Chennai Court March 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.
G. Srinivasa Ayyar and ors. Vs. T.S. Swaminatha Odayar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad359
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. This appeal raises a question regarding the effect of Proviso C to S. (3) (ii) of Madras Act, 4 of 1938. The parties to this appeal and the facts affecting the decision of the question under Proviso C are precisely the same as those dealt with by a Bench composed of Burn and Stodart JJ. in Swaminatha Odayar v. Srinivasa Aiyer A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 942, though that decision arising out of an application under Section 20 of the Act will not operate as res judicata. Briefly the facts are these. The respondent was assessed to property tax in respect of properties at Mannargudi, the rental value of which is Rs. 495 per year. He was also the owner of properties in Tiruvarur, the rental value of which was Rs. 210. The municipal assessment register regarding the Tiruvarur properties retained during the relevant period the name of a former owner who had been dead for many years, Balasubramania Odayar. The respondent was a minor adopted by his grand-uncle and his guardian was his...
In Re: P. Srinivasa Mao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad477
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the Second Presidency Magistrate of Madras for an offence punishable under Section 5(1)(a) and (b), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act, read with Rules 28 and 29, Madras Prevention of Adulteration Rules of 1932 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 with simple imprisonment for four months in default. In the charge sheet that was laid by the Corporation it was stated that on 30th March 1943, the petitioner stored and offered for sale food described as ghee which was not of the nature or substance or quality which it purported or was represented to be for the reason that it contained an admixture of 80 per cent. of foreign fat and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5 (1) (a) and (b). The Magistrate found him guilty under that section on the evidence of P.W. 1, the inspector. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner offered for sale that ghee. The only evidence is that the ghee was kept i...
A.G.T.N. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr. Vs. A.G.T.N. Nagappa Chettiar a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad478
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit originally brought as O.S. No. 203 of 1938 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Devakottah. It was renumbered as O.S. No. 26 of 1940 and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. The suit was by two brothers in a Nattukottai Chetti family and was brought for a declaration that a compromise decree passed in 1939 was not binding on them. That decree was passed in a suit originally filed in 1924 by the two plaintiffs and their father. That suit was based upon an agreement of 1921 by the father of the plaintiffs with the other members of the family and the object of the suit was to set aside that agreement as having been extorted from the father of the present plaintiffs in circumstances which would make it not legally binding upon him. In the suit of 1924 the present plaintiffs who were then minors were at first represented by their mother as next friend, but it is clear that they and their father jointly filed a single...
S.A. Rm. A. Vandarguzhal Achi and ors. Vs. South India Corporation (Ma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad481
Leach, C.J.1. Appellant 1 is the wife of one Annamalai Chettiar. Appellants 2, 3 and 4 are their sons. Annamalai was joint with his brothers Muthia alias Ramasami and Chandramouli. They are Nattukottai Chettiars and as a joint family carried on a money lending business in Burma. On 1st April 1933 the adult members of the family were adjudicated insolvents by the Rangoon High Court. On 31st August 1938 that Court, acting under the provisions of Section 126, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and Section 77, Provincial Insolvency Act, sent a letter to the District Court of Ramnad requesting it to direct the Official Receiver of that place to render aid to the Official Assignee of Rangoon. Burma was then a part of British India and remained a part of British India until 1st April 1937 when the Government of India Act, 1935, came into force. On receipt of the letter of request the District Judge directed the Official Receiver to render assistance to the Official Assignee of Rangoon as requir...
G.J. Subbarayalu and anr. Vs. A. Rm. A.N. Annamalai Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad526
Leach, C.J.1. -The appellants are proprietors of a cinematograph theatre at Madura. On 21st August 1941 they agreed to buy from the respondent, and the respondent agreed to sell to them, a cinematograph projector and its accessories for the sum of Rs. 4500 on conditions set out in writing. The conditions were these:(1) The buyers were to pay as an advance the sum of Rs. 1000 which was to be treated as security for the due performance by them of the contract. In the event of default on their part, the Rs. 1000 was to be forfeited.(2) The balance of the purchase consideration, Rs. 3500, was to be paid in ten equal monthly instalments commencing on 30th September 1941.(3) If the buyers defaulted, the vendor had the option to adopt one of two courses. He could forfeit the advance, insist on the return of the machine and its accessories and charge rent therefore at the rate of Rs. 350 per month for every month the articles remained in the hands of the buyers. In the alternative, the vendor ...
Chundru Venkanna Vs. Chundru Brahmadu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad417
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. The appellant sued upon a mortgage, but the suit was dismissed as barred under Article 11, Limitation Act. In filing certain sale papers in connexion with the execution of a decree for the payment of money, the decree-holder referred to the existence of two mortgages on the property but said that they were collusive transactions. On this, notice was ordered to the mortgagees. One of them, the present plaintiff Chundru Venkanna, appearing in answer to the notice, filed a petition, called by the very familiar but wholly wrong name 'counter' stating that the mortgage in his favour was a true one and that it was fully supported by consideration and asking the Court for directions that the sale of the property to be held at the instance of the plaintiff decree-holder should be held subject to his mortgage bond. The Court posted the matter for inquiry on 4th December 1935, heard the parties on that date, said that the question would be considered at the time of the...
In Re: T.S. Swaminathan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad419
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by accused 1 in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1944 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate of Rajahmundry to revise the order of that Magistrate dismissing his petition to inspect (a) the entire case record files of the 33 Criminal and other cases mentioned in para. (2) of the charge sheet as having been disposed of by accused 1, (b) the several Court records (which have not been specified) mentioned in para. 3 of the charge sheet as having been scrutinised by two Sub-divisional Magistrates who were successors in office to accused 1 as the result of which scrutiny first information was laid to the police in about 23 Crime numbers, (c) the many Court records, namely, chalans, fines registers, monthly statements of fines, entries of adjournments in cases, property registers, contingent registers, etc., referred to (but not specified) in para. 6 of the charge sheet, (d) the entire case record files of about 32 cases mentioned in para. 9 of the ch...
Navaneethammal Vs. Ammakannammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-10-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad513
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for partition and recovery of a share of the property left by her deceased husband Thangavelu Pillai by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. This. Act became law on 14th April 1937, when it received the assent of the Governor-General. Before the Act, a widow had no right to a share in any part of her husband's property, if the husband died as a member of a coparcenary or had left a son or sons surviving. For the first time the Act gave her such a right. Thangavelu Pillai who died on 28th June 1939, had married three wives in succession. The appellant is the second of his wives. Her two co-widows are Ammakannu Ammal and Dhanabagiammal, impleaded as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. His only son, Kanakasabapathi still a minor, by his third wife Dhanabagiammal was joined as defendant 3. It is common ground that the estate left by Thangavelu Pillai comprised amongst...
M. Sheik Dawood Rowther Vs. South Indian Railway Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad444
Leach, C.J.1. For some time before 1st July 1941 - the exact period has not been disclosed to the Court - the South Indian Railway Company, Ltd., booked consignments of rice from stations on the company's line to Galle in Ceylon at a rate less than it had previously charged.. The new rate was known as the concession rate and was the only rate ruling in the month of June 1941. On the 15th of that month, the company cancelled the concession rate and reverted to the old rate as from 1st July 1941. The change was notified in the Local Rate Advice No. 6 of 1941, which was circulated to all stations on the company's system. In July 1941, the petitioner wished to consign two waggons of rice from Tanjore to Galle and five waggons of this commodity from Adhirampatnam to the same destination. Rice so consigned is carried over the South Indian Railway system' to Dhanushkodi where it is shipped to Thalamannar and then. placed on the Ceylon Government Railway. The booking clerks at Tanjore and at A...
Abdul Sattar Ismail Vs. Abdul Humid Sait
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad504
Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises important questions of law, in the first place with regard to the testamentary capacity of Cutchi Memons before the passing of the Cutchi Memons Act, 1938, and in the second place with regard to the validity of a wakf which a Cutchi Memon by his will directed should be endowed by the property forming the residue of his estate. The appeal arises out of two suits filed on the original side of this Court for the administration of the estate of Hajee Sir Ismail Sait, a wealthy Mussalman of the Hanafi sect and a member of the Cutchi Memon community, who died in Bangalore on 24th April 1934. He had eight children, seven of whom survived him, as did their mother. He left a will and a codicil there-to, both of which have been admitted to pro-bate by this Court. On 6th December 1939, two of the testator's grandsons, sons of his eldest, son, filed C. S. No. 280 of 1939 for the administration of the estate in accordance with the testamentary directions given by th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »