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.
Puthiya Purayil Randu Purayil Kuttissan, Karnavan and Manager of Tavaz ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad334
Happell, J.1. Respondent 1, who is an assignee of the right of a junior member of a tarwad for arrears of maintenance from the. tarwad, filed a suit to recover the arrears. He obtained a decree, and, in execution of the decree, attached the tarwad properties. Certain junior members of the tarwad, who were in possession of tarwad properties as maintenance holders, then filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises to have the attachment set aside on the ground that respondent 1 must satisfy his decree from the other tarwad properties and had no right to bring their properties to sale. The suit failed in both the lower Courts.2. The contention that plaintiff-appellants' properties were not liable to attachment and sale was founded on decisions of this Court that the karnavan cannot set aside an arrangement by which junior members of a tarwad have been put in possession of some of the tarwad lands in lieu of maintenance. In an old case, Parakkal Kondi Menon v. Vadakantil Kunhi Pen...
Koduri Krishna Rao Vs. Simhadri Venkataramarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad362
Horwill, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance by two boys who claim to be the illegitimate sons of the defendant. The first Court decreed maintenance for both sons; but the lower appellate Court held that it had not been proved that the elder boy was the son of the defendant. Even with regard to the younger, it reduced the quantum of maintenance granted. The learned advocate for the appellant puts forward three contentions. The first is that the lower appellate Court has not had regard to the proper presumptions to be made in cases of this kind. The argument of the appellant is that the second son was born during the continuance of the marriage between the mother of the boys and one Narayanamurthy and that the Court should therefore have presumed that both the boys were the sons of the husband of their mother. The lower appellate Court found that the appellant had not proved that the plaintiffs' mother was validly married to Narayanamurthi; but Mr. Krishnamurthi conten...
Subbarayan Chettiar Vs. Ameer MoidIn Rowthan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad440
Horwill, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for eviction of his kanomdar on the ground that he required the land for his own cultivation under Section 20(5), Malabar Tenancy Act. Both the Courts have held against him on this point.2. Mr. Krishna Variar contends that when once the landlord tells the Court that he requires the land for his own cultivation, the Court has no discretion but to decree the suit for eviction and that the only remedy of the kanomdar in a case where the claim by the landlord is not bona fide and the landlord does not in fact take up the land for his own cultivation is to apply under Section 21 (1) to be re-instated; and he quotes Narikkal Chathan v. Kesavan A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 242, which overruled Banian Nayar v. Kesavan reported in : AIR1941Mad816 , in support of his contention. Needless to say, the learned Judges in Narikkal Chathan v. Kesavan A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 242 said nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the learned Chief Justice states almost at the outset of his...
Ramaswami Reddiar Vs. Kuppalagu Pandithan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad318
Happell, J.1. The question in this civil miscellaneous second appeal is whether an Official Receiver has power to sell property vested in him by an order of Court passed under Section 37, Provincial Insolvency Act, without the express permission of the Court. The petitioning creditor in I. P. No. 3 of 1935 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga is the appellant and the insolvent in that petition is respondent l. The adjudication of the insolvent was annulled as he failed to apply for discharge, but at the same time certain properties were vested in the Official Receiver by an order of Court. The Official Receiver sold these properties and they were purchased by the appellant. Thereupon the insolvent made an application purporting to be made under various sections of the Provincial Insolvency Act and Section 151, Civil P. C, asking that the sales should be set aside. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the application, but the appeal to the District Judge of Ramnad was allowed a...
Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. by Managing Agents, K.R.M.T.T. Thiyagaraja Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad443
Byers, J.1. The learned Subordinate Judge has overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 69 (2), Partnership Act. The suit was brought by the son of a deceased partner, and it is now argued that the registration of the father's name holds good for the son, as if the relationship were that of a coparcenary. Section 63 (1) of the Act provides for the correction of the register when changes occur in the constitution of a registered firm; as the plaintiff has not had his name included in the register, Section 69 (2) is a bar. The suit is not maintainable and it is ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout....
Chirayath Konikkara Palu alias K.V. Paul Vs. Venkittarama Pattar's son ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad267
Happell, J.1. The question in C. M. S. A. No. 179 of 1943 is whether the appellant-and the appellant is the same in both appeals- is entitled to the benefits of Section 33, Malabar Tenancy Act. Section 33 of the Act is as follows:In any suit for eviction relating wholly or in part to a kudiyiruppu, which has been in the continuous occupation of a tenant or the members of his family to ten years on the date of the institution of the said suit, such tenant shall be entitled to offer to purchase the rights in the kudiyiruppu, of the landlord who seeks to evict him, at the market price on the said date.The kudiyiruppu in question in this appeal is a very small part of a large property mortgaged to the plaintiff-respondent by the holder of a permanent lease from the landlord. The mortgage was a usufructuary mortgage and the respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to evict the appellant and his mortgagees from the kudiyiruppu.2. A certain Ramanatha Aiyer held a permanent ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›