Chennai Court April 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.
Jodu Rosamma Being Minor by Next Friend and Brother Sunnapu Rangaiah V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad654; (1943)2MLJ172
Mockett, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises a question under the Court-Fees Act and also under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act of 1937. The facts are very simple. A coparcener died leaving a widow and she has filed a partition suit, as she is entitled to do under Act XVIII of 1937. The court-fee examiner took the view that the plaint was on the basis that the plaintiff was out of possession; that she is therefore to be treated as a coparcener excluded from possession and therefore court-fee under Section 7(5) should be paid. The learned Subordinate Judge disagreed, and I think rightly, with the court-fee examiner. He held that that the plaint could not be so regarded. It is not quite clear what view the learned Subordinate Judge took of the plaint as he held that the suit was in fact by a person out of possession. Personally, I find no difficulty about it at all. In spite of the not uncommon, inartistic drafting, I think it is in substance an ordinary claim for partition...
B. Ramamurthy, Minor by Next Friend and Father B.S. Chetti Vs. the Dir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad187; (1943)2MLJ665
Bell, J.1. This is an application for a mandamus directing the Director of Public Instruction to entertain an application of the applicant dated the 23rd June, 1942, and to cause the alteration of the date of birth of the applicant from 20th December, 1928, which is alleged to be a mistake to 12th November, 1927, in his school leaving certificate register No. 7067. The motion might have been more happily worded but its intention seems plain enough.2. The applicant is one B. Ramamurthy, minor by his next friend and father, B.S. Chetti. The respondent is the Director of Public instruction, Madras. The father says in his affidavit that the son was born in Trichinopoly on 12th November, 1927. Domestic troubles arose between himself and his wife. The father had to follow his railway employment in a different part of India to that in which the wife and the children went to live. When the time came for the boy to be sent to school, he was admitted to the second form of the Wardlaw High School...
Sri Silambani Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam Through Its Special Rec ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad691; (1943)2MLJ339
Horwill, J.1. The suit institution, Sri Silambani Chidambara Vinayagar Devasthanam, is managed by the descendants of one Thungan Chettiar. In 1932, one branch of his family brought a suit O.S. No. 78 of 1932 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, for a declaration that they, as well as the defendants, who are the members of another branch of the family, were entitled to manage the temple properties in accordance with an arrangement entered into in 1907 by an agreement which is marked as Ex. P in this suit. As the affairs of the temple were being neglected because of the quarrel between two branches of the family, a receiver, Mr. S. Krishna Ayyar, was appointed to recover sums of money collected by various members of the family while managing the affairs of the temple. He is the plaintiff in the suit out of which this appeal arises. He contended that the defendant in the suit owed a sum of Rs. 51,759-11-6 to the temple, consisting of Rs. 15,237-5-6 due in 1903 and acknowled...
T. Krishnappa and anr. Vs. T. Venkatappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad632; (1943)2MLJ108
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor, dismissing their suit brought for partition on the ground that they are the legitimate sons of the fourth defendant and members of the' coparcenary consisting of themselves and defendants 1 to 4. They claim to be the children of the fourth defendant by his wife Venkatamma. It was urged against this claim that their mother Venkatamma was an unchaste woman who was kept by the village manigar as his mistress and that there were caste pancha-yats in which her unchastity was found and she was ex-communicated for this reason. So, it was contended by defendants 2 and 3 who resisted the plaintiffs' claim that they were the illegitimate children of Venkatamma and not the children of the fourth defendant. Applying Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the District Munsiff found in plaintiffs favour that as they were born during lawful wedlock, it must be held that they are the legi...
P. Kathisa Bi Vs. V.R. Venkateswara Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad705; (1943)2MLJ301
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals, both arise out of the execution of a mortgage decree which was passed in May, 1938, for a sum of Rs. 77,186-7-1. The appellant in C.M.A. No. 659 of 1941 was the 322nd defendant, and he is interested in items 193 to 196 out of the 11 items which have been sold. The appellants in C.M.A. No. 284 of 1942 are defendants 275, 276 and 346. They are interested in two items only which have been sold. The contention of the appellant in C.M.A. No. 659 is that the properties covered by the mortgage should be so marshalled as to enable him to realise something towards the puisne mortgage which he holds over the four items in which he is interested. This contention was repelled mainly on two grounds, firstly because his right to marshalling had been negatived by the finding on the issue in the suit and secondly because the decision in Thanmul Sowcar v. Ramadoss Reddiar : (1892)2MLJ212 interprets Section 81 of the Transfer of Property Act as not allowing a puisne mo...
Ramaswamy Gurukkal Vs. Sivasubramania Gurukkal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad655; (1943)2MLJ106
King, J.1. This petition raises a question of jurisdiction to try O.S. No. 532 of 1941 on the file of the learned District Munsiff of Udumalpet. The District Munsiff has held that he has jurisdiction to try the case and the first defendant has filed this revision petition against that decision. The suit was by the plaintiff for partition of a one-fourth share in the family estate. The market-value of the whole estate is Rs. 4,000. It was first argued on behalf of the petitioner that inasmuch as the decision of this suit will affect the whole of the family estate the principles of the ruling reported in Kadir Hussain Rowther v. Jamila Bi : AIR1943Mad242 which deals with a case of the administration of the estate of a Mohammadan will apply to the present case, and whatever may be the correct court-fee payable, jurisdiction will be only with that Court which could try a suit, the subject-matter of which is worth Rs. 4,000, that is to say, the Subordinate Judge's Court. It seems to me that...
Venkamma Vs. Shivaraya Shanbhaga
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad137; (1943)2MLJ632
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in O.S. No. 67 of 1939 against the decree of the District Judge of South Kanara confirming the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge. The second and third defendants in the suit together with three others had executed in 1921,'a simple mortgage in favour of the ninth defendant. On 27th September, 1929, the ninth defendant assigned this mortgage to the first defendant in consideration of a sum of Rs. 2,500, but as the whole of the consideration was not paid, on the same day, namely, 27th September 1929, the first defendant sub-mortgaged the property to his assignor for the balance of consideration, a sum of Rs. 2,000. The first defendant filed a suit on the mortgage, O.S. No. 2 of 1932, in which he impleaded the mortgagors and some subsequent alienees. He did not, however, make the present ninth defendant,.the sub-mortgagee, a party, and he was added at the instance of the other defendants. An issue was framed, the seventh, i...
Gade Anasuyamma Being Minor by Next Friend Batchu Nagireddi Vs. Gade S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad646; (1943)2MLJ180
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner's mother filed an application to sue in forma pauperis but died during the pendency of that application. Before the attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that she Was dead, the legal representative, the present petitioner, filed an application to be brought on record as her legal representative in the application to sue in forma pauperis. The lower Court held that as the application to sue in forma pauperis was a personal one, the petition abated with the death of the applicant and that the present petitioner could not continue the application of her mother. He therefore dismissed his application and also the petition of the petitioner's mother to sue in forma pauperis.2. It is not denied by Mr. Ramamurthi for the petitioner that the right to sue in forma pauperis is a personal one. It would therefore follow from Order 22, Rules 1 and 3, Civil Procedure Code, that the petitioner could not be brought on record in her mother's petition. The petitioner'...
Kolluri Subba Rao of Rajahmundry Vs. Kolluri Subba Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad689; (1943)2MLJ319
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The first question raised in this appeal by the plaintiff is whether he is not entitled to recover from the defendants the court-fee that he had to pay on the amount of mesne profits ascertained as due to him and decreed in his favour by the final decree The objection to the claim which found favour with the Subordinate Judge is that the decree itself does not mention that the plaintiff is entitled to recover this Court-fee from the defendants and that so long as the decree is silent on the subject it should be deemed that there was no award of any such relief to the plaintiff. According to the Subordinate Judge, the remedy of the plaintiff would seem to lie in an amendment of the decree asking that provision should be made for payment by the defendants of the court-fee to be paid by the plaintiff as a condition precedent for recovering the amount of mesne profits ascertained and decreed.2. The suit was one for partition and delivery of possession of the plai...
Jaldu Manikyala Rao Vs. Jaldu Pydayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad639; (1943)2MLJ130
Mockett, J.1. In this Civil Revision Petition, the point which arises for consideration is whether a suit claiming dissolution of partnership with a claim for an account can be treated as a suit for solely an account so as to bring it within the provisions of Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act. The important circumstance put before us is that this is not a written partnership containing terms a breach of which may give rise to a cause of action but is a partnership at will. A suit in which the parties' relations inter se are governed by a written contract containing terms the breach of which entitle a party to dissolution of partnership may well be in a different category or the ordering of an account may depend on considerations of fact', and the real question may well be whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for dissolution. There is ample authority both from English authorities and from the Judicial Committee that a partnership at will is dissolved by a notice from one m...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »