Chennai Court February 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.
T. Sarojini Devi Vs. T. Sri Kristna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad401
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These two connected appeals have been brought from a preliminary decree in a partition suit. One Ramachandra Rao died on 23rd February 1939, leaving him surviving his widow (plaintiff), two sons (defendants 1 and 2) and an unmarried daughter by his predeceased wife (defendant 3) and his mother (defendant 6). The sons and daughter being minors were represented by their maternal grandfather defendant 4 who was appointed as their guardian for the suit. Defendant 5 was a stranger with whom Ramachandra Rao carried on business in partnership as retailer of fancy goods under the style of Friends & Co. Soon after the death of Ramachandra Rao there were magisterial proceedings and inventories were prepared of the moveables in the house including the articles belonging to Friends & Co., which had its shop in the front rooms of the same premises. The plaintiff sued for partition and delivery of a third share of Ramachandra Rao's properties which were set out in five schedul...
J. Gopanna Vs. K. Ramaswami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad416
Happell, J.1. The question in this civil miscellaneous appeal is whether a right to celebrate the annual worship of a deity in a temple is a civil right so as to enable a suit to be maintained in a civil Court for an injunction in respect of that right. The plaintiffs, in the suit out of which this appeal arises represent the villagers of Sircar Poravipalayam. They sued, as the plaint prayer shows 'for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from celebrating the annual worship of Makali Aman of Sircar Poravipalayam during this year or at any future time' and the cause of action for the suit was said to have been that the worship which should have been celebrated either between 15th February and 15th March, i.e., in the Tamil month of Masi, by the plaintiffs or not at all, had been celebrated on 8th or 9th April, by the defendants. The defendants are the zamindar of the adjoining village of Zamin Poravipalayam and a villager of that village. Their case was that it was the zami...
Sivani Vs. Madhavadi Nadar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad409
Horwill, J.1. The Rajah of Ramnad obtained a decree against one of his ryots for arrears of rent in 1921. Various payments were said to have been made from time to time, but finally, in 1934, execution proceedings were taken out. The Collector fixed the terms of the proclamation and the date for sale, and appointed an Amin as the selling officer, instructing him to proclaim the sale in the village. The property was in due course brought to sale; and respondent 1, who was the successful auction purchaser, entered into possession. Many years later, in 1940, the daughters, who are the appellants here, brought the present suit for partition, alleging that their shares were not legally sold. The first Court held in the appellants' favour, finding that respondent 1 had not proved that the estate acted in good faith in issuing notice only to the sons and ignoring the daughters. The lower appellate Court held that the estate had acted in good faith and that therefore respondent 1 had obtained ...
Bharpat Mohammad Haneef Sahib and ors. Vs. Board of Trustees, Jumma Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad421
Mockett, J.1. This appeal concerns the mosque Jamma Masjid at Adoni. The appellants are 20 Adoni Muslims. The respondents are the trustees who owe their existence to a scheme which was settled in 1920 in O.S. No. 43 of 1920. That scheme contains Clause 22, which reads as follows:Any of the plaintiffs or the board of trustees or 20 Mahomedans of Adoni interested in the mosque may by petition apply to the Court for such further directions or alteration or modification of the scheme as may be necessary. The Court may after publication of notice in such manner as it deems proper hear the petitioners and any persons that may appear after such notice or their pleaders and pass such orders as it thinks necessary in the circumstances of the case.The learned District Judge of Bellary dismissed the application on the ground that it offended against Section 92, Civil P.C. The law on the subject had been set at rest by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in Veeraraghavachariar v....
Kuppammal Vs. Thangamuthu Pandaram and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad426
Happell, J.1. The appellant brought a suit for maintenance against her husband in the Court of the District Munsif of Palni. The District Munsif gave her a decree for Rs. 60 per annum for maintenance and Rs. 7 per annum for clothing from date of the plaint. The husband appealed and the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff has been living apart from her husband since about 1923, and the learned Subordinate Judge found that she had led an immoral life with the witness D. W. 2 between the years 1929 and 1931. The finding of the Subordinate Judge on this point cannot be challenged in second appeal, and, if proof that the plaintiff was leading an immoral life between the years 1929 and 1931, was a good defence to the suit, this second appeal must fail.2. It is argued, however, for the plaintiff that she was in any event entitled to what is Called in the text books 'starving maintenance.' It has been held, no d...
Adhilakshmi Ammal Vs. T. Nallasivan Pillai (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad530
Horwill, J.1. The property now in dispute originally belonged to one Venkatachalam, who conveyed it by gift to his daughter Adhilakshmi. As it was the stridhanam property of Adhilakshmi, it descended to her daughters Ramalakshmi, Venkatachalavadivoo and Mahalakshmi. As Mahalakshmi had become a widow and Venkatachalavadivoo had died leaving a daughter Chellathammal, Ramalakshmi entered into an agreement Ex. B, with Chellathammal, whereby they divided the property roughly in the proportion of two to one, Ramalakshmi undertaking to support her widowed sister Mahalakshmi. The suit property is the property that fell to the share of Ramalakshmi. Ramalakshmi had two sons, Subramania and defendant 10, and two daughters, the plaintiff and defendant 9. After Ramalakshmi's death her elder son Subramania seems to have got possession of the property, and since his death, his sons, defendants 1 and 2 have been enjoying it. The plaintiff brought the present suit, claiming that the suit property belon...
Kewalram Vs. Collector of Madras
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad285
ORDERLeach, C.J.14. Mr. Srinivasa Ayyangar has applied for a certificate under Section 205, Government of India Act, 1935, on the ground that his argument with regard to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935. He points to Section 292, Government of India Act, which provides for the continuance of the existing laws until altered or repealed by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, The Land Acquisition Act has not been repealed, but this does not prevent the Legislature passing the Defence of India Act, and there is difference between requisition and acquisition. We have already described the contention that the Land Acquisition Act stands in the way of requisition under the Defence of India Act, as an astonishing one and having heard the learned Advocate-General we are satisfied that the question is not one of interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, but even if it ...
P. Achyutaramayya Vs. T. Ramamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad377
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the District Munsif of Bezwada dismissing the petition of the judgments debtor in O.S. No. 210 of 1939 to set aside the sale of his house on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to sell the property. On the date on which the sale came on the judgment-debtor, defendant 3 in the suit filed a petition before the executing Court that he had presented a petition before the Debt Conciliation Board and praying that the sale may be stayed. That petition was dismissed by the Court after observing that the decree-holder's advocate stated that no such petition was filed before the Debt Conciliation Board, that not certificate as to the filing of that petition had been filed and that the District Munsif was convinced that the petition was not a bona fide one. The sale was held. Then this petition was filed to set aside the sale on the grou...
R. Venkatanarasimham Vs. K. Subba Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-02-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad435
Horwill, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one for property belonging to the deceased Narasamma whose stridhanam heir the plaintiff is. The question is whether he is barred from bringing the present suit on account of his omission in a prior suit to ask for the same relief. It is not denied that he Could have asked for this relief in the prior suit; but the question is whether he was bound to do so.2. The prior suit, O.S. No. 1368 of 1927, was for certain property, moveable and immovable, which had been in the possession of Narasamma before her death the immovable property having been purchased with funds she derived from gifts and maintenance paid to her by her father-in-law. The plaintiff relied in the first instance on a contract which Narasamma had entered into with her father-in-law at the time she received these gifts that she would return to the family whatever moveables she died possessed of. The plaintiff claimed that the agreement would also apply to the immov...
Official Receiver Vs. N. Subbamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-01-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad389
Horwill, J.1. In O.S. No. 539 of 1934, a suit for money, a certain quantity of indigo belonging to the defendant was attached before judgment; and as this was liable to deterioration it was sold, which meant that the attachment fastened itself to the money. A decree was passed on 14th September 1935. On the same day, a cheque petition was filed, E.A. No. 600 of 1935, praying that a cheque might be issued for the sum attached. Within a fortnight or so, on 2nd October 1935, the judgment-debtor filed an insolvency application, which was admitted two days later. On 10th October, the Official Receiver wrote a letter to the Court, drawing its attention to the fact that the property had become vested in him and asking the Court not to proceed any further. It seems that the defeated claimants had moved the High Court to pass an injunction restraining the decree-holder from drawing the money. In consequence of an endorsement on the cheque petition that it was not pressed for the present, the pe...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »