Chennai Court December 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.
V.L.V. Venkatachalam Chettiar (Died) and ors. Vs. the Province of Madr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad261; (1946)1MLJ111
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant, the plaintiff in the suit, was the owner 6f the inam village of Dalavapalayam in the Tanjore District. In proceedings instituted under the Madras Revenue Recovery Act of 1864 the village was sold for arrears of water cess and quit rent alleged to be due to Government. The purchaser was the second defendant. The attachment and sale had been ordered by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The plaintiff applied to the Collector under Section 38 of the Act for an order setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity in the publication and the conduct of the sale. By a,n order dated the 5th June, 1940, the Collector dismissed the application. On the 17th june, 1940, the plaintiff served upon the Provincial Government, the first defendant, a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the 26th August, 1940, he filed the present action in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tanjore. In his plaint he alleged that he was ...
T. Vijiaranga Naidu and anr. Vs. D. Narayanappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad371; (1946)1MLJ275
Bell, J.1. This civil revision petition is against an order of the Full Bench of the Madras Small Cause Court on a new trial application filed by the defendants (petitioners here) against the decision of the Chief Court decreeing a suit for Rs. 650.1. This money was claimed by the plaintiff by way of indemnity under a sale deed relating to a house purchased by him from the defendants. The defendants were father and son and the father had in 1934 become an insolvent on his own petition. He was duly adjudicated but obtained his discharge on 29th November, 1940.2. In 1938 the mortgagee of the property (later sold to the plaintiff) brought a suit on the mortgage and got a decree. The property was brought to sale on 16th January, 1940 and bought by the mortgagee. It was not however confirmed and on 26th February, 1940, after his discharge, the first defendant and his son sold the property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was willing to pay off the encumbrance and did in fact do so.3. The bal...
Karanamurthi thevar Vs. Ramanatha thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad248; (1946)1MLJ140
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to consider whether the Court rightly applied Article 62 of the Limitation Act in Mahabala Bhatta v. Kunhanna Bhatta : (1898)8MLJ139 Subbanna Bhatta v. Kunhanna Bhatta (1907) 17 M.L.J. 224 : I.L.R. 30 Mad. 298. R. 8 Rang. 645 and Narayanan v. Rangaswami Chetti 1915 M.W.N. 215. These cases are in conflict with the decision of a Division Bench of the Court in an unreported case to which reference will be made later and it is said that two decisions of the Privy Council show clearly that they were wrongly decided in this respect.2. We will first state the facts of the present case as the whole appeal is before us. On the 29th September, 1933, Kandaswami Thevar, father of the plaintiff, conveyed immoveable property to the defendant benami. On the 25th January, 1937, the defendant sold the property to one Arunachalam Pillai for Rs. 750. On the 30th December, 1938, Kandaswami Thevar died. On the 5th October, 1942, the pre...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad245; (1946)1MLJ95
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a pleader practising at Coonoor. On the 6th February, 1944, a Badaga made a complaint to the Kotagiri Police against another Badaga in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed within the meaning of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was investigated by the Sub-Inspector of Police who referred it as undetectable. The complainant then engaged the respondent to file a complaint before the Sub-Magistrate of Coonoor. While the respondent was waiting in the Court for the Magistrate to take up the case, the Additional Assistant Public Prosecutor asked him why he had come to Court. The respondent said that the Sub-Inspector had taken money from the other side and referred the case as undetectable and that the Sub-Inspector would have referred it as false if he had been paid an extra Rs. 50. This statement was, of course, defamatory of the Sub-Inspector and it resulted in a prosecution for defamation. The respondent was...
In Re: V.R.R. Sami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad321; (1946)1MLJ134
Byers, J.1. The main ground urged in seeking the admission of this Second Appeal is that the decree for eviction is contrary to Section 7 (A) of the'Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941. The learned District Judge held that this provision did not oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant a decree for eviction, but merely controlled the execution of such a decree by prescribing a special procedure where eviction is sought. A reference to sub-clause (ii) of Clause (bb) of subrule (2) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules indicates that this view of the scope of Section 7 (A) of the House Rent Control Order is correct and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to grant a decree is not ousted.2. Reliance is placed on the decision of Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J., in Mahmood v. Kerala Corporation, Ltd. : AIR1945Mad181 but with due respect I consider that the wording of the section is not such as to deprive the Civil Courts of their power to entertain suits for eviction and to adju...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›