Chennai Court September 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.
Patinhatte Patillath Karnavan and Manager Krishnan Namboodiri Vs. Nara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad164; (1943)2MLJ642
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was indebted to the respondent under a mortgage, Ex. I, dated 16th November, 1932, for a sum of Rs. 4,500. This mortgage discharged a number of previous debts to the same creditor and it is clear that if the mortgagor is entitled to the benefits of Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938 with reference to this mortgage he would get a very considerable reduction of his debt. He applied under the rules framed under that Act for the determination of the amount due to the creditor. The trial Court held that he was entitled to the benefits of the Act with reference to the mortgage and scaled down the debt on the basis of the principal of the sums originally advanced. The lower appellate Court has taken a different view and has held that this mortgage is one by virtue of which the mortgagee is in possession of the property mortgaged and no rate of interest is stipulated as due to the mortgagee and has applied Section 10(2)(i) of the Act.2. In second appeal reliance h...
In Re: Dorasamy Servai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad157; (1943)2MLJ660
Vere Mockett, Officiating C.J.1. The appellant, the first accused, was the son of the second accused and they were together charged with the murder of Palanichami Pillai on the 26th August, 1942, at Kottayur. The first accused was also charged with the attempted murder of Ponniah Servai. The second accused was charged with abetting the first accused in the attempted murder of Ponniah Servai. The second accused was acquitted, the first accused has been sentenced to death.2. The eye-witnesses in the case were P.Ws. 8, 9, 10 and 11 and their evidence was accepted by the learned trial Judge. P.W. 8's evidence is representative of the rest. It amounts to this. On the evening in question, about 6 o'clock, P.W. 8, the deceased whose name was Palanichami Pillai, and who was the village munsiff, and P.W. 9 whose name is also Palanichami, went out to the fields for the purpose of nature. Near the cattle-pound were standing accused 1 and 2. On their return from the field near the village chavadi,...
R.M. Periathambi Goundan Vs. Palanivelappa Goundar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-20-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad206
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant (a creditor) filed a petition under the rules framed under Madras Act 4 of 1938 for the determination of the amount of the debt due to him and an order was passed in his favour on 9th March 1942. Against this order an appeal was filed by the debtor on 22nd June 1942. By this time the debt was in danger of becoming time barred. The creditor consequently filed a suit on 2nd July 1942 in order to save limitation. The fact of the suit having been filed was brought to the notice of the Court hearing the appeal from the declaration and that Court dismissed the appeal under Rule 8. Rule 8 provides that if at any time while an application is pending in the Court a suit is filed by the creditor for the recovery of the debt which is the subject-matter of the application the Court shall dismiss the application. It is contended in appeal that this rule refers only to the Court of first instance and to the application pending before that Court and that it will not cove...
K. Venkanna Chettiar and Sons by Managing Partner, K.V. Muthukrishna C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad105; (1943)2MLJ504
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only question raised in this second appeal relates to the respondent's claim to relief under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, as amended by the Usurious Loans (Madras Amendment) Act, 1936.2. The respondents who own extensive garden lands and coffee plantations in the District of Madura had dealings with the appellant, a money-lender and commission agent at Dindigul, from 1927. There were settlements of account from time to time at varying intervals at which interest was calculated at twelve per cent. per annum and added to the principal then due, the composite sum thereafter bearing interest at the same rate. At one of such settlements which took place on 22nd February, 1933, the amount due to the appellant was fixed at Rs. 17,000 and a promissory note for that sum was executed by the respondents. There were no further advances after that date but some repayments were made. On 30th November 1935, the balance due was settled at Rs. 21,375 for which another promis...
Sheik Meera Saheb and anr. Vs. Mohammed Kyathi Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad90; (1943)2MLJ517
Somayya, J.1. In this case an order was passed by the District Munsiff on an application under Order 21, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. An appeal was filed with a certified copy of the decretal order and a manuscript certified copy of the judgment was also filed. It would appear that printed copies of the judgment were also applied for in the trial Court and that the application was dismissed as the printing charges were not paid within seven days after they were called for. Along with the appeal memorandum, the appellant presented an application for dispensing with the production of printed copies, undertaking to file them later on. The application was granted; the appeal was taken on file and numbered and notice went to the respondents. When with a view to fulfil the undertaking given to the appellate Court the appellant went to the trial Court and asked for printed copies of the judgment, he was met with opposition. A note was made on the copy application evidently by some clerk that...
Kondapaneni Basavayya Vs. Kondapaneni Venkatesam Minor by His Natural ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad175; (1943)2MLJ587
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The plaintiff who is the appellant in this appeal is the adopted son of one Kondapaneni Appayya, the adoption having been made on 17th February, 1926, by Appayya himself during his lifetime. Some four years afterwards there was a partition of the family properties between Appayya and the appellant, and from that time onwards, each of the two sharers lived separately, enjoying the share allotted to him at the division. Appayya who thus came to be in exclusive possession of his share, was entitled to dispose of it in any manner he liked, by alienation during his lifetime or by will to take effect after his death. There is reason to believe that the state of feelings between him and his adopted son was far from cordial, though this is more a matter of inference from the fact of partition and the contents of his will, than of direct proof. It may accordingly be assumed that at the time when Appayya made his will which was on 22nd September, 1936 there was no lov...
Sri Raja Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara Krishna Yachandra Bahadur Garu, Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad211; (1943)2MLJ645
Horwill, J.1. On the 14th October, 19-10, the fourth defendant, on behalf of his minor son, executed a sale deed, Ex. B, in favour of the father of the plaintiff, with regard to a one-fourth share of a Mokhasa village. The consideration was Rs. 27,3O2 ; and the reason for the sale was said to be that the land was situate some distance from the place where the minor and his father were living and so it was impossible to enjoy the land at a profit. As the plaintiff's., father had hesitated to purchase a minor's property, the maternal grandfather of the minor, the then Maharajah of Venkatagiri, executed an indemnity bond on the 25th August, 1910, in favour of the plaintiff's father, the terms of which will be considered in detail later. He agreed that if the minor failed to execute a ratification kararnama and the purchaser was disturbed in his enjoyment and he sustained loss thereby and if he delivered the property to the Maharajah of Venkatagiri, he would pay him the Rs, 27,302 paid for...
Ravalapalli Venkatrayudu and ors. Vs. Alapati Narasimham and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad150; (1943)2MLJ655
Somayya, J.1. The question in this case, is in my opinion, really concluded by the decision of the Full Bench in Veerayya. Srinivasa Rao : (1935)69MLJ364 and by the later decision reported in the same volume in Official Receiver, Gunlur v. Secretary of State for India (1935) 69 M.L.J. 58 : I.L.R. Mad. 1014. The first respondent Alapati Narasimham was adjudicated an insolvent and his adjudication was finally annulled under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for failing to apply for discharge. It would appear that he was granted time on several occasions and that finally for the reason that he, did not apply for discharge within the time granted, his adjudication was annulled on the 1st November, 1938. As part of the same order there was a vesting order passed under Section 37 of the Act. The Official Receiver of the District who is the second respondent before me was appointed under Section 37. Subsequently, the three appellants in this appeal alleging that they are the credito...
Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments Vs. Palaniandi M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad351
Mockett Offg., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Trichinopoly in a suit filed under Section 63 (4), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The appellant is the Board of Commissioners under the Act by its president and the respondents are the four hereditary trustees of seven temples in Pallapuram, Lalgudi Taluk. A scheme has been settled by the board after they have recorded their finding by an annexure to their order No. 1287-A, of 4th March 1940, to the effect, to put it shortly, that there was evidence of considerable mismanagement and choas in the temples' affairs. The scheme contains 14 paragraphs and we are concerned with the second. It reads as follows:The temples ... and their endowments shall' be administered by the hereditary trustees in rotation, each functioning for one fasli and two non-hereditary trustees appointed by the board.The effect of the scheme then was that the four hereditary trustees should in turn function once in four...
In Re: Raja Veerabasava Chikka Royal Y.B. Varu Zamindar and Receiver o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Mad259
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 207 read with Schedule 8 and Section 171, Local Boards Act, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51 by the Joint Magistrate of Madanapalle. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor confirmed the conviction and sentence. The prosecution case was that the petitioner was having a private market within the limits of the Panchayat Board of Punganur without having a license as required by Section 171, Local Boards Act. That petitioner did not take out a license is admitted. But what is stated for him is that he has been having this private market for a number of years without taking out a license and that he has been having it from 1880 and consequently he was not bound to take out a license. It is further stated that he was in possession of this market only as receiver appointed in the suit by the civil Court and consequently the prosecution is invalid without the sanction of the Court...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »