Chennai Court July 1944 Judgments
Poovachettiar Vs. Maddan Alias Kavandappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad549
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The only point of law taken is that the plaintiff mortgagee having purchased part of the hypotheca in pro tanto discharge of the debt, the debt itself must be considered to have been split up and so is no longer liable to be scaled down on the analogy of cases relating to the splitting up of debts by the debtors executing different documents for portions thereof. It is difficult to see how those decisions are applicable here. What has happened is a reduction of the debt by transfer of a portion of the hypotheca to the creditor himself, and the balance remaining due is the same old debt reduced by a payment. The security may have been split up in the sense that the entire balance may not be recover-able from the properties remaining in the hands of the mortgagors having regard to Section 60, T. P. Act, but this does not affect the identity of the debt or its liability to be scaled down as before. The appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents 1, 2, 6 and 7. (Le...
Tag this Judgment!Harjiwandas C. Parikh and anr. Vs. Triveni Bai Alias Radha Bai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad16
Mockett, Offg. C.J.1. Defendants 3 and 4 are the appellants and the plaintiff the respondent. There is a long family history relating to these parties which it is unnecessary to discuss. A decree of Gentle J. dated 4th October 1940 provided inter alia that a partnership, the subject-matter of the suit, should stand dissolved as and from 20th March 1936 and that the suit should be referred to the Official Referee to take the following accounts: (a) an account of the credits, property and effects belonging to the partnership; (b) an account of the debts and liabilities of the partnership; and, (c) an account of the dealings and transactions between the said partners from 29th November 1931 to 20th March 1930. There was an appeal against the judgment and decree of Gentle J., and it is sufficient to say that by a judgment dated 9th August 1943 the appeal against the judgment of Gentle J. was dismissed by 'the Chief Justice and Lakshmana Rao J. The result therefore was that the decree of Ge...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Appukutti Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad23
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner in this criminal revision case was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kollegal of an offence Under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also directed that a cart load of chillies which was the subject-matter of the offence should be confiscated. The propriety of the conviction is not now canvassed but it is contended that the order of confiscation is illegal. On 16th July 1943, the Collector of Coimbatore made an order Under Rule 81(2), Defence of India Rules, in these terms:On and after 19th July 1943, no person shall export chillies by road or rail from any place within the limits of the Coimbatore District to any place outside the limits of the said district within the Madras province except under and in accordance with the terms of a permit from the Collector of this district or any other officer specially authorized by him in this behalf. 2. It was for attempting...
Tag this Judgment!Nagireddi Ramulu and anr. Vs. Sri Chintalapati Venkata Suryanarayanara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad114
Horwill, J. 1. These second appeals and civil revision petitions have been considered in four batches. In the first and second batches, the plaintiffs were the Chintalapati people, who owned two-thirds of the village of Etikopaka, while in the suits out of which the third and fourth batches arise, the plaintiffs were the Kota Uratla people, who owned one-third of that village. The first batch comprises S.A. No. 90 to 95 of 1943. All the suits out of which these second appeals arise were suits for rent or ejectment by the Chintalapati people. The allegation was that the village of Etikopaka, in which the suit lands are situate, was an enfranchised whole inam village and that from the beginning the melvaram and kudivaram rights in respect of all the lands in the said village passed to the mokhasadars of the village and have been enjoyed by them without objection. They claimed rent under an agreement of 1937. The contention of the defendants was that the grant was not of the melvaram and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Imperial Bank of India Vs. Balasubramania Pandia Tevar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad412; (1945)2MLJ49
1. This and the connected appeals are filed against the order of the District Judge of Tinnevelly passed in several proceedings which were taken to enforce the rights of various decree-holders and the Imperial Bank of India, the appellant, and raise a common question whether certain decree-holders can obtain rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the amounts deposited in O.S. No. 3 of 1922 on the file of the lower Court which related to the succession to the Uthumalai estate. That estate was originally held by one Navaneethakrishna and on his death his adoptive mother Rani Meenakshi Sundara Nachiar succeeded to the estate. She died in 1921 and disputes arose as to the succession to the zamindari. There were three claimants. One claimed to be the father's sister's son of the last male holder and filed O.S. No. 1 of 1922 on the file of the lower Court. The second claimant was one Marudappa Tevar who claimed that he was adopted by the deceased Rani Meenak...
Tag this Judgment!Munaganoori Ramayya (Died) and ors. Vs. Idamakanty Veerabhadrachari an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad512
Somayya, J.1. Two sons of a daughter of the last male holder filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for setting aside an alienation made by the limited owner and for recovery of possession. The elder of the two attained majority more than three years before suit, but the younger was a minor until within three years before the suit. The question is whether the suit is barred by limitation either as regards both or at least as regards the elder.2. The learned advocate for the defendants-appellants contends that the right which the plaintiffs seek to enforce in this suit is not a joint right within Section 7, Limitation Act. It is also said that the elder of them could give a discharge on behalf of the younger. The last point may be taken up first. The property in question devolved on the two grandsons with mutual rights of survivorship as held by the Judicial Committee in Venkayamma Garu v. Venkataramanayyamma Bahadur (1902) 25 Mad. 678. But as the Judicial Committee explained th...
Tag this Judgment!Arulayi Vs. Antonimuthu Nadan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad47
1. The main question arising for decision in this second appeal is whether the provisions of Section 33A(1) of Act 39 of 1923, the Succession Act apply to this case so as to benefit the appellant to the extent of property worth Rs. 5000. The appellant is the widow of one Arulandu Nadan who was an Indian Christian. He died in the year 1936 leaving his widow defendant 1, a sister the plaintiff, a brother defendant 2 and two daughters by a deceased sister, defendants 3 and 4. The property left by the deceased Arulandu Nadan is stated in the plaint to be worth Rs. 6725-14-0. The plaintiff conceded that defendant 1 was entitled exclusively to Rs. 5000 and interest thereon. Deducting this sum she claimed a sixth in the balance and that was mentioned to be Rs. 159-13-10-2/3. It was also stated that defendants 3 and 4 who were her sister's daughters were entitled to a like sum of Rs. 159-13-10-2/3. Defendant 2 was stated to be also entitled to a similar sum and the balance of the excess was st...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.V. Subramania Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad27
ORDERByers, J.1. The petitioner was convicted by the learned Joint First Class Magistrate, Goonoor, of offences punishable Under Sections 78, 86 and 116, Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced to pay fines amounting in all to Rupees 45. He was also disqualified for three months for holding a driving license Under Section 17(1) of the Act, but when an appeal was taken to the Sessions Court of Coimbatore Under Section 17(7) of the Act, the learned Judge set aside the order of disqualification although he held that no appeal lay against the convictions. Against that order Criminal Revision Case No. 84 of 1944 has been brought, and Criminal Revision Case No. 85 of 1944 is against the convictions by the learned Joint Magistrate.2. Regarding the right of appeal it is contended that it is taken away by Section 413, Criminal P.C., only when there is a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs. 50, and that as there is in addition to the fines the order of disqualification an appeal will lie Under Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rayalla Ramappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad528
Byers, J.1. The main point taken in this appeal against an order under Section 476, Criminal P.C., is that the appellant against whom a complaint has been directed to issue for offences he is alleged to have committed under Sections 465, 467 and 471, Penal Code, was not a party to the proceeding within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code. The appellant's learned advocate relies on the decision in Emperor v. Mallappa Tejappa : AIR1937Bom14 in which it was held that the guardian or next friend of a minor plaintiff in a suit was not a party to the proceeding within the meaning of Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code. In the course of the judgment, reference was made to Rupchand v. Dasodha (1908) 30 All. 55, a case in which the question of limitation was involved: the plaintiff had appealed but failed to implead the guardian ad litem of the minor respondent, and by the time an attempt was made to remedy the defect the period of limitation had run out; objection was taken but it was h...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Achanta Ramabrahmam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad503
ORDERByers, J.1. The only substantial question which arises in these criminal revision eases is whether the Special Magistrate functioning under Ordinance 2 of 1942 acted illegally in continuing to try the case before him after he had tendered a pardon under Section 337, Criminal P. C. The argument is that as the pardon was tendered by the Magistrate by whom the case was being tried, he had no other option but to commit the case to the Sessions Court or the Special Judge under Clause (2A) of Section 337 of the Code. The learned Public Prosecutor meets this argument with the contention that under Section 11 (1) read with Section 6 (1) of ordinance 2 of 1942, the warrant procedure prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code is made applicable to ,the trial of special cases under the Ordinance subject to the limitation prescribed by Section 27 of the Ordinance, which is in these words:The provisions of the Code and of any other law for the time being in force, in so far as they may be appli...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »