Chennai Court March 1944 Judgments
Seshama Raju and ors. Vs. Mosur Subramania Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad151; (1945)1MLJ167
Horwill, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is with regard to the priority of the representatives of two mortgagees to the village of Mylaravada. The earlier mortgage was one of the 6th March, 1891 in favour of one Seshama Raju for Rs. 7,500 and the property mortgaged consisted of the village of Mylaravada and another of the name of Veeranathur. The appellants are the representatives of that Seshama Raju. The other mortgage was one of the 9th June, 1894, in favour of Saravana Pillai and one Guruswami Ayya with whom we are not now concerned--for the sum of Rs. 54,763-12-11; and the mortgaged property consisted of 129 villages, including the village of Mylaravada. On the earlier mortgage, O.S. No. 7 of 1903 was filed in the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot; and in that suit Saravana Pillai was impleaded as the 14th defendant. He had by then acquired the interest of Guruswami Ayya in the mortgage of 1894. Saravana Pillai filed a written statement in which he admitted t...
Tag this Judgment!Neni Kavur Bai by Agent Jalamchand Lodha Vs. P. Ranganatham Pillai and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-30-1944
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ63
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 16th January, 1940, the first respondent and his brother P. Narayanaswami Pillai sold certain house property to the appellant for the sum of Rs. 37,000. The consideration for the sale was the discharge of fourteen mortgages which had been created by the vendors, or one of them for loans aggregating Rs. 28,745 and the balance in cash. The vendors covenanted that the property sold was free from any charge, lien or other incumbrance except mortgages specified and that the property was not subject to any proceeding of Courts, decree, attachment, maintenance decree or otherwise. They agreed to keep the purchaser indemnified against any such claims and tc make good all loss, damage and expenses that the purchaser might suffer. P. Narayanaswami Pillai was adjudicated an insolvent on the 25th February, 1941. Before his adjudication a creditor had filed a suit to recover from him the sum of Rs. 4,043-1-0 and, on the 19th April, 1939, obtained an attachme...
Tag this Judgment!Reddi Krishnamurthi (Legal Representative of Defendant 2) and ors. Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad439
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree and judgment of the District Judge of West Godavari reversing in appeal the decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore in O.S. No. 34 of 1937. In that suit the seven plaintiffs sued for a declaration that a surrender deed executed by defendant 1 on 15th May 1937, in favour of defendant 2 was not binding on them. The plaintiffs are the sons of the sons of a certain Brahmanna who was the brother of one Ganganna and so the uncle of Ganganna's son, Venkatarayudu. There had been a partition between Ganganna and Brahmanna and, on the death of Venkatarayudu in 1898 his widow, defendant 1, obtained a widow's estate in the properties left by him. Defendant 2 was Venkatarayudu's sister's son; and defendant 3 was defendant l's brother's son and had been brought into her house to manage her affairs for her. In the suit the plaintiffs raised two main contentions. They said that Venkatarayudu had adopted one Narayanamurthi who had died sho...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar by His Authorised Agent V. Atmanabha Ayya ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad176; (1945)1MLJ9
1. In this second appeal preferred by the first defendant, we are concerned with a channel called Punyam kasam kalva. It has its source in a river-bed in a village called Samanthavada, passes through the lands of Samanthavada and Aravasipattada, and flows into the limits of Punyam village where it irrigates Punyam lands. If is common ground that it is an artificial channel. It is also agreed that every drop of water in the channel is intended for the benefit of the proprietor and the ryots of Punyam and that the people of Samanthavada and Aravasipattada have no rights whatever to the water flowing in this channel. Originally the Rajah of Karvetnagar was the owner of the aforesaid three villages. He mortgaged them to different persons on various dates; and ultimately Aravasi pattada and Samanthavada were purchased by the Tirumalai and Tirupathi Devasthanam, while Punyarn was purchased by the first defendant. After this purr chase, the first defendant laid claim to the trees standing on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemanthu Yarlagadda Sivarama Prasad Bahadur Zamindar Garu of Challap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad497
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two connected applications under Section 19 of Madras Act 4 of 1938. The appellant in both cases is the decree-holder. The respondents in A. S. No. 269 were the petitioners in I.A. NO. 595 of 1939 filed in O.S. NO. 52 of 1933. The respondents in A. S. No. 270 were the petitioners in I.A. No. 596 of 1939 filed in O.S. NO. 53 of 1933. Under both decrees, defendant 1 was the father of the present respondents. The question agitated in the Court below was whether the respondents here could claim the benefit of Act 4 of 1938, having regard to the insolvency of their fathers, defendant 1 in each of the two suits. It is common ground that the decision of the lower Court proceeds on a misunderstanding of the law having regard to the rulings of this Court. Defendant 1 in O.S. No. 52 of 1933, father of the respondents in A. S. No. 269 obtained his discharge in insolvency on 24th September 1938. He was, therefore, an undischarged insolvent when Madras...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. A.C. Kuppuswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad390
Happell, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 378 of 1943 in the Court of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Bellary. The charge was under Section 7, Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. That section says : 'if the tax due in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid, the registered owner or the person having possession or control thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to 50 rupees; and the amount of the tax due by him in respect of such vehicle for the quarter or quarters concerned shall also be recovered as if it were a fine.' The accused was a contractor for the third Madras Regiment then at Bellary and the regiment under the agreement, Ex. A, had hired a vehicle from him from 13th December 1942 to 24th December 1942. This vehicle belonged to a certain. Kalappa of Bellary and the accused had hired it from Kalappa before passing it on under Ex. A to the military authorities. Exactly when he hired it from Kalappa or for how...
Tag this Judgment!Government of Province of Madras Through Collector of Ramnad Vs. Al. A ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad544
Leach, C.J.1. Respondents l and 2 are the proprietors of the village of Karaikudi. They instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Devakottah against the Provincial Government and the Municipal Council of Karaikudi for a decree setting aside a decision of a Survey Officer, under the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Section 14 of the Act gives an aggrieved party the right of bringing a suit to challenge a decision of the Survey Officer, provided he does so within three years from the date of the notification of the order. The suit was filed on 13th September 1936, which was within the time allowed, and the plaintiffs averred that they had given to the defendants the notice required by law. The defendants filed separate written statements on 3rd February 1937, but no objection was taken by them to the validity of the notice. Before the District Munsif a question arose with regard to the value of the subject-matter of the suit and it was eventually decided that the va...
Tag this Judgment!Matam Basayya Vs. Hanumantha Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad548
Horwill, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the sale of the appellant's house in execution of a money decree against him can be set aside on the ground that under Section 60(1)(c), Civil P. C, a house in the occupation of an agriculturist is exempted from attachment. The lower Court held that in view of the conduct of the appellant in not claiming his rights on two prior applications, first at the time when the property was attached, and secondly when the property was brought to sale, be cannot raise the objection now after the property has been brought to sale.2. There can be no doubt that if a person during the course of execution proceedings does not raise an objection to the sale of property which, if raised, would prevent the property from being brought to sale, he is debarred by the principle of constructive res judicata from raising that same objection either in subsequent proceedings or at a subsequent stage in the same execution proceedings. The learned advocate for t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chinnavan Rowther Alias Sahul Hamid
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad479
Leach, C.J.1. The petitioner was charged in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Dindigul with having attempted to smuggle rice from the District of Madura to the State of Travancore in violation of a. notification issued by the Additional District, Magistrate of Madura, dated 18th February 1943, prohibiting the export of rice to places outside the Madura District. The Magistrate found the charge to have been proved and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. An appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed. The accused has now applied to this Court to revise the order of the Sessions Judge. He does not challenge the findings of fact. He confines his case to the contention that the notification issued by the Additional District Magistrate prohibiting the export of rice from the Madura District did not apply in the circumstances. He maintains that he could only have been charged under an earlier notification issued by the Provi...
Tag this Judgment!Tinnevelly Motor Bus Service Co. Ltd. Through Managing Director, R. Ve ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad575
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. While I agree with the view-taken by the lower appellate Court that the civil Court can go only into the question whether the Collector has disposed of the applications for refund of the motor vehicles tax bona fide on the materials placed before him, I am of opinion that in S. A. Nos. 320 to 324 of 1943 the orders of the Collector refusing refund require revision and reconsideration. I say this because it does not appear from the orders themselves whether the Collector applied his mind to the question whether the licences were surrendered within a reasonable time after the relevant date. The Subordinate Judge refers to the fact that in the office note, put up for consideration by the Collector it was pointed out that there were no explanations for some portion or part of the periods in question. We have no right to look into these office notes and be guided by that is said therein either in favour of the applicant or against him. Especially in cases where th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »