Chennai Court March 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.
Rajayya Nandiar Vs. Laxmana Ayyar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ148
Somayya, J.1. The suits giving rise to these two second appeals were filed under Section 55 of the Madras Estates Land Act to compel the defendants to issue pattas to the appellant who was the plaintiff in the trial Court. His suits were dismissed by both the lower Courts and hence the second appeals. The appellant's case is that Mahalinga Iyer who was the owner of a half share in the village of Kilayur leased certain lands to him and that he has been enjoying these lands as lessee for nearly 25 years before suit. He therefore acquired occupancy rights and as a ryot he filed the two suits under Section 55 of the Act to compel the landholder to issue a patta to him.2. The defence is that the appellant was not a ryot of the lands involved in these two suits and that further they are the private lands of the respondent. On both the points, the lower Courts held against the appellant. These suits were tried along with three other suits which gave rise to second appeals Nos. 971, 974 and 97...
Kandia Goundan Vs. Palani Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad15; (1945)2MLJ245
1. This second appeal involves a very interesting question of the liability of a person who changes the course of a channel for damages to a neighbouring owner whose lands were flooded by excessive rainfall.2. The appelant is the owner of some lands on which he had raised chrysanthemum (Javanthi) crop. The defendant-respondent is the owner of the land situated at some distance to the east of the plaintiff's land and his land is on a higher level than the plaintiff's land. The defendant's land, survey field 345/2 was originally a Kuttai or pond which used to receive the water drawn from the adjacent lands. It was assigned by the Government for cultivation to one Abdul Salam Saheb by Ex. D-2 in the year 1932. He made some improvements on the land by raising me level of the pond and the very purpose of the darkhast grant was to permit me grantee to raise crops on the kuttai which could only be done by filling up the pond, There was a surplus channel flowing northward from this pond leadin...
Sree Rajah Mantripragada Venkataraghava Rao Bahadur Zamindar Garu and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad336; (1945)2MLJ62
1. The question which the Full Bench is called upon to answer is whether the Court which has passed a decree for partition to which Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies and has sent it to the Collector for the purpose of effecting the partition has power to hear objections to the order of partition actually passed. The section reads as follows:Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Crown, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition, or the separate possession of shares of such estates.2. In Chinna Seetayya v. Krishnavenamma I.L.R.(1896) Mad. 435, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Court had power to hear and decide, objections to th...
Addepalli Satyanarayana Vs. Munnaluri Rama Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad484; (1945)2MLJ205
Horwill, J.1. The appellant is a purchaser pendente lite of the mortgagor's right in the hypotheca. The mortgagee obtained a decree, and apparently without knowledge of the transfer to the appellant, the second defendant executed, the decree against the judgment-debtor and obtained symbolical delivery of the property. He filed the present suit for possession just twelve years after he had obtained symbolical delivery. The question is whether the suit is in time, in view of the circumstances that the second defendant was in possession before the decree-holder obtained symbolical delivery. Both the Courts below held that the suit was in time.2. It has been argued here as a question of fact that symbolical delivery was not regularly given, but it appears from the judgment of the lower appellate Court that the arguments there proceeded on the basis that it was. This second appeal must therefore be disposed of on that basis.3. The symbolical delivery amounted to a momentary interruption of ...
Yaggana Obanna and ors. Vs. Kutagulla Gangiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad361; (1945)1MLJ378
1. The only question in dispute in this appeal is whether defendants 1 to 3 are the nearest reversionary heirs of the late Narayana. It is a question of fact and the lower appellate Court has found that defendants 1 to 3 are the nearest reversioners. It is urged, however, for the appellants that though it is a rinding on a question of fact this Court could interfere in second appeal as irrelevant evidence has been relied upon for the finding. It is also stated that the learned Judge had brushed aside evidence furnished by previous statements without proper reasons. Ex. D-1 is a statement made by the fourth defendant on which the learned Subordinate Judge has relied. It is a statement made before the Revenue Inspector, D.W. 8, at the time when an enquiry was held by the Revenue authorities regarding the heirs of Narayana. He has definitely stated there that ' Kutagulla Munayya, China Gangayya and Gangi Reddi residents of Sankatipalli are the principal heirs and dayadis to the deceased. ...
Ramanatha Mannadiar Vs. T.K. Ramaswami Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad480; (1945)2MLJ187
Yahya Ali, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Palghat granting permission to the respondent vakil who was appearing and acting for the 215th defendant in O.S. No. 114 of 1933, on his file to accept the vakalat and act for the plaintiffs in the said suit. The petitioner herein is the 51st defendant in the suit and he is the manager of one of three tavazhies,constituting the tarwad. The objection of the petitioner to the order under revision is that the learned Subordinate Judge exercised a jurisdiction vested in him with material irregularity. It is contended for the petitioner that there is a conflict between the case of the 215th defendant and his representatives in interest.2. The general principle with regard to the appearance of counsel for two clients whose interests may conflict is set out in 'Halsbury's Laws of England' (Hailsham's edition), Volume II, at page 532. It is stated there that where interests of two clients may conflict, couns...
Yeleswarapu Lakshmi Suryanarayana Vs. Kudaravalli Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad512; (1945)2MLJ193
Horwill, J.1. The suit in the lower Court was for a sum of money due on three contract. Under these contracts, sums of money were advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant; and the defendant undertook to deliver in descharge of the loan and the interest certain quantities of paddy. This paddy was not given in accordance with the contract; and so the plaintiff now sues for the value of the paddy. We are now concerned only with one contract, Ex. P-I, dated the 12th July, 1942; and the chief question that the lower Court had to consider was whether that contract was enforceable in view of the provisions of Clause 3 of the Food Grains Control Order. The lower Court held that it did not contravene those provisions.2. Clause 3 (1) of the Food Grains Control Order says :No person shall engage in any undertaking which involves the purchase, sale, or storage for sale, in wholesale uantities of any food grain except under and in accordance with a licence.Sub-clause (d) of Clause 2 says :sale in...
A.R. Krishnaswami Iyer Vs. M.N. Ramakrishna Iyer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-16-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ202
Horwill, J.1. The respondent obtained a decree against the petitioner. By agreement, the petitioner was to pay to the respondent Rs. 30 on the 26th of each month. Two payments seem to have been made within time. The payment due on 26th June, 1940, was paid on the following day and accepted by the decree-holder, who obviously waived the default. No other payment was made until nth September, 1940, when a cheque for Rs. 30 was given to the respondent by the nephew of the petitioner, who has been found by the Court below to have been the agent of the petitioner for that purpose. That cheque was in due course cashed. The respondent does not specifically say that he appropriated that payment towards the July instalment; but pleads that payment as saving limitation by virtue of the provisions of Section 20 of the Limitation Act. He has filed his execution petition within three years of that payment. If he had appropriated that payment to the July instalment, then the next instalment would no...
Nalla Ramudamma Vs. Nalla Kasi Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad269; (1945)1MLJ396
Byers, J.1. The only question in dispute in this Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether the Court has power under Section 21 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, to refer for the decision of arbitrators a matrimonial dispute. Mr. P. Somasundaram contends that the Court has no such power and that for reasons of public policy all such disputes must be decided by the Court itself. In support of his contention he has referred to the decisions in Kalabatu v. Prabh Dial (1918) 45 I.C. 163, Malka v. Sardar A.I.R. 1929 Lah. 394 and Nattu v. Sarnun A.I.R. 1933 Lah. 532, but none of these decisions lays down that any matter in dispute in a matrimonial suit cannot under the exceptionally wicle teems of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act be referred to arbitrators. In the first of the three cases cited objection was taken to the reference of the whole suit to the decision of arbitrators; and it was pointed out that although it was open to the Court to refer an...
K. Ramasubramania Mudaliar Vs. the Salem Urban Co-operative Society, L ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad434; (1945)2MLJ2
Somayya, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether the Registrar or an arbitrator appointed by him under Section 51 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932) has the power to pass a decree against the property mortgaged to the Society so as to bind a subsequent alienee who was made a party to the arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff is the purchaser from one David Dorairaja of a house which had been mortgaged by the vendor to the defendant, the Salem Urban Co-operative Society, Ltd., for a sum of Rs. 1,500 taken as a loan on the 7th February, 1933, on a mortgage of the suit house. Having purchased the property on the 20th June, 1934, subject to the mortgage in favour of the Society, the plaintiff sent a cheque for a certain amount but the defendant-society refused to accept it claiming a larger amount. Thereafter the respondent-society filed claim No. 170 of 1935, before the Sub-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies implead-ing both the original bor...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »