Chennai Court October 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.
Sirigini Venkatarama Mohandas Being Minor, by Mother and Next Friend S ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad162; (1945)2MLJ571
Bell, J.1. The question which arises is as to the liability or otherwise of the petitioners to pay enhanced Court fee under the provisions of Section 17 of the Court Fees Act. The section says that where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects, the plaint shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the fees to which the plaints in suits embracing separately each of such subjects would be liable under the Act.2. The suit in the present case was brought by two plaintiffs against a number of defendants. It was alleged that the first plaintiff became the owner of the suit properties by reason of a settlement deed executed by his father. At the time the first plaintiff was a minor and his mother and guardian, the second plaintiff, entered upon the properties only to find the defendants in occupation under tenancies created by the settlor. There were other persons also in occupation of other properties comprised in the settlement, but these made no demur about attorning to the pla...
Kandukuri Chellamma Alias Mangamma and anr. Vs. Sri Ranganilayam Ramak ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad337; (1946)1MLJ17
Wadsworth, J.1. These two matters both arise out of a decree passed in 1929 for Rs. 23,799. On 6th July, 1935, in execution of that decree, a sale was held of two items of property. Item I was an inam village, item 2 was a less valuable property. An application was preferred under Order 21, Rule 90, Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 72(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale. That application was dismissed by the lower Court on 6th March, 1943, in so far as: it related to the first item. On 18th March, 1943, the judgment-debtors filed an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938, praying the Court to scale down the decree on the footing that they were agriculturists. ' The decree-holder objected that they were not agriculturists and that the decree had been fully satisfied by the sale which had just been confirmed. On 22nd March, 1943, the trial Court, without giving a finding on the question whether or not the applicants were agriculturists, dismissed the applica...
Muhammadhu Mamoona Labbai and ors. Vs. C. Ramanatha Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad312; (1946)1MLJ90
1. The only point pressed for the appellants in this second appeal is that on a proper construction of the othi deed, Ex. P-18, there is no personal covenant to pay the amount due under the deed to enable the plaintiff to bring a suit for sale. Mr. Swaminatha Aiyar for the appellants also raised another point that even if the deed did contain a personal covenant to pay, the suit for sale is not maintainable because after the amendments to Sections 67 and 98 of the Transfer of Property Act the mortgage in question should be treated as an anomalous mortgage and if the deed itself did not confer a right on the mortgagee to institute a suit for sale he will not have that right. This point was not raised in either of the Courts below. It assumes that the amendments referred to are retrospective and will affect rights under a mortgage of 1922. In the absence of authority I am not inclined to agree with the appellants' Counsel that these amendments are retrospective. But I shall not express a...
Maddela Yenadi and anr. Vs. Maddela Ramalakshuamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-23-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad206; (1946)1MLJ85
Chandrasekhara, J.1. There is a line 01 cases which hold that, where service inams are resumed by the Government and there is a re-grant, the original title is extinguished and the grant constitutes the root of a fresh title, but this line of cases does not apply to all service inams irrespective of their nature. Most of them on examination will be found to relate to village officers' inams, with reference to which there is a rule of public policy to be kept in mind. As regards a Devadasi service inam, which is the nature of the property involved in this case, there is no rule that an enfranchisement extinguishes the old title and creates a new one. On the other hand, the very Section 44-A of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, under which the enfranchisement was made, takes care to state that an enfranchisement order shall not operate as a bar to the trial of any suit or issue relating to the right as to the enjoyment of the land or the assignment of land revenue, as the case m...
Galley and Co., Represented by the Proprietor G. Ranganadham Vs. Dathi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad300; (1946)1MLJ11
Yahya Ali, J.1. The defendant firm, Galley and Co., auctioneers at Madras, who are the petitioners, here were sued by the respondent who carries on business at Rajahmundry. The suit was for the recovery of a sum. of Rs, 1,632-8-0 being damages claimed for alleged breach of the contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant firm that the latter would sell on behalf of the plaintiff a quantity of aluminium ingots and after deducting their commission pay the balance of the sale proceeds to the plaintiff. The goods were alleged to have been sold contrary to instructions resulting in loss to the plaintiff. The contract is contained in the correspondence that passed between the parties. In Ex. D-I, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant on 12th March, 1938, asking if the firm would agree to charge a commission of five per cent, on two tons of aluminium ingots which were being sent for sale. In reply the firm wrote on 13th March, 1938 (Ex. P-I) as follows:Your letter of yesterday...
Pathi Gundeppa Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ557
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. On the 10th November, 1930, two partners in a cloth business, named Gaveppa and Rudrappa respectively, were adjudicated insolvents in the Court of the District Judge of Bellary. They had also carried on a motor bus business. On the 3rd April, 1930, Gaveppa sold four motor buses to the appellant for Rs. 10,000 and on the 29th April, 1930, he sold two others for Rs. 2,500. On the 28th April, 1930, he sold a motor shed to the appellant for Rs. 170. On the 5th April, 1935, the Official Receiver filed an application (I.A. No. 77 of 1935) for an order setting aside the sales of the motor buses on the ground that the transaction constituted fraudulent preferences. On the nth February, 1935, he filed an application (I.A. No. 86 of 1935) for an order setting aside the sale of the shed on the same ground. The District Judge dismissed the applications, but on appeal to this Court they were allowed and the transactions set aside by a judgment dated the 18th March,...
Pathi Gundappa Vs. Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad207
Leach, C.J.1. On 10th November 1930 two partners in a cloth business, named Gaveppa and Rudrappa respectively, were adjudicated insolvents in the Court of the-District Judge of Bellary. They had also, carried on a motor bus business. On 3rd, April 1930 Gaveppa sold four motor buses-to the appellant for Rs. 10,000 and on 29th April 1930 he sold two others for Rs. 2500. On 28th April 1930, he sold a motor shed to the appellant for Rs. 170. On 5th April 1935-the Official Receiver filed an application (I.A. No. 77 of 1935) for an order setting, aside the sales of the motor buses on the; ground that the transactions constituted fraudulent preferences. On 11th February 1935 he filed an application (I.A. No. 86 of 1935) for an order setting aside the sale of the shed on the same ground. The District, Judge dismissed the applications, but on appeal to this Court they were allowed and the transactions set aside by a judgment, dated 18th March 1942.2. On 17th August 1943, the Official Receiver f...
In Re: P.A. Raju Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad254; (1946)1MLJ145
Byers, J.1. The four appellants are partners in a business in Madras, three of them being absentee partners living in Coimbatore and the fourth being in actual charge of the business. They have been convicted of four offences punishable under Section 6(1) read with Section 13(1) of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance in respect of sales of soda ash at prices which showed a profit of between 210 per cent and 216 per cent, instead of the statutory 20 per cent, above the landed cost. The absentee partners have been sentenced to pay fines totalling Rs. 300 each and the managing partner at Madras has been sentenced to pay fines of Rs. 2,000 on each of the four counts. The fines have all been paid.2. On the facts Mr. K.S.Jayarama Aiyar raises no contest and he confines himself to two arguments; the first is that the definition of a dealer or producer contained in the Ordinance does not include the absentee partners at Coimbatore and the second is that the fines are in any even...
In Re: Sha Hansraj Abayachand (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad108; (1945)2MLJ458
Byers, J.1. The two appellants are the proprietor and the salesman of a shop in George Town and they have been convicted on two counts of offences punishable under Section 13(1) of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code in the case of the second appellant. The proprietor has been fined Rs. 1,500 on each of the two counts while the salesman has been fined Rs. 200 on each count. Confiscation of the stock has also been ordered.2. The facts so far as they are necessary at this stage are that on 23rd June, 1944, two persons went to the shop, asked to be supplied with Cuticura Toilet powder, Krementz shirt studs, and playing cards. Each of them went independently and each of them received the same reply that no stocks were available. A search made very shortly afterwards by the Special Assistant Commercial Tax Officer showed that there were large stocks of these articles inside the premises to which the salesman had access. The expl...
Madirazu Zoga Rao and ors. Vs. Bommadevara Venkatakrishnayya Naidu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad107; (1945)2MLJ478
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the question is whether Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the facts of this case and can be invoked by the plaintiffs in their favour so as to operate on the title which the first defendant acquired to the property subsequent to the safe in favour of the plaintiffs. Both he Courts have found that the section has no application because the plaintiffs had notice of the charge decree under which the property was brought to sale by the lady who had a right to maintenance. She purchased it in execution of her own decree and subsequently sold it to the first defendant, who is now resisting the title of the plaintiffs who claim under a sale deed executed by the fifth defendant and the first defendant on 21st October, 1929, when the first defendant was a minor represented by his father, the fifth defendant.2. It is argued for the appellants that, in a case where there is an express covenant that there were no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »