Chennai Court April 1944 Judgments
Rongali Pothuraju and ors. Vs. Kolli Appala Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad500
Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.1. One of the questions raised in this second appeal preferred by defendants 2 to 5 is whether an indorsee for collection of a promissory note can be given relief against the joint family properties of the sons of the maker also. Both the lower Courts followed the decision of Patanjali Sastri J. in Govindaswami Achari v. Kandaswami Achari A.I.R. 1942 Mad. 742 where it was held that where an indorsement was for collection and the in-dorsee occupies the position of an agent of the payee the sons could be made liable in the suit as on the original debt. This decision is in apparent conflict with the Bench decision of Pandrang Row and Abdur Rahman JJ. in Viraraghavalu Naidu v. Rajalingam A.I.R. 1939 Mad. 846 which was also a case of a suit by an indorsee for collection and in which it was held by the learned Judges that the plaintiff was not entitled under such an indorsement of the promissory note to sue the non-executant coparceners. Patanjali Sastri J. referred t...
Tag this Judgment!Gadiraju Lakshmipathiraju, Minor by Father and Next Friend, Gadiraju V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad551
Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of West Godavari dismissing a suit on a preliminary issue,. The suit was instituted by the appellant, through his natural father, Venkapathi Raju, as his next friend. The appellant's case was that on 4th May 1941 he had been adopted by one Surappa Raju, who on the same day executed a deed acknowledging the adoption. Surappa Raju died the following day. He was survived by his widow (respondent l) and by his brother (respondent 3). On 26th June 1941 the natural father of the appellant presented the deed of adoption for registration. As the adoption created an interest in immovable property registration was necessary. The presentation by the natural father of the deed for registration was concurred in by respondent 3, the nearest agnate of the appellant, assuming, of course, that he had been lawfully adopted by Surappa Raju. The widow disputed the legality of the adoption and wrote a letter to the Sub-Registrar objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Kantam Mahalakshmi and anr. Vs. Bhimireddi Venkatareddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad556
Somayya, J.1. The two plaintiffs who filed the suit for recovery of possession and whose suit has been dismissed are the appellants before me. The property originally belonged to one Raghava Reddi, who, as has been found by the lower appellate Court, had executed a written contract of sale in favour of the respondent (defendant) on 26th August 1929. A sum of Rs. 533 was paid to Raghava Reddi and possession was delivered to the defendant. The truth of this contract of sale,, payment of consideration and delivery of possession to the defendant have all been found by the lower appellate Court. Plaintiff l is the widow of Raghava Reddi, who died on 5th October 1933. It is enough to state that plaintiff 2 is the purchaser from plaintiff 1 under a sale deed dated 29th August 1934.2. One defence raised to the plaintiffs' action was that the defendant was in possession under a contract of sale executed on 26th August 1929 accompanied by payment of consideration and the doctrine of part perform...
Tag this Judgment!Valiakath Kunhi Seethi Koya Thangal Vs. Kizekkitathi Kovilakath Ravi V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad569
Somayya, J.1. The main question raised in this second appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry was competent to hear the suit. The suit came up in second appeal to this Court in S. A. No. 870 of 1935 both the lower Courts having dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped from denying the defendant's title. This Court held that there was no estoppel precluding the plaintiff from maintaining the suit and from enforcing his claim as against the defendant and remanded the suit to the District Court for disposal. It is said that it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Sub-Court was no longer functioning and that is given as the reason why the suit was remanded to the District Court of North Malabar for disposal. After this Court remanded the suit, a Sub-Court was established at Tellicherry and the District Judge transferred the suit to that Court. The Subordinate Judge heard the suit and dismissed it. An appeal was taken to the District Judge and he...
Tag this Judgment!Pallipurath Parameswaran Nambisan's son, family head and manager Naray ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad3
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a kanom filed by the appellant in the District Munsif's Court of Walluvanad. The defendant pleaded that he was entitled to get a renewal of the kanom and also raised other contentions. He further filed a petition under the Malabar Tenancy Act praying for a renewal being granted. The learned District Munsif ordered the renewal by order on I.A. No. 792 of 1941. But as the renewal fee and the arrears of rent and future rent which were directed to fee deposited were not deposited he dismissed that interlocutory application and decreed the suit on 25th February 1942. On appeal it was contended that the renewal fee fixed and directed to be paid was in excess and that the District Munsif had gone wrong in fixing the period for which renewal was to ensure. It was contended for the plaintiff in appeal that the order on I.A. No. 792 of 1941, the petition filed by the defendant for the grant of a renewal had become final as ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S.R. Raja Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad111
Leach, C.J. 1. These two revision petitions arise out of the same case. The petitioners' were charged in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Erode, with an offence punishable Under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, read with Section 84, Penal Code, and Clause (3), Food Grains Control Order, 1942. There were two counts. On the first count each of the accused was charged with having purchased on 17th February 1943 at Pudupalayam ten pothis of paddy at Rs. 41 per pothi without possessing a license under the Food Grains Control Order. On the second count they were charged with having purchased on 26th February 1943 at Kondayarnpalayam 25 pothis of paddy at Rs. 43 per pothi without a license. One pothi equals four bags. Each bag weighs about one and a half maunds. Clause (3)(1) of the Food Grains Control Order says that no person shall engage in an undertaking which involves the purchase, sale, or storage for sale, in wholesale quantities of any food grain, except under an...
Tag this Judgment!Penumoody Kanakaratnam Vs. Penumoody Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad11
Leach, C.J.1. The facts in this case are very unusual. The plaintiff is the widow of one Virraju, who died on 27th March 1941. She alleges that he executed a will on 25th March 1941, which was duly attested. One of the attesting witnesses was Penumoody Venkataratram, a divided brother of the deceased. On 1st May 1941, the plaintiff applied to the Sub-Registrar of Coconada for the registration of the will. There was no opposition to her application. On the other hand, she was supported by Venkataratnam. The order of the Sub-Registrar has not been exhibited, but apparently he was not satisfied that the will was genuine Consequently he rejected the application for registration. The Sub-Registrar's order was confirmed on appeal by the District Registrar. Here again, the plaintiff was unopposed. The Registrar's order was passed on 8th August 1941. On 1st September 1941, the plaintiff filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal. It was filed Under Section 77, Registration Act, 1908. S...
Tag this Judgment!Gade Rosi Reddi and anr. Vs. Gade Kristna Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad540
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of a suit for specific performance. One Venkata Reddi and his sons, defendants 2 and 3, executed a promissory note on 9th October 1933 in favour of the plaintiff and his paternal uncle, defendant 1, in renewal of an earlier note of 1930 executed by Venkata Reddi and defendant 2. The plaintiff and defendant 1 brought a suit on the note in 1936 for recovery of the amount due, but pending the suit the parties entered into a compromise as a result of which the suit was allowed to be dismissed. The terms of the compromise were embodied in three documents, Exs. A, B and G all executed on the same day, namely, 15th October 1936. Exhibit G is a promissory note executed by defendants 2 and 3 (their father having died by that time) in favour of the plaintiff and defendant 1 for Rs. 2004 being the amount of principal and interest settled as payable under the promissory note dated 9th October 1933. The said sum was to carry interest at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Shahool Ameeth Ali and anr. Vs. Dayaram Singh Alias Jayaram Singh
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad570
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The petitioners pray for the revision of an order of review. There is no doubt about the facts. The question before the lower Court was whether the respondents were entitled to relief under Madras Act 4 of 1938 in respect of certain mortgage debts. The decision of that question depended upon the further question whether the mortgage debts were advanced on security of house property situated within a panchayat which was a union before 26th August 1930 under Section 4(d) of the Act. The advocate for the debtors wrote a letter to the Inspector of Local Boards which is not before me, to which the reply was that the 'Brahmana Periya Agraharam Panchayat Board was constituted in this office R. Dis. No. 925 of 1929 dated 19th December 1929.' Acting on this letter the debtors came to the conclusion that they were not entitled to relief under the Act and they therefore agreed to a compromise fixing the amounts which they had to pay. Independently of the letter sent by the de...
Tag this Judgment!Kurma Pullamma Vs. Kurma Thatalingam Alias Raju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad44
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition by the wife against the order dismissing her petition filed Under Section 488, Criminal P.C. The Magistrate has found that there was no cruelty on the part of the husband and he also found that there was no neglect. The husband appears to be living with his parents and there had not been much of cordiality between the parents and the petitioner with the result that she left the house and has not returned to the husband's. After waiting for some years the husband has married a second wife. He offered to take back the petitioner but she refused to go and live with him. Hence the Magistrate dismissed the application.2. I see no reason to interfere with the finding on the facts by the Magistrate that there was no cruelty or neglect. It is urged however for the petitioner that the offer of the husband to take her back ought not to have been accepted as a bona fide one and reliance is placed for this on the decision in Sundarammal v. Palaniandi ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »