Chennai Court October 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.
Somalinga Subbaroyalu Ayyar Vs. Anna Muthulakshmi Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad149; (1945)1MLJ3
1. The suit is upon a mortgage. Two questions are raised. One is whether the suit is barred by limitation and the other is whether the debt has been paid. On the question of discharge the lower,appellate Court has found' against discharge. A receipt is said to have been passed by the mortgagee on the date when the amount is said to have been paid. That receipt is not produced. The only witness examined in support of this plea of discharge is discredited by the lower appellate Court. I see no reason to interfere with that finding.2. It is then said that the suit is barred by limitation. The rnortgage was in 1916. It was exeeuted in fayour of the plaintiff's husband. A period of three years was fixed for payment of the amount. So ordinarily limitation would start in 1919 and the suit should have beeif filed within twelve years from that date. It is said on behalf of the plaintiff that after the death of the mortgagee which occurred ill 1920, the right devolved upon his son then a minor a...
Pazhancheri Panangat Blahayil Thachunni Nair Vs. Pazhancheri Panangat ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad93; (1945)1MLJ7
1. The question which the Court has to consider in this case is whether Section 32 of the Madras Marumakkattayyam Act, 1932, has altered the customary law to the extent of permitting a suit for accounts to be filed against a karnavan.2. The appellant is a junior member of a tarwad of which the first respondent is the karnavan.. He sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Chowghat for a decree granting inter alia the following reliefs : (1) Ordering the karnavan to produce in Court within a date specified the daily accounts, ledgers, counterfoil receipt books, and vouchers relating to the income and expenditure of the tarwad from the 1st Kanni 1117 to the 31st Chingam 1117 (that is from the 17th September, 1941 to the 16th September, 1942) and (2) directing the karnavan to render true and correct accounts of all the income and expenditure and generally of the management of the tarwad since he became the karnavan. The District Munsiff considered that a Suit of this nature could now b...
Nallakumara Goundan Vs. Pappayi Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad219; (1945)2MLJ72
Somayya, J.1. The second defendant in a suit for maintenance brought by the plaintiff first respondent is the appellant in this Court. The first respondent is the widow of one Chinnappa Goundan. Chinnappa Goundan and Muthuswami were brothers. They became divided under a partition deed Ex. D in the year 1919. At that time, their mother and grandmother and an aunt of theirs were alive. The properties now in suit and a house were set apart for the maintenance of the three ladies to be enjoyed by them for their life. Chinnappa, the plaintiff's husband, executed a will in favour of his brother Muthuswami. He directed the legatee to pay Rs. 17 to 20 per month to his wife the plaintiff for her maintenance. The will declared that if the legatee failed to pay the maintenance to his wife, she would have a right to recover it from the propsrties of Chinnappa Goundan which remained in the hands of the first defendant's father after paying his debts. It also provided that the land that was set apar...
Marudamuthu Pillai Vs. G.K. Radhakrishna Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad118
Horwill, J.1. On 18th July 1904, one Ramaswami gifted the suit house to his wife. On 8th February 1905, by Ex. D-1, the wife sold the property to the appellant, who leased it back to Ramaswami. In O.S. No. 1094 of 1905 on the file of the District Munsif of Erode, a creditor of Ramaswami brought a suit Under Order 21, Rule 68 against the claim order holding that the gift by Ramaswami and the sale by his wife were true. That suit was dismissed, as was the appeal to the District Court. Later on, respondent 1 sought to proceed against the property. On the claim petitions, it was held as before that the gift and sale were true. Consequently, the defeated creditor, who is respondent 1, filed O.S. No. 115 of 1942 to establish his right to proceed in execution against that property; and he contended therein that the gift and the sale were nominal. At the same time, the appellant filed O.S. No. 116 of 1942 against the sons of Ramaswami, who has since died, to recover the property. These suits w...
Pazhaveettil Chekkara Kunhi Kannan Vs. Elamankandi Kinattumkara Chappa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad121
Leach, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from an order of Happell J. directing that the appellant should furnish security for the costs of the respondent in Appeal No. 119 of 1943 of this Court. The appellant's complaint is that the application for security for costs was made at a very late stage and on the accepted principle that promptness is the essence of such an application, the learned Judge should have refused it. We consider that this argument is well founded. The appeal was filed on 22nd February 1943, and was admitted on 18th March 1943. The respondent was served in due course. The application for an order for security for costs was filed on 25th July 1944, by which time the record had been printed and the case had appeared in the rough list, which meant that all costs in connexion with the printing of the record had been incurred. The learned Judge, in passing the order for security for costs had regard to what had happened in an application made by the respondent for the execution ...
A. Ramamurthi Iyer and ors. Vs. T.A. Meenakshisundarammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad103; (1945)1MLJ4
ORDER1. These two petitions, for which a common order will suffice, have been filed under Order 9 Rule 9 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the orders of dismissal passed for default of appearance in C.R.P. Nos. 132 and 133 of 1944.2. The facts in so far as they are necessary at this stage are that the petitioners' learned advocate was not in Court when the revision petitions were called on for hearing and as his clients were also absent, the petitions were dismissed. According to the learned advocate's affidavit, he had been waiting in Court for some time for the petitions to come on for hearing but had gone to another Court in the interval under the impression that his petitions would not be called on for some little time the preceding causes were disposed of rather more quickly than he anticipated, with the result that he was not present when the petitions were called on for hearing. These facts are not in dispute, and the only question which arises for deci...
Madrasai Bakiath Us-salihath, Society Managed by P. Abdul Khader Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad88
Leach, C.J.1. There is no substance in this appeal. The appellant obtained a decree declaring that he was the owner of certain immovable properties. These were in the possession of a Receiver and on the decree being passed the Receiver put him in possession. The decree also directed that the defendant should pay by way of costs the sum of its. 926-13-0. An application was filed for the execution of this part of the decree and it was contended by the appellant that he was entitled to have as the fee allowed to his pleader for the execution petition a sum of Rs. 212-8-0 being one-fourth of Rs. 850 which was the amount allowed for the pleader's fee in the suit. The Subordinate Judge held that Under Rule 34 he was only entitled to one-fourth of the fee allowable on Rs. 926-13-0. Under Rule 31(2) that fee was Rs. 46-8-0, and one-fourth came to Rs. 11-10-0. This decision was upheld by Kuppuswami Ayyar J. and the appellant has now appealed Under Clause 15, Letters Patent. Rule 34 of the Rules...
V.S.A. Krishna Mudaliar Vs. V.S.A. Sabapathi Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ14
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Upto the 17th September 1941 the appellant, the respondent and their brother V.S.A. Arumugha Mudaliar, who constituted a joint Hindu family, carried on business in cloth at Chennimalai (Coimbatore), Coimbatore, Kumbakonam, Tiruppur and Jaffna in Ceylon. On that date they divided and by a deed of partition the respondent was allotted the businesses at Chennimalai and at Jaffna. To the appellant fell the business at Tiruppur where the family carried on a ginning factory, and a sum in cash. Arumugha was given the businesses at Coimbatore and Kumbakonam.2. In 1942 the Government of India passed an Ordinance which established control over the export from India of cotton piecegoods to Ceylon and other countries and piecegoods merchants were informed that applications for licences permitting the export of such goods would be considered only on their furnishing statements of their exports during 1941-1942. It has been stated in the course of the arguments that...
Sreenivasa Iyer Vs. Govinda Kandiyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad50
Leach, C.J. 1. Respondent 1 is the father-in-law of respondent 2. On 18th July 1929 they executed a bond in favour of the petitioner. Under it respondent 2 was to work as a farm laborer for the petitioner. Respondent 2 left the petitioner's employment on 1st May 1942, whereupon the petitioner filed S.C.S. No. 302 of 1943 in the Court of the District Munsif, Tiruturaipundi to recover the money due under the bond. The District Munsif held that the document constituted a slavery bond and dismissed the suit. The question which we are called upon to decide is whether the bond can in law be regarded as 11 slavery bond. The operative part of the bond reads as follows:For paying and discharging the dues under the debt and for personal labor executed by Vayira Padayachi out of us in favor of Manakkudi Rama Mudaliar for Rs. 70 and the dues under promissory note for Rs. 30, in all Rs. 100 for two items, free from all claims, excluding the amount paid already, the amount borrowed from you by us in...
Dr. R.G. Rajan and anr. Vs. N. Srinivasa Naidu, Trustee of Sri Venkata ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad102
King, J. 1. This petition relates to Appeal No. 280 of 1943 and is filed by the appellants. The appeal was filed on 9th August 1943 and a court-fee of Rs. 1162-7-0 was paid. It is now contended that in accordance with the terms of a notification published in Government Order No. 5791 dated 17th May 1943, this court-fee is excessive and that all that need have been paid was one-third of the amount. The notification runs:In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35, Court-fees Act, 1870, His Excellency the Governor of Madras is hereby pleased to reduce the fee chargeable in any suit for possession or joint possession between trustees, or between a plaintiff who claims to be a trustee and a defendant who is alleged to have ceased to be a trustee, to one-third of what it would be if the suit related to a claim in respect of private property. 2. Court-fee has been paid on the appeal on the footing that the ordinary court-fee payable on a claim in respect of private property was due. Th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »