Chennai Court August 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.
Bhimavarapu Butchi Reddi Vs. Bhartipadi Sri Lakshmi Venkata Suryapraka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-16-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad40
1. I do not see any reason to interfere with the decree of the lower appellate Court. Two sets of properties were purchased by the plaintiff in Court auction in execution of a money decree which was obtained by defendant 2's father against one Nagi Reddi. Under the column 'details of encumbrances to which the property is liable,' a registered mortgage deed was mentioned as having been executed on 22nd June 1930, and it was said that the mortgage was a fraudulent transaction not supported by consideration and therefore not binding. It so turned out that on the date' of the Court sale the mortgagee had already filed the suit O.S. No. 108 of 1934. The Court sale at which the plaintiff became the purchaser was on 7th May 1934, which was subsequent to the institution of O.S. No. 108 of 1934. The plaintiff's purchase was therefore lis pendens and subject to the result of the mortgage suit and of the further proceedings taken therein. It was the duty of the auction-purchaser to have impleaded...
Amichand Doss Dwarakadoss Vs. T. Manavedan Tirumalpad, Rajah of Nilamb ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad5
Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether Article 36, Limitation Act, applies in the case of an action against the directors of a company for compensation for loss suffered as the result of a misleading prospectus. On 13th September 1936 a prospectus was published in a local newspaper calling for subscriptions in respect of an issue of shares by a company called the Cochin Furniture Co., Ltd. Believing the statements in the prospectus the appellant applied for 250 shares, which were promptly alloted to him. The capital required was not obtained and the company was compelled to go into liquidation. On 8th September 1939 the appellant filed a suit in the City Civil Court, Madras, for rescission of the contract and for compensation for the loss which had resulted to him from the misrepresentations contained in the prospectus. The company and all the directors were made parties. The trial Court held that the prospectus did contain false statements and that the appellant was enti...
Cherukuri Ramakrishniah Vs. Sri Krushi Vidyalaya Sangam, Oleru Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad46
1. This petition has been filed by a mortgagor against an order dismissing his application Under Section 83, T.P. Act, to direct the mortgagee to receive a certain sum of money deposited by him in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and to return the mortgage bond. It is admitted by the petitioner that he did not deposit the amount due on the face of the mortgage Bond. He contended that the interest was penal and should not have been more than a certain lower rate and that according to the lower rate only the sum of money deposited by him was due. According to the provisions of Section 83, notice went to the mortgagee, who declared his unwillingness to accept the money deposited by the petitioner in full discharge of the mortgage debt and stated that the amount due to him was what was due on the face of the document. As the mortgagee had refused to receive the sum tendered, there was nothing more that the lower Court could do. There is no provision in Section 83 for an enquiry as to...
M.G. Natesa Chettiar Vs. S. Subbunarayana Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad91
King, J. 1. These appeals are concerned with a village in the Salem district called Chettihalli. The mittadar, or owner of the melwaram right in this village was one Ramakrishna Chettiar (to be referred to hereinafter as the mortgagor). He mortgaged his rights in this and other villages to the plaintiff in O.S. No. 33 of 1940, District Munsif's Court, Dharmapuri from which the present appeals have arisen. This was so long ago as 1921, 1922 and 1923, and was effected by three mortgage deeds. Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S. No. 33 of 1940 are inamdars of Chettihalli whose right consisted in receiving every year from the mittadar one-third of the sum payable by the mittadar to Government as peshkush. Attached to this right is a first charge on the mittadar's interests in the village. On 30th June 1933, the defendants sued the mortgagor for arrears of this payment of one-third of the peshkush, and for the enforcement of their charge. They obtained a decree on 10th April 1934, brought the mortgag...
Potipireddi Sanyasamma Vs. Chalamuri Swami Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad97
ORDERByers, J.1. The application of 28th June 1935, was signed by the pleader and, therefore, it comes within the scope of the decision in Hasan Saheb v. Ramaehandra A.I.R. 1929 Bom. 196. But Order 21, Rule 11, Clause (2), Civil P.C., requires that the application shall be signed and verified. This application was not verified and therefore it was not in accordance I with law so as to save limitation. The succeeding applications were therefore all out of time. The petition is ordered to be dismissed with costs....
Vanimisetti Satyanarayana Vs. Tummalapalli Vara Narayanamurthy and ors ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad574
ORDERHorwill, J.1. Some members of a family, three of whom had been adjudged insolvents, executed a trust deed conveying their property in trust for the purpose of discharging their debts. The petitioner here is one of the trustees appointed. One of the executants of the trust deed, the petitioner in the lower Court, filed an application praying for the removal of respondent 2, who is continuing in management of the trust properties, and for the appointment of another in his stead, on the ground that he had committed breaches of trust. A preliminary objection was raised that Section 74, Trusts Act, was not applicable. The learned District Judge disposed of that objection very summarily by saying:Respondent 2 contends that the petition is not maintainable under Section 74. I disagree with him. The matter is governed by direct authority, vide Assanmal v. Somimal A.I.R. 1930 Sind 41. The matter will be posted for enquiry.2. The matter has been considered in a few cases, one relied on by t...
Chundur Venkatasubbamma Alias Ranganayakamma Vs. Targu Subbamma Alias ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad17
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. In this second appeal, preferred by the defendant against the decree of the District Judge of Nellore, the contention raised on her behalf is that the Judge was wrong in holding that there was any fiduciary relationship between her and the plaintiff which rendered her liable to account to the plaintiff not only for her share of the rents of the house actually received but also for what she might, and ought to have received. Reliance was placed by the learned District Judge on Peer Mohideen Rowther v. Aisa Bivi : AIR1934Mad686 as authority for his view. That decision, however, does not lay down that one co-owner of property jointly belonging to himself and another, the entire income of which he collects, is in the position of a trustee as regards the co-owner not in possession. In that case, there were special facts proved on which Venkatasubba Rao J. held that defendant 1 occupied a fiduciary position as regards the minor plaintiff. The learned Judge refers t...
Gogineni Subbayya and anr. Vs. Goggineni Govindamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad36
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellants in both these appeals are the judgment-debtors in O.S. No. 658 of 1930 on the file of the Court of the District Munaif of Tenali and the appeals arise out of proceedings in execution of that decree. That was a suit filed for maintenance by the wife against her husband and his brother who was the alienee from the husband in respect of the properties over which a charge was sought to be fastened for., the maintenance claimed in the suit. The suit ended in a compromise and a decree was passed on 14th February 1933 under which it was agreed that the husband and wife should live together and that in case of any disagreement between them the husband should pay a certain rate of maintenance to the wife. After the compromise they lived together for about four years and on account of subsequent disagreement the wife began to live separately. She took out execution in E.P. No. 245 of 1940 and sought to have the charged properties brought for sale for the rea...
Mummidi Pattabhiramayya Vs. Badam Subba Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad83
Shahabuddin, J.1. This revision petition arises out of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Coconada in S.C.S. No. 84 of 1942. That was a suit based on an award. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for Rs. 583-14-0 on the ground that the dispute between himself and the defendants was referred to one Venkatakrishna Rao who after hearing the evidence of both parties gave an award on 8th August 1989, to the effect that the defendants should pay the plaintiff Rs. 600 by way of compensation and that the sum of Rs. 50 payable by the plaintiff to defendant 2 under a promissory note should be deducted from that amount. According to the plaint the dispute was this. The defendants had leased their lands to the plaintiff and one Venkataramayya for a period of five years. Subsequently by reason of an agreement between the plaintiff and Venkataramayya, the latter went out of the land and the plaintiff alone cultivated the entire land as the sole tenant. With a view to sell the lands the d...
Ponnambala Chettiar Vs. Sriramulu Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad106
ORDER1. The petitioner was defendant 1 in S.C. No. 146 of 1940, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore. In execution of his decree, the respondent sought to bring the property of the petitioner to sale; and sale was ordered. Two days before the sale was due to take place, the petitioner put in an application Under Section 4, Madras Debt Conciliation Act; and on the date of sale, drew the attention of the executing Court to the fact that he had filed an application and asked the Court to stay the sale Under Section 25 of the Act. The lower Court dismissed his application on various grounds. Prima facie, the Court is bound to stay the application Under Section 25 of the Act if a petition is pending before the Board Under Section 4. It was contended by Mr. K.S. Champakesa Ayyangar, the learned advocate for the respondent, that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. Section 25, however, makes no reference to agriculturists at all. It says that:When an application has been made ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »