Chennai Court February 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. Muhammad HussaIn Sahib and ors. Vs. Selambukara Abdul Gaffoor Sahib ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad321; (1945)1MLJ475
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Two questions of law arise in this appeal. The first has reference to the application of Section 116 of Evidence Act. The second is one of limitation. 2. The appellants are the legal representatives of one Naivasal Abdul Waheb Saheb, who instituted a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tirupattur for partition of two items of immovable property. The properties originally belonged to three brothers, Mohammed Hussain, Mohammed Ghouse and Moham-med Usman. On the 20th September, 1926, Mohammed Huss∈, who was a major, for himself and on behalf of his brothers, who were minors, conveyed item No. 1 to Mahabub Bivi the wife of the first defendant and the mother of the second defendant and on the 28th September, 1928, he conveyed item No. 2 to her. Mohammed Ghouse attained his majority in 1930 and Mohammed Usman his in 1936. On the 24th September, 1936, the plaintiff, the first defendant and a third person took a lease of both the properties from Ma...
Somu Achari Vs. Singara Achari and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad407; (1945)2MLJ17
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff executed Ex. P-1 in favour of his brother, Singara Achari, on 3rd December 1929. The two were brothers find the plaintiff relinquished his share in the family properties for a sum of Rs. 150. The relevant part of this document runs thus:In respect of the properties belonging to both of us in 108 Narayana Mangalam, Nannilam taluk, Kodavasal Sub-district, Tanjore District, and in respect of my share therein, you shall yourself take the entire properties and discharge all the debts due and recover the out standings, if any. To this effect we have agreed, and in full quit of my right for a share, it is settled that I should take Rs. 150 and as I have received the said sum of Rs. 150 by the execution of a promissory note by you this date, I have no manner of right or claim in respect of the under mentioned family properties or the debts and outstandings. To this effect I have executed this release. 2. The promissory note was transferred to one Swaminatha Pathar w...
Chowdhari Abdul Subhan Sahib Vs. Kante Ramanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad161; (1945)1MLJ245
1. The question in this appeal is whether an uncertified adjustment of a decree can be pleaded by way of defence to a suit for possession instituted by the purchaser of property sold in execution of the decree against the judgment-debtor or his representative. The appeal has been heard by a Full Bench as there is considerable conflict of authority.2. On the 16th March, 1911, one Lakshmi Narasamma, the widow of a deceased member of an undivided family, obtained a decree for maintenance against the two brothers of her husband and was given a charge on the property now in suit and other properties belonging to the joint family. Sometime before 1924--the record does not disclose the exact date--the decree was satisfied by a lump sum payment, but the adjustment was not certified under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In 1927, in insolvency proceedings No. 20 of 1927 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry one of the brothers, Jogayya Sastri, was adjudicated an in...
S.A.S.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Bakshi L. Nagasami Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad301; (1945)1MLJ238
Wadsworth, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether and to what extent the appellants are entitled to relief under Madras Act IV of 1938 in respect of two mortgage debts. It appears to be established that the family of the appellants had on the relevant dates a saleable interest in agricultural property. The first appellant is the father of the other appellants who are minors. They are Nattukottai Ghetties and admittedly their properties are all joint and the banking business conducted by the first appellant is an ancestral business with the vilasam S.A.S.R.M. In the plaint it was denied that any of the defendants were agriculturists. The first defendant in his written statement merely traversed the denial and claimed thai the defendants were entitled to relief under Madras Act IV of 1938. The other appellants adopted his written statement but did not make out any special case for themselves. In the lower Court attention was devoted only to the question whether the properties b...
Tar Mahomed Janoo Vs. K.M.S. Lakshmana Aiyar and Sons
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ436
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Kunhi Raman, J., in a suit, tried on the Original Side of the Court. The appellants, who are the plaintiffs, are a firm of merchants dealing wholesale in cotton yarn at Cocanada and other places. The defendants are a firm also dealing in cotton yarn and have a branch at Cocanada. The defendants are the selling agents of the Madura Mills, Limited, for a certain area in the Madras Presidency, but in the contract with which the appeal is concerned, they contracted as principals. On the 15th April, 1943, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract at Cocanada under which the defendants were to sell to the plaintiffs inter alia twenty-five half bales of yarn, 60s second quality, at Rs. 27-8-0 per 5 lbs. The delivery was to be given in the month of August, 1943, but the contract provided for an extension of the period by three months, should the delay be the result of a cause over which the sellers had no contro...
Abdul Rasak Rowther Vs. Abdul Rahim Rowther and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad304; (1945)1MLJ480
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the purchaser of properties under a sale in execution which has been held by the Courts below to be a nullity. The facts are rather unusual. The proceedings started with the decree in August, 1933, in a suit for contribution. The present contesting respondent was the sixth defendant in the latter, being impleaded as the purchaser of properties covered by the decree. He applied for a stay under Section 20 of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, IV of 1938, which was ordered. He filed an application under Section 19 of that Act for relief. On 28th April, 1939, that petition was dismissed. The judgment debtor filed C.R.P. No. 2084 of 1939 against this order and he also filed an appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul. This appeal was entertained without any objection to the jurisdiction and it resulted in a remand to the lower Court with a direction to amend the decree as prayed for and on 8th December,. 1939, the decree was amended. Th...
The Crown Prosecutor Vs. N.S. Krishnan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad250; (1945)1MLJ187
ORDERByers, J.1. These petitions have been filed by the Crown Prosemt Madras under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the re-arrest of the two respondents under the following circumstances:These respondents were arrested by the police on 27th Decemember, 1944, in connection with the death of one Lakshmikantham, who is alleged to have been murdered on the morning of 8th November, 1944, in Vepery, Madras, by two persons named Vadivelu and Nagalingam. Their application for bail was rejected by the Commissioner of Police, Madras, in his capacity as a Presidency Magistrate but on an application to the Vacation Judge of this Court they were enlarged on bail on 29th December, 1944, by Patanjali Sastri, J., panding the investigation of the case against them. The conditions were that each of them should excute a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each for Rs 10 000 and they were directed execute a bond for Rs. 10, 0000 with two sureties each for Rs. 10,0000 and they were di...
Periya Akkandi Chetty Vs. Rethinagiri Chetty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad315; (1945)1MLJ275
Somayya, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether Section 13 of the Indian Limitation Act saves the suit from being barred against the appellant who was the third defendant in the trial Court. The suit was upon a mortgage executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 22nd April, 1916. The executant left British India in 1920, and returned a few days before the suit. After his return, the present suit was filed impleading the mortgagor and the appellant who was the purchaser of portions of the mortgaged property from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant sold some properties to the appellant and some others to the third respondent who was the fourth defendant in the suit and then left for Penang in the year 1920. There was some doubt whether before he left India, the first defendant had disposed of all his properties. It has now been made clear by the production of the registration copy of a sale deed which though referred to in the written statemen...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pr.Pl. Palaniappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ291
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee is the kartha of a joint Hindu family which tarried on a money-lending business in Muar and Seramban in the Federated Malay States. The year of account is from the 13th April, 1940, to the 12th April, 1041. The kartha went to Muar in the month of November, 1938, and remained there until the 20th October, 1940, during which time he had control of the family's business in the Federated Malay States. He returned to this Presidency on the 24th October, 1940, which means that he was here for a little less than six months of the account year. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that the business at Muar and Seramban was controlled by the kartha from Madras and consequently the case fell within the second proviso to Section 4(1.) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that there was no evidence that the kartha after his return to this Presidency, had exercised control over the business in Muar and Seramban. ...
The Board of Commissioners for the Religious Endowments, Through Its P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-09-1945
Reported in: (1945)1MLJ345
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit, the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras. The suit was for setting aside a scheme framed in respect of a Hindu Religious Endowmentand was filed by a community known as the Santakula Sowmyanarayana Kavaraya comtnunity. The plaintiff's case was that defendants 2 to 7 were some of the representatives of the community to which the plaintiff belonged and that it was on tjheir motion that the Board framed the scheme. That is why they were added as supplemental defendants. They support the Board. The endowment consists of certain shops at Palni owned by the community. The plaintiff's father and his ancestors were in management of these properties on behalf of the community. There was a document, Ex. P-3 under which the plaintiff was allowed to continue in management of the property. It was complained that the endowment was not properly managed and that was why a scheme was framed. The plaintiff's...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »