Chennai Court November 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.
Kunhi Pathumma and ors. Vs. Sundara Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1944
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ55
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The first respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Taliparamba to enforce a mortgage of immovable property which had been executed by the second respondent on her own behalf and on behalf of the appellants who are her children. The family is a Moplah family of North Malabar. The mother and her children were made defendants. The only real question in the suit was whether the interests of the children were affected by the mortgage. It was alleged that their father and not their mother was their lawful guardian and as he had not signed the mortgage on their behalf it could not be enforced against them. This defence was successful and the decision was upheld by the District Judge on appeal by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court and Horwill, J., reversed the decisions of the Courts below. He held that the mother was the lawful guardian of the minors and that consequently the mortgage decree should embrace the...
Ekollu Subbarami Reddy Vs. Ekollu Chenchuraghava Reddy and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad327; (1945)1MLJ151
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question with regard to the powers of a ,'' grandfather when he effects a partition between himself, his son and the sons of a I deceased son. There are other questions involved in the appeal and in order to appreciate them it is necessary to state in some detail the claim set out in the plaint, the pleas advanced by the defendants and the course of events in the Courts below.2. The following pedigree shows the relationship between the parties:Ekollu Boyi Reddi________________________|____________________________| |Chenchuraghava Reddi (d. 1917) subbareddi___________|_______________________________ | |(By first wife) (Subbarami (By second wife Kamalammal thirdReddi, plaintiff). defendant)._________________________|___________________| |Subbareddi (d. in 1931) (Married Chenchuraghavasubbamma, the 2nd defendant). Reddi (1st defendant)3. In 1923 the joint family consisted of Boyi Reddi, his second son Subbareddi, and the three sons of...
A. Kulandaivelu Pillai Vs. Sowbagyammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad350; (1945)1MLJ261
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He purchased the property at an auction held by the Official Receiver on 20th December, 1927. The defendant is a purchaser of the same property on 25th April, 1940, in execution of a charge decree in her favour of the year 1911. At first, the suit was only for an injunction but later a prayer for possession was added on the ground that the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff. The District Munsiff decreed the plaintiff's suit holding that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the charge decree in execution of which the defendant purchased the property. But on appeal the Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit not because the plaintiff was not such a bona fide purchaser but on the ground that the plaintiff's purchase from the Official Receiver was affected by the doctrine of lis pendens. The Us Q.S. No. 44 of 1911, fructified into a charge decree for maintenance on 30th September, 1913. It is for some...
In Re: Kathari Lakshmayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-22-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad459; (1945)2MLJ139
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petition in this case is in substance to quash the commitment of the petitioners to take their trial at the Sessions Court by the Additional District Magistrate of Ellore. The charge-sheet filed by the police was enquired into by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Narasapur under the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But when the prosecution evidence has been led and, after hearing the arguments of both parties, he decided that no case had been made out of an offence under Section 307 and accordingly framed charges under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and converted, as he says, the case to a calendar case triable by himself. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate embodied his decision to frame charges against the accused only under Sections 147,323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code in an order which he passed on the 30th March, 1944. The order of the Additional District Magistrate now under consideration was passed on an appli...
Perumal Reddiar and ors. Vs. Suppiah thevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad500; (1945)1MLJ341
Horwill, J.1. Defendants 1 and 3 mortgaged the suit property to the plaintiff on the 21 st July. 1924 by Ex. P-2. Prior to that mortgage, there was a mortgage by defendants 1 and 2 under Ex. P-1 a on the 24th August 1921 to one Narayana Reddi and in 1933 the mortgagee brought O.S. No. 429 of 1933 on his mortgage, impleading the plaintiff as a puisne mortgagee. A decree was passed; and on the 29th July 1936 the plaintiff paid Rs. 667-8-0 to satisfy the decree. Satisfaction of the decree was entered up on the 18th June 1937. The plaintiff then brought O.S. No. 233 of 1937 asking for a decree against his mortgagors and against the hypotheca claiming to be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee under Ex. P-1 a of the 24th August 1921. The lower appellate Court held that he was not entitled to a decree, for his mortgagors had no right in the property whatsoever, because on the date of the mortgage in favour of the plaintiff they had parted with their interest in the property; and so the ...
Ravikanti Kamoji Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Sri Raja Mirja Sri Pusapati ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad283; (1945)1MLJ432
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order in execution of a compromise decree. The only question raised in the appeal relates to an amount of Rs. 676 which was included in the compromise as premium in respect of land described as old waste, for the occupation of which the compromise makes provision. It is contended that this portion of the decree is illegal in the light of Section 25 of the Madras Estates Land Act as amended in 1934, and that the appellants are entitled to contend in bar of execution that to this extent the decree is opposed to the statute. They rely on certain observations in Ambu Mair v. Kelu Nair I.L.R. (1929) Mad. 805.2. It seems to me that the obscurations upon which the appellants rely have no bearing on the present, case. Under the Madras Estates Land Act as it stood at the time when this compromise decree was passed, the decree for the payment of nazardna in respect of old waste was lawful. That decree the respondent is executing at a time when the law...
R.M.S.N. Narayanan Chettiar Vs. M.P.P.S.P.L. Muthiah Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1944
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ337
Mockett, J.1. The Judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of reading has so fully set out the facts and issues for determination in this case that I do not propose to repeat them. I am in complete concurrence with all his conclusions on the issues of fact and I propose to add nothing with regard to points 2 and 3 which relate to the question whether in the case of item 1 of schedule C the property concerned is that of the first plaintiff or of Deivanai and in the case of items 1 to 4 of schedule D whether the properties belong to Deivanai or to the joint family. With regard to the question of fact as to whether the adoption of Subramaniya by the first defendant has been proved, I consider that apart from the oral evidence the documents support the allegation that the adoption was carried out[After reviewing the evidence on this question His Lordship proceeded]2. With regard to the question of law involved, it is important, first to consider whether the learned Jud...
Krishnaswami Naicker Vs. Nalla Gounder
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad309
Horwill, J.1. When the respondent presented a document for registration to the Sub-Registrar, the appellant who purported to be the transferor, was absent; and his absence was construed by the Sub-Registrar as a denial of execution. The Sub-Registrar Wherefore refused to register the document be respondent thereupon invoked the procedure laid down in Section 73, Registration Act, and applied to the District Registrar to register the document. It was open to the District Registrar to inquire into the factum of execution Under Section 74(a) of the Act, but he did not do so; for he held that as the respondent had not complied with the requirements of Section 145(2), Madras Estates Land Act, the requirements of law had not been complied with and that the application had therefore to be dismissed Under Section 74(b). Thereupon, the respondent filed a suit Under Section 77 of the Act. The District Munsif upheld the order of the District Registrar and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge...
Ghadiyam Subbareddi Vs. Tokala Venkatramayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad137; (1945)1MLJ38
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises a question which admittedly is not directly covered by authority. On the 19th May, 1931, the first defendant in the suit, as the manager of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and his two brothers executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff's brother. The plaintiff and his brother who were also joint subsequently separated and the promissory note fell to the share of the plaintiff. On the 2nd June, 1934, the first defendant executed a promissory note in renewal of that made on the 19th May, 1931. More than three years had elapsed, but the earlier promissory note was still enforceable on the 2nd June, 1934. The holder had threatened to file a suit on the earlier instrument, but was unable to do so immediately as the Court was closed for the summer vacation He said that he would file the suit on the re-opening of the Court and in order to avoid this the first defendant ,as the manager of the joint family executed the n...
Kattamuri Narasimhan Vs. Thumurugoti Premayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad196; (1945)1MLJ219
Horwill, J.1. In 1933 the appellant took a transfer of a mortgage debt the rate of interest on which was 12 per cent per annum with annual rests. In 1937,. the Madras Government passed the local Act, (Act VIII of 1937) amending the Usurious Loans Act (X of 1918), under which amendment the Court had to presume that if an agriculturist was charged compound interest, the interest was excessive. The questions that arise for decision are : (1) whether Sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Act will save the appellant from the application of the Madras amendment, and (2) whether the rate fixed by the lower appellate Court as the fair rate, namely, 9 per cent simple interest, is reasonable.2. Sub-section 4 of Section 3 of the Usurious Loans Act reads:Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of any transferee for value who satisfies the Court that the transfer to him was bona fide, and that he had at the time of such transfer no notice of any fact which would have entitled the debtor as agai...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »