Chennai Court September 1944 Judgments
Salliyal Kotakkat Manakkal Narayanan Nambudiri Vs. Patticharavoor Alia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad165; (1945)1MLJ145
Somayya, J.1. Both the Courts have repelled the various defences raised by the first defendant appellant who executed a promissory note Ex. A promising to pay to the plaintiff's father a sum of Rs. 2,500 with interest at six per cent per annum. Several defences were raised. The first is that the promissory note is unenforceable as being one executed for a purpose opposed to public policy. The second is that the amount covered by the promissory note was really intended for the sole benefit of the ninth defendant who is the second wife of the plaintiff's father and that therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to sue. The first point which is really the more important of the two was elaborately discussed at the Bar and Mr. Ramakrishna Ayyar, learned Counsel for the appellant, argues that there is something against public policy in the case of a promise to pay to the bridegroom (the plaintiff's father) some amount in consideration of his marrying the promisor's daughter. The document may b...
Tag this Judgment!Yenam Chinna Venkata Reddi Vs. Narvati Lingala Bugga Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad345; (1945)1MLJ465
ORDERHorwill, J.1. In 1937 one Booka Chinnna Venkata Reddi mortaged certain proprerty to the petitioner in this criminal revision case for a sum of Rs. 2,500. In 1940, Chinna Venkta Reddi sold the mortgaged property to the petitioner for Rs. 3, 000. On 6th June, 1941, a sale deed was brought into existence purporting to have been executed by the petitoner by which the same property was sold to who did not include Nooka Pedda Venkata Reddi and were not parties to the suit, were stated to have been the writer and the attestors of the sale deed respectively. The District Munsiff, it was said, was being asked to make a complaint against Munsiff of Nandyal. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate was of opinion that the question of jurisdiction could be left to be considered after the evidence had been recorded; but, the matter having been brought inrevision before this Court, he was directed to decide in limine the question whether the complaint was barred by the provisions of Section 195 of the Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Karuppaswami Moopanar Vs. Chottabhai Janerbhai and Co. Through Agent, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad59
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendants are traders in Madura town. They entered into contracts which are really cross contracts for purchase and re-purchase of certain quantities of yarn. The contracts wherein the plaintiff was the buyer and the defendant the seller are set out in Scheduled A. They range between 81st July 1937 and 5th August 1937.These contracts were entered into on seven days between 31st July and 5th August 1937. The total quantity covered by these contracts is 90 cases of yarn, 30 cases for the October delivery, 30 for November delivery and 30 for the December delivery. In respect of these 90 cases covered by the contracts mentioned above, there were contracts between 17th August 1937 and 6th September 1937 by which 90 cases of yarn were agreed to be sold by the plaintiff and purchased by the defendant at prices which are slightly higher than those provided in the contracts set out in Schedule A. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the difference of...
Tag this Judgment!Manickam Chettiar Vs. Ramaswami Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad70
1. The appellant obtained a decree on 18th March 1930, for a sum of Rs, 821. On 17th April 1941, the debtor obtained a stay Under Section 20 of Madras Act 4 of 1938, and in subsequent proceedings Under Section 19 of that Act, the decree was scaled down to an amount of Rs. 307. On 16th March 1942, i.e., two days before the expiry of the twelve years period fixed in Section 48, Civil P.C., the appellant applied to the decree Court, that is to say, the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, for the transfer of the decree to the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavaram for execution. This application was eventually ordered on 20th March 1942, i.e., after the twelve years period had expired. Meanwhile, however, the appellant, in anticipation of this transfer order, .had filed the present execution petition in the Court of the District Munsif of Mayavaram on 18th March 1942. The papers were actually received at Mayavaram on 28th March and the petition was dismissed as being barred Un...
Tag this Judgment!Penujuri Govindappa Vs. D. Chayyappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad373; (1945)1MLJ65
Byers, J.1. The exchange of patta and muchilika is necessary for summary recovery under Section 112 of the Madras Estates Land Act and not for a suit under Section 77 of the Act. There is no substance in this objection to the claim.2. But regarding the claim to charge for water, the appellant is on firmer ground. The water is taken direct from a Government source and therefore the charge for it is not ' rent ' within the meaning of Section 3(11) of the Act because the water is not supplied by the landholder.3. Mr. K. Sreenivasa Rao relied on the decision in Doraiswami Gurukkal v. Subramania Gurukkal : AIR1931All449 but that relates to Section 3(11) as it stood in 1925.4. Clause 11 has since been amended in 1934 and a charge can be made for water only when it is supplied by the landholder. If Government water passes first into the landholder's source and thence to the tenant's land, the case would be different; but it appears to be both parties' case that the water is taken direct from ...
Tag this Judgment!Calicut Bank Ltd. in Liquidation by Official Liquidators Vs. Smt. C. R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-15-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad65
Leach, C.J. 1. The question here is whether a Court must have regard to the provisions of the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, when deciding in execution proceedings an application with regard to the possession of house property. In O.S. No. 25 of 1938 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar the P and O Banking Corporation Limited obtained a mortgage decree for a large sum of money against one C. Unnithiri. Certain members of the mortgagor's family, including his three children, who were minors, were made defendants. The minors were represented by their mother Radhalakshmi, the respondent in this appeal. The Bank of Calicut Limited which is now in liquidation held a second mortgage on the properties of which one was the house in which the respondent and her children were living. At the sale held on 4th January 1943 in execution of the mortgage decree the Official Liquidator of the Calicut Bank Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Official Liquidator) purchased the...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: P.R. Padmanabha Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad379; (1945)1MLJ457
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioners have been convicted of a breach of condition No. 6 of the license issued to the first petitioner, who will hereinafter be called the first accused, in Form A set forth in the second schedule to the Food Grains Control Order of 1942, an offence punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules. The sentences passed on them were modified by the learned Sessions Judge of South Malabar on appeal and the first accused has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 and the second accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay in addition a fine of Rs. 200.2. Condition No. 6 of the license of the purchase, sale or storage for sale in wholesale quantities of food grains issued to the first accused reads as follows:A licensee shall, except when specially exempte by the Provincial Government in this behalf, issue to every customer a correct receipt or invoice as the case may be giving his own name, address and license number, name, addr...
Tag this Judgment!Ummaji Javichand Firm of Guntur and anr. Vs. Ravula Subbarao Garu Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad108
Leach, C.J. 1. The question in these appeals is whether the lower Court had the power to order restitution on a petition or whether it should have relegated the petitioner to a regular suit. In O.S. No. 64 of 1934 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bapatla respondent 1 sued Venkataratnarao and Kamaraju, the minor sons of one Ramakoteswara Rao, for the recovery of a sum of money due by them under the pious obligation rule of Hindu law. He obtained, a decree and attached the judgment-debtors' interest in certain properties belonging to the family. An auction was held on 1st December 1936 and the decree-holder purchased the interest of the judgment-debtors for a sum of Rs. 2363, which he paid into Court. The judgment-debtors applied Under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., for an order setting aside the sale. The application was dismissed because they failed to comply with the requirements of the rule. On 28th September 1937 the sale was confirmed. There were other creditors who had att...
Tag this Judgment!Chittam Subbayya Vs. Muthyala Ramachandrappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad84
Leach, C.J. 1. Appeal No. 237 of 1943 is against a decree passed by the District Judge of: Bellary dismissing a suit filed under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 63, Civil P.C. C.M.A. Nos. 341 and 844 of 1943 are against an order for costs passed by the District Judge under the provisions of Section 35A, Civil P.C. In O.S. No. 22 of 1929 of the same Court defendant 1 sued for partition of the estate of the joint family of which he was a member. Defendant 1 in that suit was his brother. He is the father of defendant 2 in the present suit. A decree for partition was passed and it was made the subject of an appeal to this Court (App. No. 189 of 1937). The appeal was decided on 6th August 1938 and this Court directed that the father of defendant 2 should pay personally to defendant 1 a sum of Rs. 52,000 and that defendant 2 and his brother should also be liable for the sum with defendant 1, but that they liability should be restricted to their shares in the family estate. The case was rema...
Tag this Judgment!T.A. Janakumara Nainar Vs. T.S. Samanthabadra Nainar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad98
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. This appeal and cross-appeal arise out of a suit to enforce an indemnity bond. The plaintiff's claim having been partly allowed and partly disallowed both parties have preferred appeals. Between 1926 and 1929 the defendant borrowed various sums of money on promissory notes from the plaintiff's father who died in February 1930; In July 1930 there was a settlement of account and a sum of Rs. 11859-5-0 having been found to be due from the defendant the latter assigned to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of the debt ten promissory notes of the value of Rs. 4182-15-0 and two mortgages of the value of Rs. 4583-10-0 executed in his own favour by third parties, and paid Rs. 1071-7-0 in cash aggregating in all to Rs. 9838, the balance-being remitted by the plaintiff. The promissory notes were endorsed and delivered and for the mortgages which were of the years 1911 and 1929 two assignment deeds were executed on 3rd July 1930. The principal and interests due under each ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »