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.
Ramaswami Naidu Vs. Chinnaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad419; (1943)1MLJ233
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15. of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Happell, J. The learned Judge has dealt with the facts and the law in detail and we are in full agreement with his decision.2. The appellant instituted a suit on a promissory note in the Panchayat Court of Kadayampatti. The suit was dismissed because the parties did not appear. After the dismissal of the suit the defendant filed a petition in the Court of the District Munsiff of Sankari asking that a complaint should be made by the District Munsiff to a Criminal Court on the. ground that the endorsements on the promissory note were forgeries. The District Munsiff held that he had no jurisdiction to grant the petition and consequently dismissed it. The defendant then appealed to the District Court and in addition filed a petition asking the District Court itself to make the complaint. The District Judge dismissed both the appeal and the petition. He was right in dismissing the a...
Rukmani Achi and anr. Vs. Sampoornathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad585; (1943)1MLJ286
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The appellants are the second and third defendants in the suit which has given rise to this appeal. The suit was filed in forma pauperis and was unsuccessful. The appellants did not appear, but the order for the payment of Court-fee was made against them as well because their interests were the same as those of the plaintiff. This decision was upheld by the Subordinate Judge and Venkataramana Rao, J., in second appeal. This appeal is against the learned Judge's judgment under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The cases referred to by the learned Judge can no longer be regarded as having application here. Order 33, Rule 11 has been amended since the decision in Neelamma v. Mareppa (1935) 70 M.L.J. 128 the latest of the decisions referred to in the judgment under appeal. The rule as it now stands directs that where the plaintiff in a pauper suit fails, the Court shall direct him to pay the Court-fee. The rule provides for one exception, namely, the case o...
Kuppuswami Goundan Vs. Mari Goundan Alias Mariappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad427; (1943)1MLJ249
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only question for consideration is whether the suit (O.S. No. 146 of 1940) on the file of the District Munsiff's Court of Dharapuram is not cognizable by that Court by reason of the fact that the value of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of that Court. It was a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff against his two brothers. The plaintiff, first defendant and the second defendant are the sons of the third defendant. In 1922, the father became divided from the sons and he left the family. The first defendant (the eldest brother) managed the affairs of the joint family and in 1938 a partition was effected between the plaintiff, the first defendant and the second defendant. The plaintiff who was a minor then was represented by his father. The plaintiff filed this suit for partition of the family properties and possession to him of his one-third share ignoring the partition of 1938 as null and void on the ground that the first defendant was allotte...
Yella Venkatasubbayya and anr. Vs. Yella Venkataramayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad349; (1943)1MLJ257
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises was the first respondent, who is the son of the second respondent. The first respondent sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Guntur for partition of the family properties and in effect for a declaration that he was not bound by certain alienations made by his father. The plaintiff's father and mother were converted to Christianity on the 2nd December, 1917. Up to then the father and son constituted a joint Hindu family. At the time of the conversion the first respondent was only three years of age. The evidence shows that the father continued to regard himself as being joint with his son. He lived as a Hindu and he married his son and three of his daughters to Hindus, the marriage ceremonies being performed according to Hindu rites. In 1928, he was re-converted to Hinduism. The son did not attain his majority till the 1st July, 1932. On the 10th March, 1930, the second respondent create...
Kuppuswami Goundan Vs. Devakottah Lakshmanan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad552; (1943)1MLJ285
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The appellant is the undivided son of one Ponnambala Goundan. On the 23rd March, 1925, the father and another person executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent for the sum of Rs. 855. On the 18th March, 1928, they made a payment towards the amount due on the promissory note. The fact of payment was indorsed upon the instrument and the indorsement was signed by the makers. On the 12th April, 1928, the father applied to be adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act and the order of adjudication was passed on the 5th September of that year. The adjudication was annulled on the 25th August, 1934, whereupon the respondent instituted a suit against the father and son to recover the amount due to him. The father was sued on the instrument and the appellant on the debt by reason of the pious obligation rule. The appellant pleaded that the suit was barred by the law of limitation so far as he was concerned. The D...
Pulloor Kuttikat Manakkal Vasudevan Nambudiri's son, Karnavari and Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1943
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ419
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application made under the rules framed under Madras Act IV of 1938 to fix the amount payable in respect of a mortgage document. The appellant here is the creditor. The mortgage in question is one of September, 1917, and its terms were embodied both in a mortgage document and in a counter-part executed by the mortgagee which is Ex. B. The argument has proceeded on the basis of the recitals in Ex. B. The document is very long and involved but the essential recitals are as follows:And it is further agreed that I should pay 230 paras of paddy therefor valued at Rs. 143-12-0 and Rs. 10 out of the total pattam of 1,560 paras of paddy and Rs. 20 deducting therefrom 1,200 paras of paddy as interest for the Kanom amount of Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) at the rate of 12 paras of paddy per hundred paras and the sum of Rs. 65-0-5 which has been agreed to be paid as assessment and for which 130 paras of paddy has been allowed to be appropriated maki...
Ramija Bibi and anr. Vs. Sharifa Bibi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1943
Reported in: (1943)1MLJ332
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The question in this appeal is whether the judgment of the Privy Council in Maina Bibi v. Chaudhri Vakil Ahmad has overruled the decision of the Full Bench of this Court which decided Beeju Bee v. Syed Moorthuza Sahib : (1919)37MLJ627 . The answer which we give is in the negative.2. In Beeju Bee v. Syed Moorthuza Sahib : (1919)37MLJ627 , this Court held that when a Mahomedan widow has not been paid her dower she is entitled to retain possession of her husband's properties, and that the properties cannot be divided among the heirs until the dower has been satisfied. The Court also held that while a sale by a widow of the estate property to satisfy the dower debt is not binding on the other heirs of her husband, the vendee has the right to retain possession of the property purchased by him until the dower debt is satisfied. It is the second part of this judgment which is said to have been overruled by the Privy Council in Maina Bibi v. Chaudhri Vakil Ah...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›