Chennai Court July 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.
Karri Sitaramiah and ors. Vs. Venkadaru Sarvayya Dubacherla and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad571
Wadsworth, J.1. This is an application to excuse the delay in seeking to set aside the ex parte decree passed in A.S. No. 169 of 1941 on 2nd December 1943. The applicants were respondents 1 to 9 and 12 in the appeal. In the appeal there were 14 respondents, three of whom were actually represented by an advocate who was appointed guardian-ad-litem by the Court. The present applicants entrusted their case to Mr. Srikantiah, an advocate of this Court. He did not appear when the appeal was heard and judgment was pronounced after hearing the Court guardian appearing for the minor respondents. According to the contentions in the affidavit of the applicants, they came to know on 14th February 1944, when execution was being taken out, that the High Court had passed a decree in the appeal. On 18th February, one of them came to Madras to make inquiries from Mr. Srikantiah and found that he had left Madras one year previously and given up practice and that his whereabouts were not known. We are i...
Arumughathammal Vs. Seth Mangoomal Lunida Singh Firm Through Managing ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-21-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad565
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant was the purchaser of a certain property which was brought for sale in execution of a mortgage decree. There were several lots and one of them, lot 9, was purchased by the petitioner. Respondent 2 purchased that lot in court auction for Rs. 480 on 15th March 1943. Within a month from the date of that sale, the petitioner who purchased the property, according to her, under the impression that it was unencumbered, found that it was sold at the instance of a decree-holder who had obtained a decree on a mortgage executed prior to her sale, and in order to save the property filed the petition out of which this appeal arises. She deposited five per cent. of the purchase money for this lot as she was interested only in it, as also the price for which the property was sold in court auction. When notice was issued to the decree-holder as well as the auction-purchaser, the decree-holder stated that he had no objection to the petition, but the auction-purchaser...
Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Valia Raja ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad539
Wadsworth, J.1. The jurisdiction of the Court under Sections 18 to 28, Land Acquisition Act, is a jurisdiction for the Court to enquire into objections to the Collector's award and to make an award itself after hearing the relevant evidence. The Act does not empower the Court to remand the case to the Collector for fresh enquiry and for a further award. Strictly speaking, there is no right of appeal against the order of the learned District Judge declining to make an award. But that order clearly involves a material irregularity in the exercise of the special jurisdiction. The appeal and the memorandum of cross-objections are dismissed but in revision, I set aside the order of the learned District Judge and direct him to hear the reference in full himself and pass an award in accordance with the law. No order is made as to costs here....
Kayakkool Pillati Krishnan Atiyoti, Karnavan and Manager of Tarwad Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad557
Leach, C.J.1. On 6th December 1940, defendant 16 in this suit as the jenmi assigned to the defendant 17 the rent due for the 11 years from 15th September 1930, to 15th September 1941, from the kanomdar holding under a kanom demise dated 29th December 1922. On 9th August 1941, the assignee assigned his rights to the plaintiff, who instituted the suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Badagara to recover the amount of rent due in respect of the 11 years. He claimed that he was entitled under Section 41, Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929, to a charge for the amount. The District Munsif held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a charge under that section but only to a money decree in respect of six years immediately preceding the suit. On an appeal filed by the plaintiff the Subordinate Judge disagreed with the judgment of the District Munsif. He considered that the plaintiff was entitled to a charge. Consequently, he gave him a decree for the full amount claimed and declared that it const...
In Re: Thambi Alias Subbaraya Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad483
Mockett, J.1. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of one Chakkayya Pillai on 31st December 1943. At the same time, he was tried and convicted for the attempted murder of Palaniswami Pillai. For this he was sentenced to transportation for life. No case could be simpler than this. It appears that the deceased, P.W. 2 and the accused were trading together in partnership in cotton. The accused complained that after a certain date he should continue to receive the share of the profits. The deceased retaliated by saying that the accused had drawn his capital out, that he was no longer a partner and therefore not entitled to receive a share of the profits, but that he was prepared to pay him a salary. We are not concerned with the merits of this dispute. It affected the accused in this way : Early in the morning of the day in question, 31st December, P.W. 2 and the deceased and, of course, others were performing bhajana in the village temple. The accused appea...
Purushothama Nair Vs. Raya Pandaram
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad553
Leach, C.J.1. On 23rd October 1936, the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore passed a preliminary mortgage decree against eight defendants for the payment of the sum of Rs. 1900 with interest and costs, which brought the total amount to Rs. 4396-4-6. The mortgagors were defendants 1 and 2. The other defendants were alienees of portions of the properties mortgaged. Defendant 3 who is the appellant in this appeal, appealed to the High Court against the preliminary decree. The mortgagee filed a memorandum of cross-objections. The result was that the appeal was dismissed and the memorandum of cross, objections was allowed. This Court held that the mortgagee was entitled to a total sum of Rs. 8120-14-8. As defendant 3 had lost both on the appeal and on the memorandum of cross-objections, this Court directed that he should pay as the costs on the appeal Rs. 273-8-7 and as costs on the memorandum of cross-objections Rs. 399-15-0. In due course the Subordinate Judge passed a final decree in accorda...
Nalam Ramayya and ors. Vs. Nalam Achamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad550
Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Bhimavaram to recover from the brothers of her deceased husband properties which she alleged had fallen to his share on partition. The proper. ties in suit admittedly had formed part of the estate of the joint family which consisted of the deceased, his brothers Ramayya and Appanna (appellants 1 and 2) and Appa Rao (appellant 3), who is the son of appellant 2. The plaintiff's case was that the partition was effected on 1st March 1934. Her husband obtained possession of the properties which were allotted to him and remained in possession until his death on 11th August 1938. After his death his brothers trespassed on the land and dispossessed her. The defendants denied that there had been a partition, but it transpired in the course of the case that partition had taken place and in this connexion a document had been drawn up and signed by the parties. The document was not pr...
Muvvala Nagendrudu and anr. Vs. Meduri Venkataraghavayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad564
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These two cases arise out of C. C. Nos. 69 and 70 of 1943 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Ongole. The petitioners in these two cases were retail merchants dealing in kerosene in Santharavur, Bapatla taluk. I have heard these cases together as the question at issue in both is the same. In both the charge was that the accused were guilty of an offence punishable under the Defence of India Rules as they did not issue receipts for the sales of kerosene by them and did not exhibit any board notifying the price at which the oil was sold. There was also a charge for not having kept measuring vessels, but no finding has been given on that charge and there has been no conviction with regard to that. The notification for the disobedience of the provisions of which these petitioners were prosecuted under Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, was a notification issued by the Collector of Guntur. It is contended that that notification deals only with wholesale dealers...
Periyanayagammal Vs. Batcha Sahib and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad45
Byers, J.1. This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of a compromise decree in a suit Under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. Under the terms of the compromise, plaintiff's title to the property in suit was recognized and she was to pay the plaintiff in the prior suit Rupees 600 with subsequent interest. The compromise went on to recite that a mortgage right in the property was thereby created in favour of the decree-holder and that on payment of the amount this mortgage was to stand discharged; in default of payment of the amount the suit properties were to pass to the decree-holder by right of purchase and he was to be allowed to take possession of the property by means of a warrant obtained in execution proceedings. The amount was never paid and eventually the decree-holder applied for possession of the property; this was ordered in the executing Court, and the appeal against it was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge.2. Part of the argument in this Court is that the com...
In Re: P.S. Venkataramana Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad64
ORDERHappell, J.1. Emperor v. Muthiah Swamiar (1907) 30 Mad. 466 is distinguishable as the present is a case where the depositions were taken under the provisions of Section 176, Criminal P.C. There seems no objection to the Magistrate granting copies of the statements recorded Under Section 176, Criminal P.C., of witnesses who are going to be examined at the preliminary inquiry. The Magistrate will grant copies in accordance with this direction....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »