Chennai Court August 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.
Sannaya Alias Narayana Holla Vs. Balarama Hande and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad93; (1943)2MLJ436
Wadsworth, J.1. These appeals preferred respectively by the decree-holder and the second defendant arise out of an application by the second defendant under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938 to scale down a debt due under a mortgage decree. There is no doubt about the facts. In 1918 the first defendant, who is the father of the second defendant, was a junior member of a family the manager of which was his cousin, the 20th defendant. 20th defendant and the first defendant together executed a promissory note Ex. B dated 15th July, 1918, for a sum of Rs. Rs. 4,900-15-2 expressly reciting that the money was required for family purposes. In November, 1918 there was a partition in the debtor's family, the liability under the promissory note Ex. B being allotted to the branch represented by the first defendant. In discharge of this liability the suit mortgage Ex. A was executed by the first defendant in favour of the same creditor on 27th June, 1922 for a sum of Rs 10,000 made up of the pri...
In Re: R. Subbarayan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad602; (1943)2MLJ247
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the proceedings in Ordinance Case No. 1 of 1943 on the file of the Special Judge, Chingleput. The application involves the decision of the question whether Sub-section (1) of Section 3, of the Special Criminal Courts (Repeal) Ordinance, 1943 (Ordinance No. XIX of 1943) embodies a valid provision of law.2. The petitioner and seven other persons were charged with having conspired to blow up the Uppanar Railway bridge near Shiyali and with having attempted to destroy the bridge. After their arrest the accused persons were brought before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Shiyali, who transferred the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram. Under the provisions of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942 (Ordinance No. II of 1942), the Sessions Judge of Nega-patam was appointed by the Government of Madras the Special Judge to try the case. Subsequently the Governme...
Seemakurti Subbarayudu Vs. Seemakurti Sreeramulu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad13; (1943)2MLJ367
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant who was the second defendant in a litigation which ended in a compromise decree filed an application under Section 19 of Madras Act (IV of 1938), to scale down that decree. The lower Court having regard to the fact that the compromise decree was dated 6th May, 1937 treated the debt as one falling under Section 9 of the Act and scaled it down holding the view that the antecedent liabilities taken into consideration in arriving at the figure adopted in the compromise were not debts which could be brought within the purview of the Act. The litigation which led up to this compromise decree started in 1915 in a partition suit and under the Compromise the defendants 1 and 2 were held liable for a sum of Rs. 9,000 in respect of principal and interest, of the mesne profits due on the plaintiff's one third share of certain items and in respect of the plaintiff's one third share with interest thereon of the outstandings of the family collected by the defendants 1 an...
T.B.S. Seela Bodi Naicker Vs. T.V.K. Kama Raja Pandiya Naicker, Zamind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad50; (1943)2MLJ622
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The question raised in this appeal relates to the true construction of what has been called a ' release deed ' executed on the 6th of May, 1890, by one Sundarapandiya Naicker and Kamalu Ammal, the widow of the previous zamindar of Bodinaickanur. The appellants are the successors in title of Sundarapandiya Naicker and the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is the present zamindar of Bodinaickanur. The question is whether a property known as Mallingaswami Hill comprising hill and forest tracts of 1,500 acres in 6xtent passed to Sundarapandiya Naicker under the release deed which is marked as Ex. XLVIII in the case. The facts which led to the execution of this document may be briefly stated The previous zamindar of Bodinaickanur died in 1888 and disputes arose regarding succession to the zamindari between his widow Kamalu Ammal, the respondent's father who claimed the estate as the undivided coparcener of the late zamindar and Sundarapandiy...
Muniammal Vs. Venkataramanachari
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad768; (1943)2MLJ318
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the wife of the respondent for maintenance for herself and her child. That the petitioner is the wife of the respondent, and that the child is his are not disputed. As soon as the petition came on for hearing the respondent stated that he would await the result of a caste panchayat as regards the chastity of the petitioner and then state what he had to state. He subsequently pleaded that she was leading an unchaste life. Evidence was let in and the Joint Magistrate of Hosur found that she was leading an unchaste life and dismissed the petition.2. On facts I do not think the learned Magistrate was wrong. A number of witnesses spoke to the fact that the petitioner was living with another man in a house built by him as husband and wife There was also an enquiry by the caste panchayat and she was ex-communicated.3. I agree with the finding of the Magistrate that the petitioner was living an adulterous life and was therefore not entitled to ...
Vemuru Venkata Krishnayya Vs. Vemuru Lakshmamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad17; (1943)2MLJ359
Horwill, J.1. The respondent obtained a decree for maintenance against her husband, the appellant, and during the appeal the parties entered into a compromise, the material part of which is set out hereunder:(1) The plaintiff shall be held entitled to recover Rs. 480 for arrears of maintenance up to date from the defendant of which Rs. 300 is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff within one month from this date. The balance of Rs. 180 must be deposited in Court within a month thereafter.(2) That a sum of Rs. 96 be fixed per year as the maintenance to be paid by the defendant to plaintiff in a lump sum payable on 25th of August of eyery year beginning from 25th of August, 1938. The maintenance that has accrued due to the plaintiff from 25th August, 1938, is. subject to the proviso mentioned hereunder, in clause 3.(3) That the defendant do take the plaintiff into his house and live as husband and wife for a period of one year, during which time the maintenance decree is not to be enf...
P.N.V. Ratnasami Naidu and ors. Vs. K.S.P.A. Subba Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Mad766; (1943)2MLJ361
Horwill, J.1. The petitioners and the respondent are cotton merchants; and the petitioners sought to adjudicate the respondent an insolvent on the basis of his account, which showed that the respondent was indebted to the petitioners to the extent of Rs. 5000 and odd. Both the lower Courts have held that the claim of the petitioners against the respondent was one for an unliquidated sum and was therefore not one that could be taken into account in insolvency.2. It is not always easy in a claim on an account to say definitely whether it is for a liquidated sum or for an unliquidated sum. It does not cease to be a liquidated sum, because it can be arrived at only after making some simple calculation; but if it is not readily ascertainable without enquiry, then it is an unliquidated claim. The learned advocate for the petitioners points to the fact that he is claiming against the respondent for a definite sum and is able to give particulars as to how that sum was arrived at. He argues tha...
Pedda Thimma Reddy Vs. Darur Subbarayudu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad425
Mockett, J.1. The appellant is the second judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 and respondent 1 is an assignee of the decree-holder plaintiff .Two points have been argued before us. The important dates are as follows : The decree in the suit in which E.P. No. 26 of 1930 was filed against the second judgment-debtor, was passed on 28th February 1930. On 18th September 1930 the appellant was adjudicated and E.P. No. 26 of 1930 was dismissed on 19th September 1930. On 11th August 1933, the decree was assigned to one Subbarayudu. On 11th August 1934 the decree-holder died. On 19th April 1935 the appellant's adjudication was annulled. On 24th February 1938 Subbarayudu was adjudicated and he filed an appeal. His appeal was dismissed. But when he appealed to the High Court an order of stay dated 19th April 1938 was passed. We have not seen that order. The appeal was dismissed on 17th August 1939. There was, therefore, from 19th April 1938 to 17th August 1939, a period of 16 months' stay order...
M.N.S.T. Chidambaram Chettiar Vs. A.L.M. Meyyappa Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad67; (1943)2MLJ510
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 73(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the claims of the contesting defendants for rateable distribution were not barred by the law of limitation as the plaintiff had contended The plaintiff says that the Subordinate Judge here erred and should have granted the decree sought. The question is one of considerable importance and there are no reported decisions which are directly in point, although there are authorities which have bearing.2. In O.S. No. 34 of 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai, the plaintiff obtained a decree against the estate of one P.L.T.A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar for the payment of the sum of Rs. 7,810-8-4. Arunachalam Chettiar was joint with his son, who was sued as the legal representative of his father. On the 20th October, 1932, another creditor of the estate, Rama...
Muthiah Chettiar Vs. N.M. Rayalu Ayyar, Nagaswami Ayyar and Co., Throu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad98; (1943)2MLJ548
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. These two connected appeals have been brought from a preliminary decree for sale made by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura for a sum of Rs. 1,82,450-6-7 with interest payable to the first respondent in these appeals, a firm of merchants and money-lenders at Madura. The third defendant is the appellant in Appeal No. 213 of 1940 and the first defendant and the legal representatives of the deceased second defendant are the appellants in Appeal No. 346 of 1940. 2. The firm (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) obtained a mortgage on 14th September, 1921, for a sum of Rs. 50,000 from one Vairavan Chetti who executed the deed for himself and as the guardian of his then minor son Shanmugham Chetti, purporting to charge five items of property consisting of two houses in Madura town and certain lands in Madura taluk. The properties are described in the deed as having been purchased out of the self-acquired funds of Vairavan Chetti and remaining in his un...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »