Chennai Court April 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.
Viziaram Gajapathiraj Bahadur, Raja of Vizianagaram Vs. Vikramadeo Var ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad518
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance brought by the appellant, who is the Raja of Vizianagaram represented by the Manager under the Court of Wards, against the respondent, the Maharajah of Jeypore. The agreement which is sought to be enforced is a compromise of two alleged disputes regarding forest areas, one relating to the Gudepa forest in the plains and the other relating to the Samidha forest in the Agency. The agreement in substance provides that the appellant shall acknowledge the title of the respondent to the area in dispute in the Samidha forest and shall be given a permanent lease of that forest including the portions which have always been admittedly the property of the respondent, while as to the Gudepa forest the respondent is to acknowledge the title of the appellant. The suit has been dismissed on various grounds which will be enumerated hereafter.2. The dispute has a long history which need only be summarised briefly. In the disputed...
Y.S. David Vs. Bangaru Rangaraju and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad568
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the revision petition is the auction-purchaser of certain properties purchased by him in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 71 of 1937 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Narasapur. That was a suit for the recovery of the money due on a mortgage. During the pendency of the suit a receiver had been appointed. That receiver had leased the properties and the lessee was in possession. The sale in favour of the appellant-petitioner was on 18th December 1941. Under the terms of the lease granted by the receiver rent was payable on 31st December 1941. The auction-purchaser claimed a right to receive the entire rent as it was payable on a date subsequent to his purchase. But the decree-holder contended that he was entitled to the entire amount due under the lease as rent was payable to the receiver appointed in the suit and that right cannot be said to have passed to the auction-purchaser. The learned Subordi...
Minor Athilinga Goundar by Guardian Thirumal Ammal Vs. Minor Ramaswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad28
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J. 1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the two sons of one Alagu Gounder by his second wife against his two sons by his first wife. Alagu Gounder had married two wives, Kasi Ammal and Onnammal. On 28th November 1934 he effected a partition of the family properties but reserved no share for himself. At this date he had one son Alagu Gounden by his senior wife, Kasi Ammal, and two sons Perumal and Ramaswami by his junior wife, Onnammal. They were all minors. The scheme of the partition was to allot one share to Kasi Ammal and her son defendant 1 and two shares to Onnammal and her two sons, the plaintiffs in the present suit. He retained for himself a few items of properties for his own maintenance but without power of alienation. After his lifetime these properties were to be taken by his three sons in equal shares. The possibility of male children being subsequently born was contemplated and to meet that contingency the following provision was...
Anumula Achiah Vs. Perumalla Papiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad73
1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether the suit is either premature or barred by limitation. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs. 600 borrowed from the plaintiff by defendant 1, Papiah, on 3rd February 1925, with interest. Defendants 2 to 6 are the, coparceners of Papiah. Defendant 2 is his younger brother and defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of defendant 1, Papiah, and defendant 6 is the son of defendant 2. These are respondents 1 to 6 in the second appeal. As Papiah was adjudged an insolvent the Official Receiver of Karnool has been added as defendant 7 and he is respondent 7 in the appeal. The suit was filed on 11th February 1941 and it is said that the suit is not barred by reason of the insolvency proceedings in I.P. No. 27 of 1927 in which defendant 1, Papiah, was adjudged an insolvent and by reason of the fact that those proceedings are still pending. Defendant 2 Narasimiah was also adjudged an insolvent in I.P. No. 24 of 1929. That also is said to be p...
Mohammed Ibrahim Vs. Northern Circars Fibre Trading Co.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad492
Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was defendant 5 in the suit out of which it has arisen. He is the assignee of a mortgage decree obtained by defendant 3 on a mortgage executed on 6th July 1934 by defendants 1 and 2 over the property known as the South India Bone Mills at Samalkot. The property comprised land as well as the plant and machinery installed thereon for the manufacture of bone meal. The mortgagors were the owners of three other mills also with which however we are not concerned in this appeal. Prior to the execution of the mortgage aforesaid, the mortgagors had on 16th November 1933 entered into an agreement with plaintiffs 2 to 4 who were carrying on a business under the name of the Northern Circars Fibre Trading Company, Coconada , which was plaintiff 1 in the suit. By this agreement defendant 2 who was doing business in the name of C. Raju, Import and Export Company, Coconada, impleaded as defendant 1 to the suit, entrusted the management of his se...
The Province of Madras, Represented by the Collector of East Godavari ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad396; (1945)2MLJ27
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of suits brought by the proprietors of the Gopalpur estate to establish their right to two lankas situated in the bed of the Vasishta branch of the river Godavari. The major appeal A.S. No. 58 of 1942 relates to what is alleged to be a re-formation of or accretion to, the Ralaramuni lanka adiacent to the zamindari villaee of Udumudi. This lanka lies between the seventh furlong of the 24th male and the fifth furlong of the 25th mile according to the mileage on the left bank of the river, and it is about thirty miles from the sea. A.S. No. 441 of 142 relates to the Beillamoudi lanka situated between the 28th mile and the sixth furlong of the 28th mile that is to sa v. lower down the river. The evidence is to a large extent common in both anneals and the general questions arising are also common. I will deal first with the major appeal A.S. No. 58 of 1942 and thereafter consider the special features of the Ballampudi case.2. The village of Udumu...
Public Prosecutor Vs. A. Venhayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad452
Leach, C.J.1. The respondent was charged in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gudur with having been engaged in an undertaking which involved the purchase, sale and storage for sale in wholesale quantities of foodgrains without a licence issued under the Foodgrains Control Order, 1942, and that thereby he had committed an offence punishable under Rule 81 (i) of the rules framed under the Defence of India Act, 1939, read with Rule 81 (2) (a). The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held that the offence had been proved and sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of the fine he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The respondent appealed to the Sessions Judge of Nellore, who set aside the conviction and sentence. This appeal has been preferred by the Provincial Government from the order of the Sessions Judge acquitting the respondent.2. The judgment of the Sessions Judge is of unnecessary length and certainly cannot be commended ...
Manicka Nadar Vs. Arumugha Sundara Sathia Gnana Pandara Sannadhi Averg ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad340
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff, the head of a math, created a usufructuary mortgage over certain immovable properties on 5th May 1938 under Ex. I for a sum of Rs. 625 in favour of the defendant-appellant in this second appeal. It is provided in the mortgage that the mortgagee should enjoy the mortgaged property for a period of eleven years from the date of mortgage himself paying the Government kist. Then comes the relevant clause: After the expiry of the period I shall pay the amount and have the schedule property redeemed. 2. The consideration of Rs. 625 was made up of three items, a sum of Rs. 214-14-11 due to one Mayakootha Pilial, a sum of Rs. 310-1-1 due to one Saminatha Desikar, and a sum of Rs. 100 paid in cash. The mortgagee was directed to pay the sums due to Mayakootha Pillai and Saminatha Desikar but he did not pay the amounts, and the mortgagor discharged the debts in April and May 1939, owing to pressure from the creditors. The plaintiff brought this suit for re...
Sahul Hameed Rowther Vs. P.R.S.A. Arunachalam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad561
Leach, C.J.1. The learned Judges who have referred this appeal to a Full Bench have done so because they are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in Soorayya v. Venkataratnam A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 210 requires reconsideration. We consider that the opinion is well founded, but as the whole appeal has been placed before us it is necessary for us to travel further a field. The facts are somewhat complicated and in order to appreciate the position we have to bear in mind what has happened in three suits. The first of the suits is O.S. No. 11 of 1931 of the Court of the District Munsif of Tuticorin. It resulted in a money decree being obtained by one Ibrahim against respondent 2 on 2nd April 1932. The second case is O.S. No. 13 of 1932 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin. Here respondent 1 obtained a preliminary mortgage decree against respondent 2. This was made final on 31st October 1933. On 8th October 1935, respondent 1 assigned the decree to one Mohideen, who on 2nd...
P.S. Vijayaranga Reddiar and ors. Vs. S.V. Muthuswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad58
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Tinnevelly in Cri. R.C. No. 2 of 1943 on his file setting aside the order of the Joint Magistrate of Shermadevi in L. Dis. No. 5305 of 1943 on his file and directing the complaint to be proceeded with. A complaint was filed against the petitioners before this Court by the Second Glass Magistrate of Radhapuram in the Court of the Second Class Magistrate, Nanguneri, for an Offence punishable Under Section 188, Penal Code. The complaint was presented Under Section 195, Criminal P.C., and the averment was that these petitioners were guilty of having disobeyed an order passed Under Section 144, Criminal P.C., in M.C. No. 2 of 1948 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Radhapuram. The Joint Magistrate of Shermadevi to whom appeals from the decisions of the Sub-Magistrate of Kadhapuram lie found that the Sub-Magistrate passed the order Under Section 144 without jurisdiction and it was therefore ab ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›