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.
The Collector of Madras Vs. A.R.J. Runacres and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad643; (1943)2MLJ136
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application by the Collector of Madras for a declaration under Section 61 of the Stamp Act with regard to the proper duty to be collected on certain documents filed as exhibits in a case which is being tried by the City Civil Court. The document consists of three letters which when read together constitute a lease of a house in Hall's Road; Egmore. The tenant agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 250 in advance and to deposit with the landlord a month's rent. No definite term is mentioned in these letters but the tenancy is determinable on three months notice. When produced in Court the documents were unstamped and therefore were impounded. The Court held that they were stampable under Article 4-C of Schedule I-A of the Act, that is, as an agreement' not otherwise provided for.' The Collector contends that the documents should be stamped under Article 30(a)(viii) or Article 30(c). Article 30(a)(viii) provides that where a lease does not purpor...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1943
Reported in: (1943)2MLJ126
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader who practised at Gudiwada in the Kistna District. He was convicted under Rule 38(5) of the Defence of India Rules for having violated Rule 38(1)(a) and (c) read with Rule 34(6)(c) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100. In default of payment of the fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months. His offences were that during the grave disturbances which took place in India in August of last,year he distributed pamphlets to public officers calling upon them to resign their pests and to take an active part in the movement which resulted in these disturbances. He pleaded guilty to the charges.2. The case falls within the decisions of this Court in In the matter of a second grade Pleader : (1923)45MLJ684 In the matter of K.M., first grade pleader (1923) 92 I.C. 214 and In the matter of a Pleader, Madura : AIR1943Mad475 which was decided ...
Sankunni Variar and ors. Vs. Tavazhi Karnavan and Manager Neelakandhan ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad627; (1943)2MLJ127
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This suit was filed by the first respondent as the jenmi to recover from the members of a tarwad as kanomdars arrears. of rent for a period' of ten years and the amount which he had been compelled to pay to Government over a period of eleven years as land revenue in respect of the lands comprised in the kanom.2. On the 21st January, 1893, the first respondent's predecessor created the kanom deed in favour of the appellant's tarwad. The term was 36 years. The deed provided that the jenmi should receive an -annual rental of 411 paras, 4 idangalis and 1 nazhi of paddy and gingelly oil to the value of Rs. 6. The kanomdars were required by the deed to pay to the Government what became due by way of land revenue. A re-settlement of land revenue took place in 1901 and in 1931 there was another re-settlement. On both these occasions the revenue payable to Government was increased.3. The main questions raised by the defendants in the Court below were two in num...
K. Kuttan Unni Vs. K. Kochunni
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad378
1. The parties to this appeal are members of a Malabar tarwad. The appellants, who are the junior members, sued the respondent, who is the senior member, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for a declaration that the properties in his possession belong to the tarwad and that he is merely in charge of them as the karnavan of the family. The properties are extensive and produce a large annual income. The respondent pleaded that they, belong to stanoms of which he is the stani and therefore the appellants were not entitled to the declaration asked for, although he admitted that they were entitled to be maintained out of the properties in his possession. The Subordinate Judge found for the respondent, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The appeal is from this decision. The relationship between the parties is shown by the following geneological tree: PARVATHI NETHIYAR (died 1904) Madras 37 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | S...
Kruttiventi Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Sree Rajah Kandregula Srinivasa Ja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad657(2); (1943)2MLJ135
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The view expressed by the lower Court that in a proceeding under Section 19 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, the Court cannot go into the question whether the decree sought to be scaled down is barred or not cannot be supported. The Act contemplates relief being granted to agriculturist debtors only in respect of debts which are enforceable in law and the Court has accordingly to see before applying the provisions of the Act whether the decree in question is barred by limitation or not. It is not open to the Court to scale down the decree at the instance of the decree-holder reserving the plea of limitation raised by the judgment-debtor for disposal 'in appropriate proceedings.2. As the respondent says that he will be in a position to establish that the decree is not barred by limitation on the date of his application under Section 19 and that he should now be given an opportunity to do so, the case has to go back to the lower Court for the determination...
M. Sethu Rao Vs. Sulakeri Venkata Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad664; (1943)2MLJ155
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit on a mortgage Ex A, dated 11th March, 1941. That mortgage renewed a previews promissory note, Ex. F, dated 26th January, 1930, and included also a fresh cash advance of. Rs. 280-3-0. Ex. F was executed by the defendant as heir of his deceased father in discharge of a previous promissory note debt Ex. E dated 1st July, 1926, For Rs. 1,000 executed by the defendant's father. The lower Court has scaled down the debt under Act IV of 1938 on the footing that the defendant can trace back his liability not merely to his father's note, Ex E, of 1926 which he himself discharged but also to the prior documents discharged by the father himself.2. The question of the position of a legal representative of a deceased debtor under the explanation to Section 8 of the Act is one which is not free from difficulty. In Nagabhushanam v. Venkayya : AIR1941Mad854 , it was held that a legatee who discharged the debt of a testator who was not an agricul...
Charlo Seshu Reddi Vs. Amperayani Subbarao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-07-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad327
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This case arises under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Respondent 2 is the appellant. He was adjudicated insolvent on 30th August 1933 in I. P. No. 50 of 1932 on the file of the District Court at Nellore. He then filed I.A. No. 326 of 1934 under Section 38, Provincial Insolvency Act, submitting a proposal for composition of his debts. The names of 24 creditors were given in this petition. The matter was notified in the papers and 22 creditors who were served with notice consented to the composition. The 13th creditor was declared ex parte. The 3rd creditor opposed the application. Since the amount due to him was only Rs. 5500 and the amount due to the remaining 23 creditors was Rs. 59,000, the statutory requirement about the majority of creditors who should consent to the composition was fulfilled and the proposal for composition submitted in the application was accepted by the Court. The adjudication was accordingly annulled on 18th April 1935. At the time that the sc...
Gutta Lakshminarasamma Vs. Yalamarti Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad684; (1943)2MLJ151
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In the year 1936, the first respondent filed a suit to enforce the payment of a debt secured by a mortgage of the properties now in suit and other properties. On the 7th August, 1936, he obtained a preliminary decree, and a final decree was passed early in April, 1937. On the 7th July, 1942, the properties in suit were sold by the decree-holder in execution proceedings. The decree-holder himself bought all the items except one for the sum of Rs. 2,800. The remaining item was bought by the second respondent for Rs. 2,500. On the 15th July, 1942, the judgment-debtor conveyed these properties to the appellant for the sum of Rs. 200. It is Alleged that the conveyance was made in pursuance of an agreement for sale entered into on the 25th October, 1939. On the 30th July, 1942, the appellant paid into Court the Rs. 2,800 and the Rs. 2,500 with the five per cent, solatium required by Order 21, Rule 89, Civil Procedure Code and asked that the sales be set asid...
Ramisetti Raghavayya Vs. Ramisetti Venkateswarlu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad658; (1943)2MLJ157
King, J.1. This petition arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in 1942 upon a promissory note executed in 1935 and the question at issue is one of limitation. It is conceded that the promissory note of 1935 was in renewal of an earlier promissory note of 1932, and that when it was executed the promisor had been adjudicated an insolvent. This adjudication was in July, 1934, and the insolvency continued until it was annulled in September, 1941. The question at issue is whether the plaintiff can now rely upon Section 78(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The argument on behalf of the defendant who filed this petition is that there is a well marked distinction between the two promissory notes. So far as the promissory note of 1932 is concerned it evidences a debt provable in insolvency. When it was renewed in 1935 that debt ceased to exist and a new debt arose and that new debt having been incurred after the adjudication was not provable in insolvency. As the suit has been filed o...
Palaparthi Venkateswarlu Vs. Palaparthi Audiseshayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-01-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad503; (1943)1MLJ421
King, J.1. This is a petition filed by the first defendant in O S. No. 228 of 1936 on the file of the District Munsiff of Bapatla. That suit was filed at a time when the District Munsiff of Bapatla had small cause powers extending only to Rs. 100 and as the plaintiff's claim was for more than that sum it was filed as an original suit. When it came to be tried, however, in 1939, the Judge then presiding over the Court had powers up to Rs. 300. He appears however to have treated the case as an original suit and gave a decree for the plaintiff. Against this decree the first defendant appealed to the learned Subordinate Judge of Bapatla. A preliminary objection was raised by the plaintiff that no appeal lay on the ground that the suit was one of a small cause nature. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld this preliminary objection, relying upon a Full Bench decision, Kollipara Seethapathy v. Kantipati Subbayya (1909) 20 M.L.J. 718 : I.L.R. Mad. 323 and dismissed the appeal. It is against th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »