Chennai Court January 1944 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.
Thangachami Chettiar Vs. Minor Kanagasabapathi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad393
Happell, J.1. The appellant in this appeal is the decree-holder in O.S. No. 43 of 1935 of the Madura Subordinate Judge's Court. That suit was brought on a promissory note against defendant 1 and his sons, defendants 2 to 4. A decree was passed against defendant 1 alone, the sons having been, as it was called, exonerated. In execution of this decree the appellant-plaintiff attached the properties of both the father and the sons. Between the passing of the decree and the attachment a partition had been effected between defendant 1 and his sons. Against this attachment the sons filed an application (out of which this appeal arises) to have the attachment set aside and the sale stopped as far as their shares were concerned. The contention put forward by the sons was that their shares were not attachable by reason of the intervention of the partition between the decree and the proceedings in execution. This contention was accepted by the District Judge who relied on the decision of Varadach...
Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. Velambal Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad423
Horwill, J.1. The respondent is seeking to execute a decree passed by an arbitrator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act by arresting the judgment-debtor. In the lower appellate Court two reasons were given why execution could not proceed. One was that the judgment-debtor could be arrested only if any -sum remained due after the hypothecated properties had been sold. The second was that the decree-holder had done acts which relieved the appellant from his liability as a surety for the debt of his principal. Both these points were decided against the appellant.2. The second point may be dealt with very briefly, there really being nothing to add to what was said by the lower appellate Court. We are not, after a joint decree has been passed against principal and surety, any longer dealing with a principal and a surety, but with a joint judgment-debtor.3. The award to be executed consists of three parts. The first is that defendants 1 to 6 do pay plaintiff a certain sum of money....
Chandrakaladhara Row Vs. Nagapotharow
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad369a
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant is the legal representative of a mortgagor who applied under the rules framed under Section 28, Madras Act 4 of 1938, for the determination of the amount due under the mortgage. The mortgage was peculiar in that it provided that the amount advanced, which included a sum of Rupees 1592-3-6 due on accounts and certain other advances, should be secured on property already in the possession of the mortgagee under previous transactions, and it provided that the usufruct of the property should go, first in discharge of the account debt, secondly in discharge of an earlier mortgage incurred by the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee's mother, thirdly in discharge of an earlier mortgage in favour of the mortgagee's father, and lastly in discharge of the present mortgage. The petition filed under the rules asserted that the recital in the mortgage about the debt due on the account was fictitious and that the two earlier mortgages in favour of the mother and the fa...
Saladi Pichayya Vs. A. Venkata Suryanarayana
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad410a
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals are preferred, the former by the creditors and latter by the debtors, against an order on an application under Section 19, Madras Act 4 of 1938. In the light of the amended Act the appeals have to be treated as Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, and petitions have been filed for their conversion and the refund of excess court-fee which must be allowed. The only point in the creditors' appeal (A.A.O. No. 73 of 1944-App. No. 189 of 1942) which deserves serious consideration relates to the extent to which the scaling down process can be carried. The decree was a compromise decree which provided for the payment of the full amount of the suit claim with interest and costs, the agreement only relating to the instalments in which it was to be paid and the security to be given. The decree was based on a promissory note of 1930 which included a sum of Rs. 1346 odd cash and an amount of Rs. 7653-2-9 due on an earlier promissory note, Ex. P-9a executed in 1928 for Rs. ...
Pidugu Narasimham Vs. Batchu Latchayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad429
Horwill, J.1. In execution of a mortgage decree against two items of property, upon receipt of a notice to settle the terms of proclamation, defendant 3 appeared and asked the Court to order his property to be sold after the other property. The mortgagee objected; but the District Munsif decided that it was in the interest of justice and equity to sell defendant 3's land after the other property had been sold; and so drew up the proclamation accordingly. An appeal was preferred by the mortgagee to the Subordinate Judge who said that as the question of priority had been expressly raised in the suit itself, 'the executing Court has no such power to veto the effect of the decree.' He therefore set aside the order of the District Munsif as one being made without jurisdiction and allowed the appeal.2. The appellant contends that the first appeal was incompetent as the order passed by the District Munsif was not an appealable order. The learned advocate for the respondent therefore contends,...
T.S. Rajam and anr. Vs. Pankajam Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad335
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question of the interpretation of Section 141, Succession Act. Appellant l and his brother, who is not a party, were executors under the will of their uncle Rama Iyengar, who died on 14th April 1937. The will gives a substantial bequest of land to appellant 1, describing him as 'my dearest nephew.' The appointment of the two nephews as executors is in a separate clause of the will. The testator died in Madras. The will was in deposit with an advocate of Madura who is related to the parties. It was in a sealed envelope which was endorsed with a direction in the case of the death of the testator to deliver the document to Mr. T. S. Rajam, that is, appellant l, and Mr. T. S. Santanam or to either or survivor. It does not appear that any one knew of the precise contents of the will, though appellant 1 claims that he knew that he was an executor and he suggests that the widow was also aware of this fact. The funeral was performed by the son-in-law of the...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad244
Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising at Palni. Rule. 11 of the rules framed under the Legal Practitioners' Act requires that an application for renewal of a certificate must be made through the Judge presiding over the Court in which the pleader ordinarily practises and unless the High Court or the Registrar otherwise orders should be made not later than 15th November. If the application for renewal is made by that date the practice has been to allow the pleader to appear in cases pending the issue to him of the sanad. In this case the respondent did not apply for the renewal of his sanad in respect of the year 1943 until 31st December 1942 and on 15th January 1943, before the sanad had been renewed, he filed a memorandum of appearance in a case before the Sub-Magistrate of Palni. The certificate was subsequently issued and in accordance with the practice was dated 1st January 1943.2. As the pleader had not complied with Rule 11 he had no right to appear in a case until...
P. Balasubramania Mudaliar and anr. Vs. C. Rajagopalachariar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad484
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The two appellants, the editor and printer of the Sunday Observer, a weekly organ of the Justice party, have been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for having made defamatory averments against the complainant Mr. C. Rajagopalachariar, an ex-Congress Prime Minister of this province, in the editorial published in the issue of that paper of 4th October 1942 and sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 500 respectively. Their plea was that the averments in question were not defamatory, that even if they were, as it was expressly stated to be only a matter of opinion made in good faith and for the public good, they were protected by exceptions 3 and 9 to Section 499, Penal Code. The Chief Presidency Magistrate found on both the pleas against the appellants and convicted them. The only two points hence that arise for consideration in this appeal are (1) whether the statement in question is defamatory and (a) whether it was made in good faith and f...
Public Prosecutor Vs. Vadakattu Jogiraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad317
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Crown against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of East Godavari acquitting the accused in C. C. No. 14 of 1943 on the file of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Coconada, who was convicted by that Magistrate for an offence punishable under Rule 90 (3) read with Rule 90 (2) (d) of the Defence of India Rules. The charge against him was that he had acquired more coins than required for his business. The accused and three of his brothers were all trading. They had a stationery shop, a hardware shop, grocery shop and fancy goods shop. Of these four businesses, the, accused was in charge of only one. The house and shops of all these brothers were searched and small change of the value of Rs. 111-2-101/2 was found; but the accused alone was prosecuted and in the charge it was stated that he had acquired this amount of Rs. 111-2- l01/2 in excess of his requirements. Later on, in the appellate Court, the ease proceeded as if the charge was for ...
V. Venkatappiah Vs. V. Seetharamavarma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad371
Horwill, J.1. E.P. No. 145 of 1940 out of which this appeal arises, was filed on 25th January 1940; and it was in time only if the final order on the prior E.P. No. 984 of 1936 was passed within three years of that date. On 2nd December 1936 notice was ordered to the judgment-debtor to 29th January 1937; and the decree-holder was ordered to pay batta. Under the rules he had to do so within two days. This he did not do; and as he had failed to pay batta even by 15th January 1937, the District Munsif wrote 'No batta paid. Dismissed.' If 15th January 1937 is the date of the final order, then the present E.P. is out of time. If, however, that order is deemed to be one of 29th January 1937, the date on which the order dismissing the petition should have been passed, then the present E.P. is within time. Both the lower Courts held that the final order in E.P. No. 984 of 1936 must be deemed to have been passed on 29th January 1937. They accordingly ordered execution to proceed. A preliminary ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »