Chennai Court January 1945 Judgments
Etakkandi Lakshmi Amma and ors. Vs. Thirumangalath Chathu Kurup
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad305; (1945)1MLJ337
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only question for consideration is whether when a melcharthdar granted a renewal to the tenant, the shackles put on him by Section 40(2) of the Malabar Tenancy Act drop down.2. The respondent obtained a melcharth in respect of the plaint mentioned properties. He filed a suit for eviction and in that suit, the tenant applied for renewal and the renewal was granted. He subsequently filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in which he sought to evict the tenant on the ground that he wanted the land for his own personal use. The tenants applied for renewal but their application was resisted on the ground that the landlord wanted the land for his own personal use under Section 20(5). The first Court allowed the contentions of the tenant and ordered a renewal. On appeal, the learned Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to evict under Section 20(5) even though he was a melcharthdar, because he had granted a renewal in the prior suit and had thus become t...
Tag this Judgment!Garpati China Basava Satyanarayana Vs. the Hindu Religious Endowments ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad300; (1945)1MLJ331
Horwill, J.1. On the day on which A.S. No. 49 of 1943 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur was posted, the vakil for the appellant was absent; but the party presented a petition sent by the vakil to the Court to the effect that he had been laid up with malaria for sometime and ha(l been confined to bed without taking food, and that as he was not in a fit position to stir from his bed, he prayed for a week's or ten days' adjournment. The' Court thought the request unreasonable and said that the vakil should have engaged somebody else to argue the appeal. It therefore summarily dismissed the appeal.2. In second appeal, it is argued, on the authority of Patinhare Tarkat Rama Mannadi v. Vellur Krishnan Menon I.L.R.(1902)Mad. 267, that the Court should not have disposed of the appeal in a summary fashion as if the appellant had been absent; but should have disposed of the appeal on its merits. It is difficult to see how a Court can satisfactorily dispose of an appeal on the merits...
Tag this Judgment!Deceased Thazhetheranjoli Kozhipro Achuthan Nayar's heirs and children ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad37; (1945)2MLJ15
Horwill, J.1. The question is whether the appellants, born of an ordinary Marumakattayam union, are entitled to inherit the self-acquired property of their deceased father. Both the Courts held that they were not.2. The law of intestacy ordinarily applied to those who follow the Marumakattayam system is that the self-acquired property of a male passes to his tarwad upon his death. It has always been held that the customary union between persons subject to the Marumakattayam law is not a legal marriage and that, consequently, the offspring are not legitimate children who can claim to inherit their father's property under the ordinary Hindu law. Act IV of 1896 made such unions legal marriages provided that they were registered, with the effect of making children both before and after the registration legitimate. Act XXII of 1933 went a step further and recognised such unions whether they were registered or not, provided that the union:(1) had been solemnised with the customary ceremonies...
Tag this Judgment!Narasinji Vannechand Firm and anr. Vs. Suryadevara Narasayya, Son of N ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ312
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. They raise an interesting question of law, but in order to appreciate it, we must set out the facts.2. In O.S. No. 109 of 1921, the fourth defendant obtained a money decree against defendants 1 to 3. In execution of this decree, the fourth defendant attached, as the property of the judgment-debtors, 4.0a. acres of agricultural land, and on the 14th July, 1930, the property was sold by the Court. The plaintiff bought it for the sum of Rs. 2,03,0, which was paid into Court. Defendants 5 to 9 had each obtained a money decree against defendants 1 to 3 and they applied for rateable distribution of the Rs. 2,030. In the month of September, 1931, the money was paid out rateably to them and the fourth defendant.3. On the 13th August, 1930, the plaintiff had filed an application in the Court which had executed the decree for an order setting aside the...
Tag this Judgment!Muthu Konar and ors. Vs. D. Mahalingam Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-26-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad375
Horwill, J.1. This batch of second appeals arises out of a number of suits filed by the appellants, Under Section 55, Madras Estates Land Act, for the grant of pattas. There were two groups of defendants; one, the respondents, described as landholders who, they say, were sharers of the village in which the appellants' lands lay; the other group are persons who claim to have been let into possession by the landholders and whom the plaintiffs regard merely as lessees or ijaradars. These two groups of persons will be referred to throughout this order as landholders and lessees; but the use of these expressions must not be interpreted as indicating that I have arrived at any conclusion as to their status or rights. Various preliminary issues were raised. The suits wore dismissed on two grounds: firstly, that the plaintiffs were barred from bringing the suits by res judicata; because the same question was raised in prior litigations, in which it was held that since the questions raised coul...
Tag this Judgment!Thangammal Vs. Gengayammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad308; (1945)1MLJ299
Somayya, J.1. Two questions are raised in this appeal. One is whether the third defendant was in fact divorced by her husband, Peruma Goundan, within six months after the marriage of the parties, and the second, whether the custom alleged in the plaint is true and valid. On both the points the two lower Courts are in agreement and the questions are found in favour of the plaintiff. It has been found that in fact there was a divorce as alleged in the plaint and as spoken to by the plaintiff's witnesses. A number of witnesses were called and they spoke to the details as to what occurred at the time of the alleged divorce. Both the Courts have accepted their evidence and there is no reason to differ from the estimate of their evidence by the lower Courts.2. The substantial question that is argued is that the custom which is proved is not valid in law. The custom that is actually proved is that if, on account of the disagreement between the parties, both the parties desire a divorce, then ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R. Ramachandran
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad377; (1945)1MLJ424
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner has beenconvicted of an offence under Section 10 of the Coffee Stealing Prevention Act and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20 and to forfeit 17 measures of coffee. The petitioner was evidently charged with this offence because he was found carrying the coffee in th neighbourhood of an estate in the Nilgiris. He explained however that he had bought the coffee from a marchant in Mettupalayam and that he was taking it to Tanjore. Moreover, he produceed a permit in respect of the coffee which had been given him by a Mettupalayam merchant. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate of Coonoor convicted the accused on the ground that he admitted the offence, his only defence being that he was not aware of the rules. The record shows that the petitioner did not admit the offence. What he said was :I have got a pass for the purchase of the coffee from C.A. Khader Sahib Rowther and Co., Mettupalayam. I brought the same from Mettupalayam to Ooty and kept it there and ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: S. Jesudas Appadurai Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad358; (1945)1MLJ197
ORDERMockett, J.1. The petitioner who is the Tahsildar of Tirupur Taluk was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code for having received an illegal gratification of Rs. 120 from P.W. 1 for recommending him for a license to trade in rice. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fiue of Rs. 500. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. The facts are very simple. It is alleged that on the 19th May an application Ex. A addressed to the Sub-Collector of Pollachi was prepared by P.W. 1. On the 20th May, he went to the Taluk Office with the petition and there the accused was present. P.W. 1 says that he learnt apparently from a peon that it was necessary to pay Rs. 100 if his petition was to succeed. This statement is of course hearsay, inadmissible and should not have been received in evidence. He borrowed Rs. 100 from P.W. 4 and handed Rs. 120 to the accused at his house on the 21st May, alternative...
Tag this Judgment!A. Draviasundaram Pillai Vs. N. Subramania Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad217; (1945)1MLJ328
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The Court is here concerned with the interpretation of the will of one Kanakasabapathi Pillai who died on the 13th August, 1940. The testator had married twice, but no children were born to him and both his wives predeceased him. He appointed as his executors the plaintiff and the defendant. The ' plaintiff is a brother of the testator's second wife. The defendant is a son of the testator's brother and is the heir at law.2. In 1934 the testator contemplated retiring from the world and of becoming, to use the expression found in his will, a Tathra Sanyasi. It is apparent from the will that despite his religious inclinations he was a man of considerable vanity and he was anxious to erect a monument to himself, which would ' serve to place him before the eyes of the public even more prominently than any dharmam performed when he was alive.' We are here quoting from the judgment under appeal. The main question involved in it is whether the will, which was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sammeta Gangadharudu and anr. Vs. Peddibhotla Mahalakshmamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ468
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of a mortgage executed on the 13th June, 1931, in favour of the two plaintiffs and the eighth defendant. The only question is whether as against the first plaintiff who is a woman not owning other property, the appellants can claim relief having regard to the provisions of Section 4(h) of Madras Act IV of 1938. This sub-section exempts from the operation of the Act any debt or debts due to a woman on the 1st October, 1937, who on that date did not own any other property, provided that the principal amount of the ,debt or debts did not exceed Rs. 3,000. The trial Court held that the debtors were entitled to relief against all the three mortgagees, taking the view that a debt due to one woman and two men was not a debt due tp a woman. Incidentally, the plaint conceded that in calculating the relief due as against the second plaintiff and the eighth defendant the debtors were entitled to trace the principal back to the principal of the antecedent not...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »