Chennai Court August 1944 Judgments
Rao Bahadur S.A.S. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar Vs. M.P. Palaniappa Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1944
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ164
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of South Arcot dismissing with costs a suit brought by the appellant under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (II of 1927) for the removal of the respondents and two other members of their family, since deceased, from the trusteeship of a temple known as Sri Elamaiyakkinar temple situated at Chidambaram, for the appointment of a proper trustee and for an account of the respondents' management of the temple properties. The appellant alleged in his plaint various acts of misfeasance and malfeasance and misappropriation of trust moneys by the respondents' family in the course of their management, as grounds for the reliefs sought. The respondents pleaded, inter alia, that the appellant was not a ' person having interest' in the temple within the meaning of the Act referred to above and was therefore not entitled to sue, that the temple owned only about one acre of ...
Tag this Judgment!Tiruveedhula Venkata Narayana Vs. Vadlamudi Koteswara Rao and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad57
1. The point which arises in this second appeal is whether an agreement Under Section 14(1), Madras Debt Conciliation Act, which has been duly registered Under Sub-section (2) of Section 14 can be executed by the civil Court having jurisdiction without a prior application to the Debt Conciliation Board for transfer of the decree. The lower appellate Court has held that the petitioner's application for recognition of the assignment in his favour and for execution must first be made to the board and that execution can be had only after the agreement Under Section 14(1) has been transmitted to the proper civil Court for execution. Section 14(2) of the Act is in these words:An agreement made Under Sub-section (1) shall, within thirty days from the date of the making thereof, be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 by the Chairman of the Board in such manner as may be prescribed and it shall then take effect as is it were a decree of a civil Court and be executable as such. 2....
Tag this Judgment!Kannepalli Suryaprakasa Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Sri Palahani Mahanti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad256; (1945)1MLJ404
Somayya, J.1. The advocate who appeared for the appellants in the lower appellate Court conceded that the plot of thirty cents which was the subject of the appeal was adjudged in the previous suits to belong to the plaintiffs. This concession is put in the double negative, but there is no doubt whatever as to what was conceded. An advocate has the right to say whether on the evidence he can challenge a particular fact. For doing this he need not have the previous authority of the client. In fact every day appellate courts put a question to the advocates whether this or that fact can be challanged on the record and the advocates are bound to answer. Stating that this point was conceded, the lower appellate Court also said, as the Judges often do, that in their own opinion the concession was a fair one to make.2. Seeing that this statement of the lower appellate Court is not challenged by any statement of the concerned advocate, I decline to hear arguments on a point which was conceded.3...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Ayisha Beevi Vs. A. Samankatha Nadar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-30-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad94
Somayya, J.1. The main question for decision in this second appeal is whether the gift under Ex. F, executed on 2lst October 1939 by the plaintiff's father in favor of the plaintiff is valid and effective to pass title to the plaintiff. The trial Court found in favor of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge held that though the document was proved to have been executed and registered by the donor the gift is invalid for the reason that possession as required by Mahomedan law was not given to the donee. Hence this second appeal. At the time when the gift deed in question was executed, a final decree in a partition suit had been passed vesting various properties that belonged to the co-sharers severally in the several sharers. Plaintiff's father was a party to the partition suit and the properties in question and some other properties were allotted to him. Unfortunately, the decree did not; provide for possession being taken in execution of the final decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Bavani Ammal and anr. Vs. Tholudur Nataraja Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad129; (1945)1MLJ165
Sommayya, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed by two plaintiffs, mother and daughter, for a decree against the second defendant's share in the family properties. The second defendant is the younger brother of the first defendant and the suit was filed upon a promissory note executed by the first defendant, the elder brother and manager of the joint family consisting of himself and the second defendant. It was alleged in the plaint that the first defendant who was the manager of the family of the two defendants executed a promissory note in favour of the first plaintiff for Rs. 2,500. The first plaintiff endorsed the promissory note which was executed in her favour to the second plaintiff, her daughter for collection. The second plaintiff brought a suit on the promissory note in O.S. No. 1 of 1936 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tanjore and obtained a decree on the 18th February, 1936. To this suit, the first defendant was alone made a party. Subsequent to the d...
Tag this Judgment!Patnala Ramalakshmi and ors. Vs. Dowlatabad Gopalakrishnarao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad12
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff filed a small cause suit on a promissory note dated 11th April 1938, for a sum of Rs. 300 carrying interest at 12 per cent. There was a series of payments of interest expressly appropriated by endorsements. The result was that all the interest was paid at the contract rate up to 11th. August 1941. The plaintiff sued for the principal amount of the note together with interest at the contract rate from 10th August 1941. The lower Court has held that the debtor is entitled to relief Under Section 13 of the Madras Act 4 of 1935 and has scaled down the debt by the process of calculating the total amount of principal and interest at the statutory rate and deducting therefrom the payments made, ignoring the fact that these payments have been actually appropriated as they were made towards interest at the contract rate. We do not consider that the procedure of the learned Subordinate Judge is justifiable. Under Section 13 it is provided that:In any proceeding for ...
Tag this Judgment!Paru Kutty Amma Vs. Vasudevan by Guardian A.M. Kutti Sankaran Alias Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-28-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad6
Leach, C.J.1. The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam for partition and possession of the properties left jointly to her and her brother under the will of their grandfather, Ravunni Panikker, who died on 3rd December 1938. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that her claim was premature. The appeal is against that decision. Ravunni Panikker had three sons and a daughter. His eldest son is defendant 2, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant 1. The testator left certain properties to his sons and daughter, and other properties to the son and daughter of defendant 2. The will provided that the properties left to the plaintiff and defendant 1 should remain in the possession and management of their father during their minority and then they were to be handed over to them jointly. After the plaintiff became of age she filed this suit. Her brother was then and still is a minor. Three preliminary issues were framed, two of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Sundararaja Ayyangar Vs. Ramaswami Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad116
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order of remand passed at the hearing of an appeal from an order under the rules framed tinder the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act 4 of 1938. The applicant to the trial Court was a member of the mortgagor family. The debt in respect of which a declaration is sought was a mortgage Ex. D-1 dated 22nd August 1927 for a sum of Rs. 2350 executed by all the members of the applicant's family in favour of one Gopala Ayyapgar, the uncle of the present appellant. This mortgage discharged Ex. D-6, a mortgage for Rs. 800 dated 29th April 1913 executed by the same parties in favour of the appellant's grandfather, who is also the father of Gopalaswami Ayyangar. Ex. D-6 itself discharged a still earlier mortgage of 1902 Ex. D-7 between the same parties for Rs. 500.2. There are complications due to the subsequent history of the debt, Ex. D-1. In 1928 or thereabouts, there was a partition in the creditor's family. It is common ground that the mortgage debt...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. Rathinam Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad573
ORDERHappell, J.1. The accused to whom this reference relates was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Trichinopoly of an offence under Section 379, Penal Code, and sent to the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Trichinopoly, for action to be taken by him under the Madras Borstal Schools Act. The Sub-divisional Magistrate sentenced him to be detained in the Borstal School for one year and directed that the sentence should be served consecutively with the sentence of two years detention in a senior certified school which the accused was already undergoing. Under section 8, Borstal Schools Act, a sentence of less than two years detention cannot be imposed and the Act makes no provision for sentences to be served consecutively. The reference must therefore be accepted and there will be substituted for the sentence passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate a sentence of two years detention in a Borstal School. The accused has already more than a year of the sentence which he is undergoing i...
Tag this Judgment!Kaliammai Ammal Vs. R. Shanmuga Rajeswara Sethupati Alias Naganatha Se ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-24-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad20
Somayya, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed on 30th June 1941 to recover a sum of Rs. 336-9-0 for the twelve years prior to suit at the rate of Rs. 20-4-0 for each fasli. The only question raised by the defendants was whether the suit was not barred by limitation. This depends on the nature of the right which the plaintiff claimed. The trial Court granted a decree for three years and dismissed the suit as regards the rest of the period. The appellate decree has decreed the claim for all the remaining nine years. The view of the appellate Court is that the right is a periodically recurring right and that, therefore, the suit to recover arrears due under a periodically recurring right is governed by Article 131, Limitation Act. If the right that is found is a periodically recurring right then the suit for recovery of the twelve years' arrears payable in respect of that right would be governed by Article 131. That is the only point decided by the Full Bench in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »