 21st August, 1935, and signed also by the 1st defendant V. M. Mahalinga Aiyar. That promissory note is for Rs. 8,500 and both the executants bind themselves jointly and severally to pay the bank that sum with interest. The figure Rs. 8,500 is found at the top left hand corner of the promissory note and above it are the words in English, the whole of the promissory note being also in English, 'security for overdraft'. It is the case of the bank that at that time V. R. Srinivasan who was the managing director of the bank had an overdraft account. It was necessary for all persons having overdraft accounts to have a coobligant. The previous coobligant, Swaminatha Aiyar, had virtually become insolvent, and it was therefore necessary for V. R....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »