Chennai Court April 1943 Judgments
M. Karunakara Menon and anr. Vs. E. Sankaran Unni, the Official Receiv ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad644; (1943)2MLJ134
King, J.1. This petition arises in insolvency and deals with a mortgage deed executed by the insolvent in September, 1931. The Official Receiver applied in 1933 to set aside the mortgage deed and the application was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge in 1935. On the 21st December, 1937, the learned District Judge 6f South Mialabar reversed this decision and set aside the mortgage deed in appeal. There was a second appeal to this Court which came before me in July, 1940 and I set aside the appellate order of the learned District Judge and remanded the appeal for fresh disposal. When the appeal came before the successor of the learned District Judge, a new point was raised of which nothing had been heard when the appeal came before me in 1940. It was stated that on the 18th December, 1937, that is, three days before the first appellate order of the District Judge an absolute order of discharge had been granted to the insolvent. It was then contended on behalf of the mortgagee that the le...
Tag this Judgment!Thadigadapa Jayalakshmamma and anr. Vs. Guntupalli Ramachandrayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad711; (1943)2MLJ285
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The petitioners applied to the lower Court under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, to scale down a mortgage decree passed against them. The relief was refused on the ground that the petitioners were not agriculturists within the meaning of the Act at all material times. Hence this civil revision petition.2. The petitioners' claim to be agriculturists rests on the alleged possession of a ' saleable interest' in a certain plot of land which they had contracted to sell to the respondent decree-holder for Rs. 1,575 which was to be adjusted in pro tanto reduction of the mortgage debt due to the latter. In his suit to enforce the mortgage, the respondent ignored this contract and claimed the full amount due according to the tenor of the bond, but the petitioners pleaded partial discharge on the basis of the contract alleging that they had delivered possession of the property to the respondent and were always ready and willing to execute a sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Adimoola Padayachi Vs. Kasi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-30-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad701; (1943)2MLJ178
Kunhi Raman, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The question of law arising in this case relates to the legal effect of a partition made as between two reversioners during the lifetime of a Hindu widow and before the reversion had opened.2. To appreciate the contention of the appellant's learned advocate it is necessary to advert briefly to the facts of the case: The following pedigree shows the relationship between the parties:Arungugha Padayachi|___________________________________________________| |Ranga Padayachi died issueless Alaga Padayachi(Wife Annammai who died in 1930) |____________________________| |Sadasiva Padayachi Adimoola Padayachi(m. Annammai 2nd Deft.) (Plaintiff).| Samalappa Padayachi(wifeKasi Ammal 1st Deft.)3. Annammai the widow of Ranga Padayachi was in possession of the plaint A schedule properties during her lifetime. She died in 1930. In 1916, when her husband's nephews Sadasiva and Adimoola were reversioners to the widow Annam-mai's estate a partition of the ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V. Sundaram Aiyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ107
ORDERChandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. Though it was urged by the learned Crown Prosecutor that there was nothing to show that the license held by, the accused covered the lino-type machine also, I think we must proceed on the footing that the license was granted to him under Section 288 of the Madras City Municipals Act for installing and working such a machine, among other machines, in connection with the printing press he has been running. Not only did he say in his statement that the working of the lino-type machine had been licensed by the Municipality, but the Magistrate who convicted the accused proceeds on the basis that this allegation is correct.2. If this be so, I am clearly of the opinion that the license must be held to cover also melting of the lead or the casting of types involved in the process of working the machine. Schedule VI cannot be literally read as applying to every case where lead is melted; for then, the storing, however small, of garlic, ghee and grass in a house m...
Tag this Judgment!Minor Munusamy Mudaliar Vs. Chengalvaraya Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad645; (1943)2MLJ133
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner filed a suit on a promissory note executed in the name of the manager of the family which fell to the share of the petitioner in partition. With his plaint he filed the promissory note, but not the partition decree under which this promissory note fell to his share. The Court called for a copy of the decree, but as it was not produced within the time allowed, the plaint was rejected. The petitioner thereupon filed a review application, which was dismissed on the ground that the Court could not condone the laches of the petitioner.2. The only grounds on which a plaint can be rejected are set out in Order VII, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. The non-production of a document on which the plaintiff relies is not one of the reasons. In Rule 14 of the same 6rder a plaintiff is required to produce in Court when the plaint is presented any document sued upon which is in his possession or power; but even if the decree be considered to be such a document, the punishme...
Tag this Judgment!Sellammal Vs. Muthuvira Muthirian
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad647; (1943)2MLJ150
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Trichinopoly for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Musiri dismissing a petition by a wife for maintenance. Her case was that she was beaten and driven out of the house and she refused to share bed with her husband after marriage in view of the fact that he was suffering from venereal disease and she did not want to get infected herself. In Court, the husband offered to take her and live with her and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed her petition.2. As pointed out by the learned District Magistrate it is the duty of the Court to find whether there was sufficient justification for the wife not living with the husband and claiming maintenance. It is certainly cruel on the part of a husband who has got venereal disease to insist upon his wife sharing bed with him, and if this is cruelty, she will be entitled to maintenance. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Banala Kondiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad649; (1943)2MLJ175
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. These are references fey the District Magistrate of Nellore for setting aside the order in C.G. Nos. 6, 7' and 38 of 1943 on the file of the Stationary Submagistrate of Kavali convicting the accused in those cases for offences punishable under Section 22(1)(b) of the Criminal Tribes Act and sentencing every one of them to 2 months' rigorous imprisonment. The charge against them was that the manager of the Bitragunta Settlement directed the accused in these cases to send their children to the A.B.M. School and that they did not send the children to the School after the 20th October, 1942, when the schools reopened after the. holidays. The. learned District Magistrate points out that they cannot be punished for refusing to send their children to school and therefore the conviction is illegal. Under Section 22(1) [b) of the Criminal Tribes Act, if any registered member of a criminal tribe contravenes any rule made under Clause (e), (g) or (h) of Section 20 he s...
Tag this Judgment!Kapila Ramadoss Vs. Dadisetti Appalanarasayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad685; (1943)2MLJ347
Shahabuddin, J.1. This petition raises the question of the bearing of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-Fees Act when the plaintiff is the appellant. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 334 of 1937 in the District Munsiff's Court of Vizagapatam for accounts of a dissolved partnership and for delivery of possession of the petitioner's share of the partnership assets after taking accounts. The relief for accounts was valued at Rs. 100 in the plaint. The petitioner did not succeed in the suit. On the other hand, the trial Court passed a final decree directing him to pay the defendants Rs. 4,582-5-0 with interest at six per cent, per annum from 31st December, 1936 and Rs. 242-10-0 with interest at the same rate from 30th October, 1941, the date of the decree. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal valuing the relief at Rs. 100, the value mentioned in the plaint and paid court-fee accordingly. The learned Subordinate Judge directed the petitioner to value the appeal at least on the amount decreed a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pakira Pujari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-29-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad78; (1943)2MLJ524
Happell, J.1. The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of South Kanara for the murder of a certain Poovu Hengsu on the 17th of July last, and has been sentenced to death.2. Poovu Hengsu was the elder sister of the accused's mother, and so his aunt. She was undoubtedly murdered in the middle of the day on the verandah of her house. The medical evidence is that she had been strangled to death and had received other injuries--a contusion on the left side of the chin and a contusion covering the whole of the left cheek, under which the left superior maxilla and the lower jaw were fractured. Poovu Hengsu had been in the habit of going to Bombay to visit relatives and five or six years ago she had gone there for two years, leaving the accused's mother in charge of her house in Haleyangadi. During her absence the accused's mother failed to pay the rent to the landlord, and on her return she removed the accused and his mother from the house. After this episode they were o...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar Vs. S. Ramaraja thevar (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad614; (1943)2MLJ158
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These are petitions for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the order made in C.M.A. No. 339 of 1938 and C.R.P. No. 2005 of 1941 whereby the respondent was declared to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act (IV of 1938) and his application for relief under that Act by way of scaling down a decree passed against him was remanded to the lower Court for disposal in the light of the judgment of this Court. The facts giving rise to these proceedings are stated in that judgment and need not be recapitulated here. It will be seen that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition related to the same subject-matter, namely, the scaling down of the decree debt and raised the same questions for determination; and although a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the appeal, it was considered unnecessary to pronounce on the point as the grounds of objection to the decision of the l...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »