Chennai Court July 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.
G. Nagarathnam Pillai and anr. Vs. Guruswami Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad727; (1943)2MLJ311
Byers, J.1. The only point which has been argued in this second appeal is whether the suit was barred by the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923; The plaintiffs' case in, brief was that the first defendant and his father had been let into permissive possession of the two items of property in suit as far back as 1900 and 1908 and that this possession did not become adverse to the plaintiffs until subsequent to the death of the first defendant's father in 1930, after which the first defendant refused to surrender possession in response to a notice issued by the first plaintiff. On the facts of the case there is now no dispute and the only point which has been discussed is whether Section 13 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act is a bar to the suit. The appellants' earned Counsel rests his case on the decision in Muthirulandi Poosari v. Sethurama Aiyar : (1919)36MLJ356 while the learned Advocate-General relies on an observation in the decision in Sivaprasad Sowcar ...
In Re: Pedda Venkataswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad26; (1943)2MLJ334
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellants were convicted by the Second Class Taluk Magistrate of Sidhout for an offence punishable under Section 379 or 411, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. Their convictions and sentences were confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Rajampet on appeal. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 22, who were cattle owners of Nellore District and others had sent their cattle for grazing to Badvel Taluk through P. Ws, 3, 9 and others about August 1941. On the way they had to halt at Peddapolakunta for the night. There was cheetah scare that night and one of the calves was said to have been attacked. Naturally the cattle got scattered and the next morning 8 cows and one calf were missing. Search was made by P. Ws. 1, 2 and others but they could not be traced. Three months later, on 27th November, 1941, a complaint was given. The missing cattle were all traced to P.W. 10 from whom it was elicited that they were sold to him by the accused. ...
Jannalagadda Seetharamayya Vs. Kaja Sivaramakrishna Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad145; (1943)2MLJ536
Horwill, J.1. A mortgage,suit was filed in the Court of the District Judge of Kistna and he transferred the suit for trial to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam. One of the parties to the suit was the Co-operative Building Society, which was impleaded as the eighth defendant. There were two mortgages in favour of the Society and the first was embodied in the second. The Society remained ex parte and in just over two months after the suit had been filed, it brought the property to sale in execution of an award by the Registrar and it was purchased by the present respondent. He did not however apply to be made a party in the mortgage suit and the transfer to him was of course, subject to the doctrine of Us pendens. In execution of the mortgage decree, the decree-holder sought to bring all the properties to sale including a house in Bezwada which is the subject of this appeal--and two items of land within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam and of the Dis...
Vedachala Chettiar Vs. Ameena Bi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad121
Leach, C.J.1. In the first instance this appeal came before Patanjali Sastri J. who was of the opinion that it involved the consideration of the judgments of this Court in Thayammal v. Muthukumaraswami Chettiar A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 881 and Dawood Bowther v. Ramanathan Chettiar : AIR1938Mad43 which were regarded as being in conflict. In our opinion it is not necessary to embark upon a. discussion of these cases in order to decide this appeal. On 5th March 1927, defendants 1 and 2 executed a mortgage of the property in. suit in favour of two persons, Raju Chetti and Dhanapala Ghetti, to secure the payment of a sum of Rs. 250. Defendant 1 is the son of defendant 2. The plaintiff avers that on 14th October 1929, the mortgagees assigned the mortgage to him. On 6th March 1939, the plaintiff instituted a suit to enforce the mortgage and the appeal arises out of the decree passed in that suit. On 27th January 1932, defendant 4 purchased at a court sale the right, title and interest of defendant 1 ...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad665; (1943)2MLJ273
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising in the South Arcot District. He was one of the promoters of a limited liability company called the South Indian Rural Electric and Tramway Company, Limited, which was incorporated on the 31st October, 1935. The objects of the company included the distribution and supply of electric power in the Trichinopoly, Salem, and South Arcot Districts. He was appointed to act as a director of the company, and in an application to the Bar Council and in another application to the High Court, he described himself as a ' promoting director.' The Court has been given to understand that by this he meant he was one of the promoters of the company who became a director after its registration. It was agreed between him and the board of directors that he should receive a monthly allowance of Rs. 300 for his services to the company. He has been charged with professional misconduct in that he accepted a position on the board of directo...
Pynda Andallamma Vs. Chella Peda Jangamayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad27; (1943)2MLJ362
Horwill, J.1. One Veeraraju brought S.C.S. Nos. 57 and 49 of 1941 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Cocanada for rent. During the pendency of the suits he died, and the petitioner then put in applications under Order 22, Rule 3, and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code praying the Court to add her as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff on the ground that she was the real owner of the property and that Veeraraju was her benamidar. The Court, following Doraiswami Tevar v. Chidambaram Chettiar (1929) 58 M.L.J. 57 dismissed these applications, with the result that the suits abated.2. Mr. Narasaraju for the petitioner does not deny that Doraiswami Tevar v. Chid' dambaram Chettiar 1 on which the lower Court relied, does directly apply; but he contends that it is no longer good law in view of a more recent Full Bench decision in Balasubramaniam Chetti v. Kothandaramaswami Nayanimvaru : AIR1942Mad688 in which it was held that,Where a decree is held by one person as a benamida...
Nekkanti Swami and ors. Vs. Nekkanti Venkatarayudu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad726; (1943)2MLJ312
Horwill, J.1. A suit was brought on a promissory note; and the defendants raised the point that there was no consideration for the promissory note; for that promissory note and another promissory note formed part of an arrangement whereby opposite factions in the village on the eve of an election wanted to temporarily settle their differences. Each side examined one attestor; but a person named Raman, whose evidence would undoubtedly have been important, was not examined by either side. Neither side was apparently willing to take the responsibility of examining him. The suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned District Judge thought that if the main question in issue was to be properly decided, Raman's evidence was indispensable; and so he admitted the appeal and remanded the suit for fresh disposal instructing the trial Court to treat Raman as a Court witness.2. The procedure adopted by the learned District Judge was incorrect. There is no provision for the examining of Court witnes...
Neni Kavur Bai by Agent Jalamchand Lodha Vs. P. Ranganatham Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad752; (1943)2MLJ356
Bell, J.1. This is a claim for damages for breach of a covenant of title contained in a sale deed dated the 16th January, and registered on the 16th March, 1940. The purchaser who is the plaintiff is the mother of a family of money-lenders and this transaction marks the end of a stage in a long 11st of transactions between the two defendants and the family. Earlier in August, 1939, a draft sale deed was prepared in similar terms in which a son of the plaintiff was to be the purchaser and by which the interest of the defendants in a certain house was to be conveyed in consideration of a sum of Rs. 35,000. In that draft the fact that an attachment subsisted on this house in respect of the second defendant's half share is specifically mentioned. No reference to the attachment is made in the subsequent deed of January, 1940, now in question. The silence is not without significance in the light of after events, and perhaps explains the reason why the mother was substituted as purchaser in t...
M.P. Manickam Pillai Vs. Kailasakone and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad729; (1943)2MLJ294
King, J.1. The subject-matter of this appeal is the right to catch fish in a certain tank, to take the grass which grows on the banks of the tank and the usufruct of certain trees. The appellant was the plaintiff in the Court of first instance. He is admittedly an inamdar of the village and the owner of the tank. He sued the defendants as representatives of all the ryots of his village. The defendants claimed that by long-established custom they had a right to the fish and the ' usufruct of the trees and the grass. This right has been upheld by both the Court of first instance and in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge of Madura. The learned District Munsiff clearly finds that there must have been a grant by the predecessor of the inamdar of the right in question and the learned Subordinate Judge says that he agrees with the learned District Munsiff.2. The point which is raised in second appeal is that such a grant cannot be presumed, because it is in law impossible. The ryots of a...
In Re: K. Govinda Prabhu (Died) and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad687; (1943)2MLJ287
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This petition has been filed by the son and heir of the late Govinda Prabhu, a paper merchant at Calicut, to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge of South Malabar in C.A. No. 27 of 1942 confirming the conviction of his father under sub-rule 2 of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 750 imposed on him for it by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Calicut in G.G. No. 98 of 1942. The case against the accused was that on 8th July, 1942, he sold a ream of 8 lbs. white foolscap M.F. writing paper for Rs. 7 when under an order issued by the Provincial Government of Madras under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules the control price of such paper had been fixed at Rs. 4-8-0 per ream.2. The only contention raised in this Court is that such a sale though in contra-, vention of the order mentioned above was not constituted an offence on the date of sale and hence the conviction was illegal. For the petitioner it is stated t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »