Chennai Court February 1944 Judgments
Teertha Swamulu Varu Vs. K. Ramamurthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad375
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal involves a question of the interpretation of Section 15 (2) of Madras Act 4 of 1938. The appellant filed a suit in the revenue Court claiming arrears of rent for fasli 1345 and for fasli 1348. It is common ground that the arrears for faslis 1346 and 1347 were deposited within the time contemplated in Section 15 of the Act. There is no dispute regarding the arrears for fasli 1348. Both the Courts below have held that the suit for fasli 1345 is barred by the cancellation of previous arrears under Section 15 of Act 4 on the payment within the proper time of the rent for faslis 1346 and 1347. The appellant contends that by the operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, the arrears for fasli 1345 are not cancelled. This sub-section is not very easy to construe and so far as I know, it has not been the subject of any judicial interpretation by this Court. Omitting the words with which we are not concerned it runs as follows, 'Nothing contained in Sub-s...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Narasimha Sastry Vs. Veereswara Sastry Sitihanti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad441
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The question in this second appeal preferred by the plaintiff is whether he is entitled to drain off the water falling on the northern side of the well shown as W in the plan through the sluice C to the defendant's southern portion round the well so that it may ultimately pass through the drainage channel D. The District Munsif held that he had this right; but the Subordinate Judge came to a contrary conclusion.2. That the right was being enjoyed for 20 years prior to the suit peaceably and uninterruptedly, which is the case put forth in the plaint, has been negatived by the Subordinate Judge for adequate reasons. But he has also held that this is not an easement of necessity, because the plaintiff's house abuts on a street and it should be easy for the plaintiff to carry the water falling on his side of the well to the street.3. Easements of necessity are those described in Clauses (a), (c) and (e) of Section 13 of the Act and illustrations (a), (b) and (m) ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Uduman Taraganar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad451
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Tinnevelly for an offence punishable under Rule 81 (4) of the Defence of India Rules and sentenced to pay a fine Rs. 200. The charge against him was that he stored 31 1/2 bags of rice (each bag containing 45 measures weighing two maunds). This was noticed by the Commercial Tax Officer when he visited the petitioner's shop on 21st March 1948. The accused admitted the storage and pleaded guilty. The Magistrate found that the storage was made for sale, that the quantity stored exceeded twenty maunds and hence found him guilty and sentenced him as stated above. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 50 and confirmed the conviction. It is now urged before me that the words 'storage for sale in wholesale quantities' were not defined in the rules as they stood on the date of the offence and that Rule 3 [This probably refers to Clause 3 of ...
Tag this Judgment!T.S.Pl.S. Thinnappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. G. Rajagopalan, Official Liq ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad536
Leach, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of proceedings instituted under Section 235, Companies Act, by the Official Liquidator of the Oriental Investment Trust Ltd., which is in the process of being wound up compulsorily under an order of this Court passed on 21st July 1939. The company was incorporated on 9th September 1936. The first directors were C. Abdul Hakim, P. V. Swanithan, V. KR. ST. Kasi Viswanathan Chettiar, S. Subbaraya Mudaliar, T. RM. T. SP. P. L. Palaniappa Chettiar and PL. VA. V. Ramanathan Chettiar. C. Abdul Hakim and P. V. Swaminathan died before the liquidation commenced and Kasi Viswanathan after the misfeasance summons had been heard. On 1st April 1937, T. S. PL. SP. Thinnappa Chettiar joined the board. Charges of misfeasance were prefer-red against Kasi Viswanathan, S. Subbaraya Mudaliar, Palaniappa, Ramanathan and Thinnappa. It was claimed that as the result of; their misconduct they were liable jointly and severally in the sum of Rs. 2,77,531-5-9. The learn...
Tag this Judgment!V.K.R.S.T. Firm, Now Represented by V.K.R.S.T. Manicka Chettiar Vs. Or ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad532
Leach, C.J.1. On 21st July 1939 the Court passed an order for the compulsory winding up of the Oriental Investment Trust, Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act. An undivided Chettiar family carrying on business under the vilasam of V. K. R. S. T. claimed to rank as a creditor in the sum of Rs. 1,36,274-1-2. The Official Liquidator disputed the validity of the claim, except to the extent of Rs. 6310-7-0. As the investigation of the question involved a lengthy inquiry, it was decided that it should be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the trial of a suit on the original side of the Court. After the pleadings had been closed the suit came on for hearing before Bell J. who held that the contentions of the Official Liquidator were well founded and consequently only allowed the firm to rank as a creditor for the admitted sum of Rs. 6310-7-0. This appeal is from the judgment of the learned Judge. It will be convenient hereafter to refer to the V.K.R.S.T. firm ...
Tag this Judgment!Alla Venkatappadu and ors. Vs. Muddana Atchayyamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad172; (1945)1MLJ134
Happell, J.1. The appellants are the third and the fourth defendants, and the wife of the first defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1937 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Vizagapatam. The plaintiff in that suit was the widow of a certain Appadu who had died in July, 1934. The father of this Appadu had married the daughter of one Jaganna and jaganna had taken him into the family as his illatom son-in-law. The first defendant was the grandson of Jaganna. Disputes apparently arose between the first defendant and Appadu and in consequence they executed the settlement deed, Ex. C, dated 2nd May, 1932. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 57 of 1937 on the footing of this settlement deed, and claimed possession of her husband's half share of the properties, on the ground that the defendants had trespassed on them in 1935, together with mesne profits from that year and, in case it was found that she was not entitled to possession, she claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12 per mensem and arrears of ...
Tag this Judgment!K.V.V.P. Veettil Vellachi Vs. Gopalan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad407
Horwill, J.1. Members of a tarwad entered into a rather unusual partition agreement under which the tarwad property was divided into four lots. The one with which we are concerned fell to the share of a mother, plaintiff 1, and her son, the defendant. Plaintiff 1 had three daughters and a son; but the daughters separated themselves from their mother and entered into the other groups. After the partition, plaintiff 1 transferred her interest in the property that fell to the share of herself and the defendant, to plaintiff 2, one of her divided daughters. The question for decision in the Courts below was whether it was permissible for the mother and the son to hold the property jointly. If so, then it was presumed that they could not divide the property and that the defendant was entitled to oppose the transfer of his mother's share to plaintiff 2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. Much of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is based on Moithiyan v. Ayissa ...
Tag this Judgment!Karingampilly Manakkal Parameswaran Nambudripad's son, Parameswaran Nu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad511
Horwill, J.1. We are concerned in these appeals only with the estimation of the sum of money due to the appellant, the landlord, on account of the failure of his tenants, the respondents, to pay rent for the years 1115 and 1116 Makaram. For the greater part, the rent was payable in paddy, the quantity being 75 paras odd. Both the lower Courts held that the amount due by the tenants to the landlord is the average value of such paddy for five years prior to the breach. The difficulty has arisen over the interpretation of Section 51 (2), Malabar Tenancy Act. I have been at some pains to understand from a reference to the whole Act what this sub-section could mean; for the context does not help us. The only explanation that seems to fit in with the actual words used in the section is that Section 51 (2) lays down a commutation rate where rent, michavaram, or renewal fees has to be fixed. It seems clear to me that this sub-section could not have been intended to apply to estimating damages ...
Tag this Judgment!Adinarayana Vs. Rattamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad408a
Horwill, J.1. C.R.P. No. 2185 of 1941 : - The allegation in the plaint with which we are now concerned is that the deceased petitioner 1 executed a sham and nominal gift deed for the purpose of screening his property from creditors. He was subsequently dispossessed of this property; and he therefore sought for a declaration that he was still the owner of the property, despite the execution of the gift deed and for possession. The question is whether the prayers in his plaint are to be looked upon as being merely for a declaration and consequential relief or whether the suit is to be regarded in substance as one for the cancellation of the gift deed. If the latter be the case, as the lower Court has found, then the petitioners will have to pay a very much higher court-fee than that already paid. It is not denied that if, as the plaintiff alleged, the transaction was a sham and nominal one, there was no conveyance of property from petitioner 1 to his first wife, the donee under the deed....
Tag this Judgment!Vangala Venkateswarlu Vs. Sivapurapu Hymavatamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad471
Horwill, J.1. The findings of fact are that the defendant received a sum of money from P.W. 5 for which she executed a promissory note, Ex. A, dated 17th January 1936. An endorsement on the back of the promissory note purporting to endorse the promissory note over to the plaintiff bears the date of 21st April 1936; and it is found that that was not the true date of the endorsement, and that it was written merely to avoid the application of Madras Act & of 1938. The first Court found that the suit was not maintainable, and so dismissed the suit with costs. The lower appellate Court, while upholding the finding of the District Munsif on questions of fact, found that the mere antedating of the note (despite the circumstances found by the learned Subordinate Judge) did not amount to forgery. The learned Subordinate Judge was prepared to consider the plaintiff -a woman-as an endorsee for collection; and so he decreed the suit to the extent that would have been permissible had the true owner...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »