Chennai Court November 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.
A.V.N. Abu Bakkar Marakayar Vs. S. Ramaswami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ136
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal has been brought by the defendant from a decree passed on foot of a mortgage executed by him in favour of the respondent on 22nd June, 1930.2. In 1940 the appellant applied under the rules framed under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act for a declaration of the amount due by him under the mortgage claiming to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act. The debt was accordingly scaled down and the amount payable by the appellant was determined. Subsequently Madras Act XV of 1943 was passed amending the Agriculturists' Relief Act by inserting therein Sections 19-A and 25-A. By Section 19-A the procedure provided by the rules for scaling down debts due by agriculturists on application by the debtor or the creditor as the case may be was superseded and similar provisions were introduced with some additions and alterations among which were a provision requiring all persons who would be necessary parties to a suit for the recovery of the deb...
Guduru Ramarayudu Vs. Mallela Manikya Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad372; (1946)1MLJ282
Wadsworth, J.1. One Venkatrayudu who died in 1934, had a large family consisting of the plaintiffs 1, 2 and 3, the defendants 2 and 4, the deceased husband of the 3rd defendant and a daughter who was married to the 1st defendant, the appellant in the present case. In 1915, one of the sons of Venkatrayudu, the 4th defendant, became an insolvent and in February, 1919, the Official Receiver in the insolvency sold his i/7th share of the family properties partly to one Sivarama-krishnayya and partly to the appellant. Sivaramakrishnayya purchased the i/jth. share in certain items and the appellant purchased the i/7th share in other items. Together the two of them purchased the whole of the share of the insolvent son.2. In 1922, one of the purchasers Sivaramakrishnayya filed a suit O.S. No. 55 of 1922, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur, in which he prayed for a partition of the share of the insolvent and the allotment of the properties to the two purchasers, namely, Sivaramakrish...
A.V.N. Abu Bakkar Maraikayar Vs. S. Ramaswami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad335
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal has been brought by the defendant from a decree passed on foot of a mortgage executed by him in favour of the respondent on 22nd June 1930. In 1940 the appellant applied under the rules framed under the Madras Agriculturists' Belief Act, for a declaration of the amount due by him under the mortgage claiming to be an agriculturist entitled to the benefits of the Act. The debt was accordingly scaled down and the amount payable by the appellant was determined. Subsequently, Madras Act 15 [XV] of 1943 was passed amending the Agriculturists' Relief Act by inserting therein Sections 19A and 25A. By Section 19A the procedure provided by the rules for scaling down debts due by agriculturists on application by the debtor or the creditor, as the case may be, was superseded and similar provisions were introduced with some additions and alterations among which were a provision requiring all persons who would be necessary parties to a suit for the recovery of the ...
In Re: Rajah K.J.V. Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad235; (1946)1MLJ61
Somayya, J.1. The question raised in this civil revision petition is that the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsiff's Court, Tirupattur. The suit is one for a declaration that the plaintiffs have certain customary and mamool rights--inter alia--to graze cattle, to take leaves for manure, to cut and take wood required for fuel and other building and domestic purposes and for agricultural implements and to take grass for roofing--all free of charges--in a forest area belonging to the second defendant who is the petitioner in this Court. There is also a prayer for injunction. The plaint was valued at Rs. 100 under Section 7, Clause (iv)(e), of the Court-fees Act. Objection was taken in the written statement that the correct value of the suit was above Rs. 3,000 and that the trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The lower Court found in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the suit was properly valued and the second defendant has filed thi...
Srinivasagam Asari and anr. Vs. Chinnammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad266; (1946)1MLJ97
Leach, C.J.1. In these appeals the Court is called upon to decide the effect of the will of one Sundaram, who died in the month of July 1983. The testator had two sons, Shanmugam and Sethuraman, and a daughter, the plaintiff in the two suits which have given rise to the appeals. Shanmugam predeceased his father. He left a widow Swar-navalli, but no issue. Sethuraman died on 23rd February 1936 and Swarnavalli in March 1940. Sundaram executed a will dated 29th January 1933 in which he purported to leave for charitable purposes the net income of the properties described in the document, after deducting certain sums for the maintenance of his son Sethuraman and his daughter-in-law Swarnavalli. The properties were described by the testator as being his own. One of the questions in the appeals is whether the properties belonged to the joint family. Another question is assuming that the testator had the right to dispose of the properties by a will, whether the directions amounted to a dedicat...
The Municipal Council of Vizagapatam Represented by Its Commissioner V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad332; (1946)1MLJ138
Sommaya, J.1. The question in this case is whether the suit property falls under Section 81, Clause 3 of the Madras District Municipalities Act (V of 1920). Section 81, Clause 1, says that if the council by a resolution determines that a property tax shall be levied, such tax shall be levied on all buildings and lands within municipal limits save those exempted by or under the Act or any other law. The tax may be for general purposes, for water and drainage, etc. Section 81, Clause 2 says that the tax shall be levied at such percentage of the annual value as may be fixed by the Municipal Council, subject to the provisions of Section 78. Then comes Clause 3, which runs as follows:The Municipal Council may, in the case of lands which are not used exclusively for agricultural purposes and are not occupied by, or adjacent and appurtenant to, buildings, levy these taxes at such percentages of the capital value of such lands or at such rates with reference to the extent of such lands, as it ...
In Re: Rayalla Ramappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad163; (1945)2MLJ563
ORDERChandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. There is a decision of my learned brother, Byers, J., that the production of the printed copies of the judgment is mandatory and the Court has no power to dispense with production. The decision is reported in the case of Jami Kurmanna1. With great respect to my learned brother, I disagree from the view he has taken. Order 41, Rule 1, provides that:the memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and (unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded.f the Court has power to dispense with the production of the judgment even where one copy of the judgment had to be filed, it stands to reason to hold that it has power to dispense with production of these printed judgments so long as a certified copy of the judgment is there. Order 41-A, Rule 1, states:The rules contained in Order 41 shall apply to appeals in the High Court of Judicature at Madras with the modifications contained in this order.The...
V. Chidambaram Chettiar and anr. Vs. M.A. Meyyappan Ambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad298; (1946)1MLJ64
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the Subordinate Judge rightly held a certain document to be inadmissible in evidence. If this document is excluded, it is conceded that there is no substantial basis for challenging the decree under appeal.2. On the 12th March, 1881, the Zamindar of Sivaganga granted to one Ulagappa Chettiar a permanent cowle of 100 kurukkams of forest land. We are told that 100 kurukkams is roughly the equivalent of 57 acres. The plaintiffs' case is that the cowle was granted to Ulagappa Ghettiar acting on behalf of the members of two Nattukottai Chettiar families, the P.M.A. family of which the plaintiffs are members and the O.A. family of which the members are defendants 39 to 52. The plaintiffs alleged that the share of their family was three-eighths and the share of the O.A. family five-eighths. The members of the O.A. family denied that the P.M.A. family had any interest in the cowle. The first defendant purchased the cowle ...
In Re: P. Lakshmiah
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad175; (1945)2MLJ574
ORDERKuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. What is urged for the petitioner is that the offence under Rule 220 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, requires that the delay must be of such a character as to prevent the men from reaching the destination in time. That is not what is stated there. It is true a driver is expected to reach the destination in time. But what is made an offence is loitering on the road. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, ' Loitering' means lingering on the way or hanging about. In this case according to the finding of both the Courts, the driver was stopping the bus in front of a hotel so that he might pick up some passengers from there. This is certainly lingering on the way. It is not the petitioner's case that it was a stopping place at which he could stop for the purpose of taking passengers. Waiting for the passengers, who had gone to the hotel, for nearly 10 or 15 minutes is certainly lingering on the way and the petitioner is therefore guilty under Rule 220. It is cert...
Devarandi Chettiar Vs. Sivasubramania Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad307; (1946)1MLJ86
Somayya, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed on a mortgage deed executed by the first defendant's mother as his guardian for a sum of Rs. 1,500. The mortgage was executed on 19th November, 1933 and the suit was filed in 1941. The interest provided in the document was 18 per cent, simple and in default of regular payment of interest year after year, compound interest was payable at the same rate at 18 per cent. The mortgagee was the first defendant's mother's sister's husband who, it is said, was living next door to the mother. The defence is that there was no consideration for the mortgage and that even otherwise it was not binding on the minor. The document recites that there were two prior promissory notes, under which the mother had borrowed Rs. 300 on 24th September, 1932 and Rs. 500 on 7th June, 1933, that a sum of Rs. 900 was found due on those two documents on the date of the mortgage and that there was a further cash advance of Rs. 600 on that date. Undoubtedly, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »