Chennai Court January 1943 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.
V. Rangaswami Aiyangar Vs. Ammayee Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad490; (1943)1MLJ316
Happell, J. 1. The question in this revision petition relates to the court-fee payable on a suit brought by the respondent against the petitioner and so to the question of the Court by which the suit should be tried. The respondent held a usufructuary mortgage in respect of certain property and the suit Was substantially for a declaration that the usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of the petitioner was a sham and nominal transaction and for an injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the payment of rents by the tenants to the respondent. The suit was in the first instance presented in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore; but it was ultimately returned under an order made by the Subordinate Judge, on the ground that the value of the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction was Rs. 3,000, for presentation in the Court of the District Munsiff. The plaint was then presented in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ranipet; and the petitioner there raised a prelimi...
N.K. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. Alamelu Achi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad342; (1943)1MLJ230
ORDERByers, J.1. The petitioner in Miscellaneous Case No. 27 of 1942 on the file of the Joint Magistrate of Devakottai obtained an order against her husband under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 per mensem. Her husband has come up in revision for the reduction of the amount to the figure offered by him, and the wife has applied for the enhancement of the amount awarded. In arguing the husband's petition Mr. K. S. Jayarama Aiyar has dwelt at some length on the failure of the learned Magistrate to find on the question of neglect or refusal to maintain the wife but it is clear from the order of the lower Court that the petitioner was willing to pay maintenance provided it was fixed at not more than Rs. 250 per annum. When he was asked by the learned Magistrate what he had to say in answer to his wife's claim, he denied the allegations of cruelty and concluded with these words, ' as agreed to previously by me, I am willing to pay maint...
Chunduru Ramachandrayya Vs. Chunduru Nageswara Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad126; (1943)2MLJ21
Somayya, J.1. The decree-holder appeals against the order of the District Judge of Kistna which upheld the order of the District Munsiff of Masulipatam in E.A. No. 1470 of 1938 in O.S. No. 211 of 1933. E.A. No. 1470 of 1938, was filed by some of the defendants in the action asking that their shares in the property sought to be proceeded against in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 211 of 1933 should be exonerated. This petition was allowed by the trial Court and that order was?', upheld on appeal. The suit (O.S. No. 211 of 1933) was filed by the appellant for recovery of a sum of money. The first defendant was the father and the other, defendants were the sons. The suit itself was upon a promissory note dated 9th April, 1930, executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff's transferor; one Chanduru Venkataratnam. An application under Order 38, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, was also filed seeking attachment before judgment of certain properties belonging to the family of t...
Kamjula Subbarama Reddi and anr. Vs. Mangamuri Subba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad332
Leach, C.J.1. The broad question in this appeal is whether the judgment of the Privy Council in Venkatapayya v. Venkata Ranga Rao A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 24 has stated a rule different from that stated in Amba v. Sbrinivasa Kamathi A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 135 with regard to the presentation of documents for registration under the Registration Act, 1908. Before discussing these judgments and the judgments in the other cases quoted in the course of the arguments, we will state the relevant facts. One Rami Reddi died on 12th December 1913. He was survived by his widow, Subbamma, who was then a minor. By a will executed on the day before his death, Rami Reddi bequeathed to her two-thirds of his estate and one-third to his sister's son who is defendant 4 in this suit. The will was registered on 20th January 1914 having been presented for registration by Venkatasubba Reddi, the father of Subbamma. Subbamma died in the year 1934, leaving a will dated 20th June 1934. By this will she left to her brothers (d...
Vysaraju Appala Narasimha Raju Vs. Brundavanasahu (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad617; (1943)2MLJ31
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The question that we have been. invited to decide in these revisions is one of jurisdiction. These revisions came up for decision once before and Pandrang Row, J., and one of us then took the view following another case decided by the same Bench (for which see Jami Venkatappudu v. Kannapalii Ramamurthi : AIR1940Mad131 that the Subordinate Judge's Court at Berhampore would continue to have, even after the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936, had come into force, jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the applications made by the judgment-debtor under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938). This conclusion was arrived at as the proceedings on these applications were then regarded, on account of the words ' or enter satisfaction ' contained in Section 19 of that Act, to relate to ' discharge or satisfaction of the decree' used in Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. In that view the revision petitions were accepted on the 12th August, 194...
Sadhu Suryanarayana Vs. Sadhu Lakshmi Sundaramma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad416; (1943)1MLJ179
ORDERByers, J.1. In defence to an application for the enforcement of an order of maintenance against him in respect of his wife and his three daughters, the petitioner pleaded that the eldest of the three daughters had been married and he objected to paying any maintenance for her subsequent to the date of her marriage. The learned Magistrate held that the petitioner's only remedy was to file an application under Section 489 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to get the order varied in his favour. As he had failed to do so, the learned Magistrate declined to consider the question and ordered maintenance to be paid in accordance with the terms of the pre-existing order.2. It was decided by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shah Abu Ilyas v. Ulfat Bibi I.L.R.(1806) All. 50 that the '' change in circumstances ' referred to in Section 489 of the Code is a change in the pecuniary or other circumstances of the party paying or receiving the allowance which would justify an increase ...
Grandhi Venkata Subbarattamma Vs. Grandhi Krishniah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad417; (1943)1MLJ235
King, J.1. This petition arises out of an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bapatla passed in O.S. No. 6 of 1940. The suit was filed for partition by the widow of the brother of the first defendant basing her rights to partition upon the newly enacted Act XVIII of 1937. Before the suit came on for hearing, the Federal Court had decided in a case before them in 1941 that Act XVIII of 1937 was ultra vires of the Central Legislature in so far as it referred to agricultural land. The property of which the plaintiff sought partition consisted partly of agricultural land and partly of other property. When the decision of the Federal Court became known, she accordingly applied for permission to amend her plaint and claimed partition of such property as Act XVIII of 1937 was still effective to deal with, and maintenance in addition to that partition. This amendment was at first allowed, but the question whether this double remedy should be given was made the subject of an additional is...
Veerabhadra Naicker Vs. Gangamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad352; (1943)1MLJ178
Somayya, J.1. This is an appeal by the employer against the award of compensation to a relation of a deceased workman who met with his death, while returning from the harbour, the place where he was working. The deceased workman was employed for the purpose of bunkering coal in wharf No. 3. There were two routes which were usually taken by the workmen while getting out of the harbour, one marked F and the other marked G in the sketch Ex. I. In this case the deceased wanted to go along the passage G and in order to get to that passage from the place where he was actually working, one has to go near the point marked E in the sketch. While the deceased was near that point, some rice bags fell from a crane. It appears that certain rice bags were being unloaded from a ship by a crane and that the rice bags fell upon the deceased and he was crushed to death. The question is whether this accident occurred to the workman by accident 'arising out of and in the course of his employment.' On the ...
K. Ramabrahmam Vs. the Traffic Manager
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad353; (1943)1MLJ260
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. These two appeals can be conveniently dealt with in one judgment. They arise out of proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On the night of the 21st October, 1940, two workmen named Thandrangi Sanyasi and Kotina Simhachalam respectively were killed within the premises of the Vizagapatam harbour. They were coolies who were employed by the appellant, a contractor of the Port authorities. The Traffic Manager of the Port deposited with the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation the sum of Rs. 1,100 as the amount payable to the dependents of the deceased workmen under the Act. The appellant had given an indemnity to the Port authorities and consequently the traffic manager applied under Section 12 (2) for an order of indemnification. The Commissioner held that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and therefore the Port authorities were entitled to be indemnified by the appellant. The appeal is from that order. It is common g...
Birakayala Siva Rao Vs. Birakayala Ramajoga Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad547; (1943)1MLJ427
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant to recover the suit properties on the ground that he is the reversioner to the estate of one Siva Rao, to whom they originally belonged. Siva Rao died in 1879 and was succeeded by his adoptive mother Syamalamba who died on 8th July, 1927. The suit was instituted on 26th June, 1939. There were six defendants in the suit and they raised various defences which are all reflected in the issues' framed by the District Judge. Out of these, the first part of issue 4 and the whole of issue 7 were taken up for consideration as preliminary issues. The learned District Judge found these issues in favour of the defendants and accordingly dismissed the suit.2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant, it is necessary to state a few facts. On the 7th March, 1933, the appellant filed a petition under Order 33, Rules 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to institute a suit for the same re...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »