Chennai Court January 1945 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.
N.P. Krishna Ayyar Vs. Sudalaimuthu Pillai and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad33; (1945)1MLJ265
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is one of limitation. The appeal has been fied against the judgment of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in a second appeal confirming the dismissal of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the District Munsiff of Srivaikuntam. We consider that the appeal is well founded. 2. In the year 1935, the first defendant instituted in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tinnevelly, Small Cause Suit No. 2391 of 1935, against one Paramuthu Kudumban for the recovery of Rs. 99 alleged to be due by way of rent. The first defendant applied for the attachment before judgment of two brick kilns which he alleged belonged to Paramuthu Kudumban. The application was granted and the attachment effected. As it was not possible to remove the kilns, the amin left them in the custody of the first and second defendants on their entering into a security bond for the sum of Rs. 1,500. The bond was executed on the 19th December, 1935. On the 17th Januar...
Pl.M.Ct.M. Krishnappa Chettiar Vs. Pl.M.Ct.M. Kasiviswanathan Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ222
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition brought by one brother against another in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that partition had already been effected between him and the plaintiff by arbitrators in the year 1935-36. The learned Subordinate Judge has upheld this plea of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Plaintiff has appealed.2. In the course of the trial, partition lists which were prepared in February, 1936, at the conclusion of the arbitration were produced in evidence. They were objected to by the defendant as inadmissible under the Registration Act but the learned Subordinate Judge has held that they are merely memoranda of decisions which had already been arrived at by the arbitrators and the parties and that as such memoranda and as not being intended in any manner to be utilised as title deeds they do not require registration. The main argument in the appeal is upon this...
Kolangarakandi Moozhipurath Gopalan and ors. Vs. Maruthiyott Veettil S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad197; (1945)1MLJ326
1. The appellants sued to recover a sum of Rs. 128-7-0 being the arrears of rent for the Malabar years corresponding to 1939 to 1942 due under a registered marupat or lease dated 19th May, 1919. The plaintiffs had filed a previous suit, O.S. No. 609 of 1931, for possession and arrears of rent on the basis of the same marupat and got a decree on 19th December, 1932, for possession with arrears of rent and future rent for three years on payment of the value of improvements. There was an appeal by the tenant and in appeal the value of the improvements was enhanced, but the decree was otherwise confirmed on 28th October, 1935. No steps appear to have been taken at any time to execute this decree. On 10th September, 1939, after Madras Act IV of 1938 had come into force, the tenants made a deposit of the arrears of rent for the Malabar year corresponding to fasli 1346. There must also have been a similar deposit in respect of the rent of fasli 1347 on some date before 30th September, 1938; f...
Konjeti Kotayya Vs. Konjeti Annapurnamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad189; (1945)1MLJ191
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent was married to the appellant's son, Konjeti Narayana, who died on the 17th March, 1939. The father was joint with his son and they were the only coparceners. On the 3rd April, 1939, the respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Gurzala for a partition of the family estate. She based her claim on the rights conferred upon her by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. An asset of the family consisted of a lease of 11.13 acres of agricultural land for a period of 20 years, commencing from the 3rd March, 1934. One of the questions raised in the suit was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a half interest in this lease. The defendant contended that the Indian Legislature had no power to legislate with regard to agricultural land and therefore the Act could not be read as conferring upon the plaintiff an interest in the lease. At the time of the trial the Federal Court had not given its decision in In re the Hi...
Minor Ramaswami Sennandar by Guardian Dandayuthapani Sennandar Vs. Min ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-02-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad191; (1945)1MLJ193
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 14th June, 1925, Kulandaivelu, the father of the first defendant, executed a mortgage of agricultural land in favour of Arumugha, the father of the plaintiff, to secure a loan of Rs. 400. The mortgage deed fixed the period of redemption at two years. Kulandaivelu settled the mortgage property on the second defendant, but, of course, the settlement was subject to the rights of the mortgagee. On the 21st January, 1938, Arumugha died leaving a widow and three sons. The sons as the legal representatives of their father brought the present suit to enforce payment of the mortgage debt. They were all minors and were represented by their mother as their next friend. The second defendant pleaded that the suit was defective because the mother herself was not a plaintiff. It was said that by virtue of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, she had acquired an interest in her husband's estate and therefore she should have joined in the suit. This a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›