Chennai Court September 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.
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad55
Leach, C.J. 1. Respondent 1 is a pleader practising at Tiruppur. Respondent 2 is a pleader practising at Coimbatore. They were instructed by the Official Receiver of Coimbatore to institute certain legal proceedings on his behalf. Respondent 1 was concerned with proceedings at Tiruppur and respondent 2 with cases at Coimbatore. They have been charged with professional misconduct. Two charges were framed. The first charge, which only applied to respondent 1, was to the effect that he had withdrawn moneys from Court in cases in which he was appearing on behalf of the Official Receiver, Coimbatore, and that he utilized them for his own purposes. The second charge which applied to both the respondents was that they were guilty of 'professional misconduct and grossly negligent and improper conduct' in that they had allowed various suits in which they were instructed to appear to be dismissed for default without intimation to the Official Receiver and without his instructions. The second cha...
A.T.S. Sankaralingam Pillai Vs. Ramaswami Naicker and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-08-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad25
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the original decree-holder in O.S. No. 351 of 1929 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Tuticorin. He assigned his decree in favour of one Ramaswami Naicker, respondent 8 in this appeal. The other respondents are the judgment-debtors and they were defendants 1 to 7 in the suit. E.P. No. 518 of 1941 out of which this appeal arises was filed by the assignee decree-holder, respondent 8 herein, for executing that decree. The amount due under the decree was more than Rs. 2000 and the entire amount as stated in the decree was sought to be recovered. The judgment-debtors pleaded that the assignee decree-holder was not entitled to recover more than Rs. 503-6-8 as that was the amount that was claimed in the previous execution petition. The learned District Munsif recognized the assignment in favour of respondent 8 and held that respondent 8 was entitled to recover the amount as claimed by him.2. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin...
Raja Manuru Venkata Hanumantha Rao Trustee of Sri Ramalingaswaraswami ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad239; (1945)1MLJ379
Horwill, J.1. The petitioner (plaintiff) brought a suit for Rs. 88-4-3, being the amount due as rent, or as damages for use and occupation of his land by'the respondents (defendants) for three specified years. The lower Court found that the defendants did occupy the lands for the three suit years and that they would have been liable by way of damages for use and occupation to the extent of the suit claim, had it not been for the facts that the respondents had been adjudicated insolvents and the plaintiff had brought his suit without leave of the Insolvency Court. The learned Munsiff held that the plaintiff was precluded by Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act from bringing the suit. He dismissed it.2. The lower Court has found that the plaintiff, but for his insolvency, would have been entitled to damages for use and occupation. Now, damages for use and occupation are of the nature of unliquidated damages and would, therefore, come within the provisions of Section 34(1) of th...
In Re: A.V. Viswanatha Chetti
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad24
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of offences punishable Under Rule 81(4) read with Rule 81(2), Defence of India Rules and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 or, in default, to undergo six weeks rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner, as a result of an inspection of his business premises on 8th June 1943, was found to have failed to exhibit a notice board in front of his shop showing the prices of the food grains for sale and to have failed to maintain his stock account correctly in contravention of Rules 3 and 7 of the license issued to him under the Food Grains Control Order. Rule 81(4), Defence of India Rules, provides thatif any person contravenes any order made under this rule he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or With fine or with both. 2. The Food Grains Control Order was made Under Rule 81(2). Mr. Jayarama Ayyar for the petitioner does not challenge the finding that the petitioner had contravened the ter...
In Re: Devarakondah Venkata Subbaramiah Alias Subbaramiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1944Mad576
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point that arises for consideration in this petition is whether after an appeal against an ex parte decree has been dismissed, it would be open to the trial Court to pass an order on a petition to set aside the ex parte decree filed before the appeal was heard. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that he had jurisdiction to set aside the decree and following the ruling of this Court in Subramania Iyer v. Varadarajulu : AIR1927Mad722 held that he had jurisdiction to pass an order on the petition and set aside the ex parte decree. It is urged before me that the observations of the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Tejbal Bikram 32 ALL. 295 were not brought to the notice of the Judge who decided that case and that if those observations are borne in mind it could not be said that the ruling of this Court is correct. In that case the question was whether the original Court had jurisdiction to amend the decree after the matter was taken in appeal and the...
Anagha Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao Vs. Province of Madras Represente ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad19
Leach, C.J. 1. This appeal raises the question whether the Madras Legislature was acting within its powers when it enacted Section 3, Madras Restoration of Village Officers (Validation) Act (18. of 1939). The Act was passed to restore to village officers or their heirs offices which they had lost by reason of their association or connection with political movements. Section 2 of the Act empowers the Provincial Government to pass orders for restoration in such circumstances. Section 3 states that if the Provincial Government declares that an order passed by it is of the nature referred to in Section 2, the declaration shall be conclusive proof of the fact and all Courts shall take judicial notice of it. It is said that in making this second provision the Legislature exceeded its powers. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the District Munsif of Narsaraopet for a declaration that his removal from the office of karnam of Thalarlapalli village was unlawfu...
Zakka Pattabhirama Reddi Vs. Menakur Balarami Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad43
Leach, C.J.1. In Vedakannu Nadar v. Nanguneri Taluk Singikulam Annadana Chatram A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 982 a Bench of this Court held that a de facto trustee is in no better position than a trustee de son tort and cannot maintain an action on behalf of the trust, even should it be for the benefit of the trust. This opinion is said to be in conflict with the judgment of this Court in Kasim Saiba v. Shudindra Thirthaswami (1995) 18 Mad. 359 and of the Calcutta High Court in Sheo Shankar Gir v. Ram Shewak (1997) 24 Cal. 77. The appeal has been placed before a Full Bench as Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. before whom it came in the first instance, was of opinion that it involved consideration of these decisions. When the facts of the case are fully appreciated, it is apparent that the appeal does not call for such a discussion. The shrotriem village of Jonnavada in the Nellore district belongs to two dieties, Sri Mallikarjunaswami and Sri Kamakshi Thayi, At the inam settlement the ownership of the villa...
Burugu Viswanadham Brothers Vs. Yarru Subbaiya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad378; (1945)1MLJ443
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the appeal arose out of a suit filed by them for ejecting the defendant from one acre of land coyered by D. No. 46 of Sripuram Agraharam. The plaintiffs' case was that the land had been leased to the defedant under a Kabooliat dated 13th March, 1939, and that he has been in possession and enjoument of the same. They also filed a small cause suit for recovery of the rent for faslis 1345 to 1348 and also filed the suit out of which this appeal arises (O.S. No. 143 of 1939) on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Tenali, for recovery of possession of the land.2. The defendant pleaded that he had occupancy right in the land and that the land formed part of the estate and that the suit was not cognizable by a Civil Court.3. The first Court found that the land was not part of an estate, that the suit was maintainable by a Civil Court and decreed the suit holding that the defendant had no occupancy rights.4. On appeal the learn...
Pulimati Krishnamurthi Vs. Boggavarapu Narayana and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-05-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad18
ORDERWadsworth, J.1. The petitioner sued on a promissory note dated 16th March 1942, for a sum of Rs. 1818-3-0, executed in settlement of previous debts, one of May 1939 and the other of June 1939. The spit promissory note carried compound interest. It was admitted in the lower Court that the respondent was an agriculturist entitled to relief under Madras Act 4 of 1938. The lower Court in applying Section 13 of that Act, has apparently labored under the misapprehension that Section 13 was to be applied not to the actual suit contract, but to the previous debts which it superseded. There is nothing in Section 13 which imports the explanation to Section 8 and allows the Court to go behind the contract. The defendant may, of course, raise contentions under the ordinary law such as failure of consideration or a plea that the suit debt is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the antecedent debt, which would justify the Court into going into the amount due under the antecedent debt. The de...
Satti Parasa Reddi, Minor by Mother and Guardian, Saraswathi Vs. Kovvu ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-04-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Mad147; (1945)1MLJ39
1. This appeal arises out 0f proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 1 of 1934 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry. The appellant was the third defendant in the suit. The decree sought to be executed was a decree for sale of hypotheca. The appellant happened to be a purchaser of the equity of redemption. The preliminary decree is dated the 16th November, 1934, and the final decree was passed on the 16th March, 1936. The Madras Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act was passed in 1938. The first execution petition was filed on the 16th December, 1937, and it was dismissed on the 22nd November, 1938. After the Madras Agriculturists' Debt Relief Act was passed, this appellant (third defendant) filed a petition, I.A. No. 524 of 1938, for scaling down the decree' on the ground that he was an agriculturist and so entitled to have the decree scaled down. The petition was ordered in his favour on the 3rd November, 1938. As the third defendant only was a party to the petitio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »