Chennai Court February 1944 Judgments
Chintalapati Murthiraju Vs. Chintalapati Subbaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad315
ORDER1. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore for the partition of the property of the joint family of which he was a member. He valued his suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 69,804-4-6 and he paid a court-fee of rupees 100 under Article 17 (b), Court-fees Act. He claimed inter alia a share in certain lands which stood in the names of defendants 7 to 16. The lands had belonged to the family; but had been sold for arrears of land revenue. The purchasers at the auctions were defendants 7 to 16. The plaintiffs alleged that in buying the lands these defendants were acting on behalf of the joint family and therefore were mere benamidars. The court-fee examiner considered that with regard to this part of the claim the plaint should be stamped under Section 7 (v), Court-fees Act, and the Subordinate Judge agreed with this opinion. The plaintiff then filed the present petition for revision of the Subordinate Judge's order requiring him to pay the...
Tag this Judgment!Ganeshmul Sait and anr. Vs. Muhammad Ismail Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad353
Leach, C.J.1. This second appeal has been placed before a Full Bench because Kuppuswami Ayyar J. before whom it came in the first instance, thought that it involved the reconsideration of Alagiriswami Pillai v. Lakshmanan Chetti A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 371 which was decided by a Division Bench. Having been placed in possession of the facts we are of the opinion that the appeal does not call for the reconsideration of Alagiriswami Pillai v. Lakshmanan Chetti A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 371. In O.S. No. 561 of 1934 of the District Munsif's Court, Vellore, respondent 2 obtained a mortgage decree against the appellants. In S. C. S. No. 1345 of 1938 of the same Court respondent l obtained a decree against respondent 2 and decided to execute it by the attachment of the decree obtained by respondent 2 in O.S. No. 561 of 1934. Section 33, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, states that a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes with respect to the exercise of that jurisdiction, and t...
Tag this Judgment!indo-commercial Bank Ltd. Vs. K. Narayanan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad400
Mockett, J.1. The appellant, the Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd., was the petitioner 2, assignee decree-holder, in the lower Court. The respondent was defendant 2 in the suit and respondent 2 in the lower Court. The petition before the Court was by the assignor and the assignee to record an assignment of the decree and to attach the share of defendants 2 and 3 in the illom properties. The learned Subordinate Judge made an order of attachment against the share of defendant 3 but refused to make such an order against the share of defendant 2. Hence this appeal by the Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd. Defendants 2 and 3 are Nambudiri Brahmins and members of an illom. Their legal position is defined by the Madras Nambudiri Act (21 of 1933). The following dates are relevant. On 2nd September 1932 the decree was passed. On 1st August 1933 Act 21 of 1933 came into force. Sometime in 1937 defendant 2 married a Nambudiri woman. On 18th March 1940 there was a partition in the illom and in the words of para. 4...
Tag this Judgment!Vangaveti Narayana and anr. Vs. Madar Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad473
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. Both these arise out of the same case, C. C. No. 13 of 1942 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Jaggayapeta. The charge against the petitioners who were accused 1 and 2 in the case was that they committed criminal trespass over 62 acres and 57 cents of land in S. No. 26 in T. D. No. 232 in Siripuram village in the possession of the zamindar of Munagala on 26th July 1941 at about 7 A. M. When the complainant, an estate servant, obstructed the accused from ploughing the land, they threatened to cause personal injuries if he interfered. They were charged with offences punishable under Sections 352 and 447; but they were acquitted in respect of the offence punishable under Section 352 and convicted only for criminal trespass. The matter was taken in appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bezwada who confirmed the conviction and sentence. On 16th October 1942, the Sub-Magistrate of Jaggayapeta passed an order directing the delivery of land trespassed to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Madura, Etc., Devasthanams Through Executive Officer R.S. Nayudu Vs. S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad442
Horwill, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of these second appeals; and the question, the answer to which determines whether second appeals He or not, is whether the suits are of a small cause nature.2. The appellant is the land-holder of the inam village of Moolakurichi, whereas the respondents are minor inamdars. Under their grant, they are entitled to water for a single crop; but they have been taking water from the appellant's tank for a second crop. The appellant brought the suits for damages for the use of his water, for poruppu, for cess paid under the Madras Estates Land Act to Government on the land of the respondents, and for interest on the various amounts due under the other heads.3. The respondents are not the tenants of the appellant; and so what is paid for the taking of water to which they are not entitled cannot be rent. The plaintiff can claim only damages for the unauthorised use of his water. The learned advocate for the appellant r...
Tag this Judgment!Katta R. Venkatesayya and anr. Vs. Mahammad Ghouse Saheb
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad450
ORDERByers, J.1. This petition arises out of an order passed by consent under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. The ground now taken is that this petitioner did not in fact consent and that the learned Judge was labouring under a. mistake of fact in thinking that he did consent. In support the petitioner has filed an affidavit by his advocate in the lower Court. The respondent has resisted on the ground that when a question of fact arises as to what happened in the lower Court the statement of the presiding Judge is conclusive. Reliance is placed on the decision in Reg. v. Pestonji ('73) 10 Bom. H.C.R. 75, where Westropp C.J., put the proposition in these words:The statement of the Judge, who presides at a trial, whether it be in a criminal or civil case, is, as to what has taken place at the trial, conclusive. Neither the affidavits of bystanders, nor of jurors, nor the notes of counsel, nor of short-hand writers are admissible to controvert the notes of statement of the Judge.2. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!Akella Jagannadham S/O Venkanna and ors. Vs. Venuthurupalli Narasimham ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad501
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendants 1 to 13 who represent the mortgagees under a usufructuary mortgage executed on 11th November 1893. The mortgagors now represented by respondents l to 3 brought the suit for redemption of the mortgage. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 625 and the document provided that the sum should carry interest at the rate of Re. 0-10-8 per cent. per month. At this rate which is equivalent to 8 per cent. per annum the annual interest on the mortgage money amounted to Rs. 60. The document recites that a fixed rent of Rs. 50 per year was settled in respect of the lands some of which had been cultivated and were in the occupation of tenants, the others being waste lands and then proceeds as follows:Therefore, towards the interest due on the aforesaid sum principal you shall enjoy the said lands for a period of 60 years, that is, from the current year Vijaya (1893) to the end of the recurring Vijaya year, viz, 1953, by way of leasing o...
Tag this Judgment!Avudayammal Vs. Ambasankar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad398a
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The appellants in this second appeal were defendants 10 and 11 in a suit brought by respondent 1 to enforce a mortgage. The mortgage was executed by defendants 1 to 3 on 25th June 1915, but. the mortgage money became due on 23rd June 1916. The appellants purchased some of the items comprised in the mortgage on 17th January 1923. Respondent 1 obtained an assignment of the mortgage from the original mortgagee, defendant 12 and brought the suit on 24th June 1940. The first Court dismissed the suit as against the appellants holding that the claim on the mortgage against the items purchased by them was time barred. On appeal by respondent 1 the lower appellate Court passed a decree even as against them, and hence this second appeal. The only questions argued in the second appeal related to the plea of limitation raised by the appellants. In answer to that plea respondent 1 relied on a payment of Rs. 10 made on 26th June 1928 on behalf of the mortgagors and endorsed by...
Tag this Judgment!Municipal Council Vs. Kumbakonam Bank Ltd. by Managing Director S. Mah ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad449
ORDERByers, J.1. The question raised in this petition under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is whether that part of the income of banking company which has been derived from investments can be assessed to profession tax by a municipality under Section 93 and the relevant rules in Schedule 4, District Municipalities Act. The facts in so far as they are necessary are that the Kumbakonam Bank, Ltd., was assessed to and paid profession tax for the two half-years of 1910-1941 at the rate of Rs. 68-12-0 half-yearly. Some months later, a notice was issued under Rule 4 (1) of Schedule 4 of the Act, calling upon the bank to show cause against a proposed increase in the assessment because the income from property and investments had not been included in the assessment. The objections were overruled and after the assessment had been enhanced, the additional tax levied was paid under protest. The suit was then launched in order to recover the amount involved. Several pleas were raise...
Tag this Judgment!Marwadi Sumermal Jamatraj Vs. B. Thukkappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad391a
Horwill, J.1. By Exs. A and C, dated 29th April 1939 and 9th May 1939 respectively, the owners of a certain property agreed to convey it to the appellant, and part of the consideration was paid. On 3rd June 1939, however, the owners conveyed the property by Ex. V to the defendant. The findings of fact of the Courts below are that subsequent to the execution of the sale deed, Ex. V, but prior to the date of registration, 12th July 1939, the defendant had notice of the prior agreement in favour of the appellant. The question is whether in the circumstances the appellant (plaintiff) is entitled to enforce the contract of sale against either the original owners or the defendant. Both the lower Courts held that he could not. It is complained against the judgments of the Courts below that the trial Court wrongly threw the onus on the plaintiff. It is, however, conceded that the learned District Judge in appeal held that the burden lay on the defendant of proving that he was a transferee for ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »