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.
Minor Ramalingam Represented by Next Friend Somu Pillai Vs. Minor Venk ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad374; (1945)2MLJ86
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a minor. He sued in the Court of the District Munsiff of Tiruturaipundi for a declaration that a decree passed against him in Small Cause Suit No. 91 of 1937 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Tiruvarur was not binding upon him because of the gross negligence of his guardian in the conduct of that suit. On the 30th April, 1934, the plaintiff's father executed a promissory note in favour of one Muniammal. The plaintiff was joint with his father. On the 2nd September, 1934, Muniammal endorsed the promissory note to her father, the first defendant. In 1937, the first defendant filed the suit in which the decree now complained of by the plaintiff was passed. The father had died before the institution of that suit and the plaintiff was sued as the surviving coparcener and the legal representative of his father. A decree was passed against him on the 12th November, 1937, but was limited to the family properties and to the separa...
The Kankanadi Baidarle Garadi Bhandaram Represented by Its Manager M. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-13-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad345
Horwill, J.1. A suit was filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Mangalore; and that Court found that the suit was in reality a suit for possession of property and that as-the value of the property was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, the plaint would have to be returned for presentation in the superior Court. The District Munsif accordingly passed this order:It follows from the above finding that the suit is not cognizable by this Court. The plaint is therefore returned for presentation to proper Court. Costs will be costs in the cause.2. The plaintiffs in that suit in fact, did not amend their plaint and represent it in the superior Court; and so the defendant in that suit filed the suit with which we are here concerned for the recovery of his costs. The lower Court found that the costs were not recoverable. I may say at the outset that the order passed by the District Munsif in the prior suit was one without jurisdiction. He had no jurisdiction to direct a superior Court, ...
T.K. Thiruvengadam Pillai and anr. Vs. the Madras Hindu Religious Endo ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad273; (1945)1MLJ427
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. There appears to be little merit in this appeal, but at the same time the law is on the side of the appellants. They are trustees of a charity connected with the Sri Nachiar Temple at Srivilliputtur. The charity is called the Madras Sri Boni Narayana Pillai Annadhana Kattalai Charity, Its object is the daily feeding of Brahmans at this temple.2. The Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board considered that the endowment was a specific endowment attached to the temple and consequently levied an annual contribution under Section 69 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927. Thereupon the appellants filed a petition (O.P. No. 83 of 1940) in the Court of the District Judge of Ramnad and for this purpose invoked Sub-section (2) of Section 84 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of that section says that if a dispute arises as to whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in the Act or whether the temple is an excepted temple, the dispute shall be...
Barabail Guddappa Rai Vs. Yamunamma
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad354; (1945)1MLJ350
Mockett, J.1. The property concerned was mortgaged in 1914. It was sold to the mother of the soldiers who are now concerned in 1919, who paid some part of the sum but has never paid the greater part of the amount. A 'mortgage suit O.S. No. 12 of 1938 was filed and the property was sold in execution to Bakrabail Guddappa Rai, the petitioner in G.R.P. No. 1469 of 1943, In my previous order I indicated that it was necessary to ascertain whether the sons of Yamunamma are interested in the present proceedings and if so whether their interests are likely to be prejudiced. The learned Subordinate Judge of South Kanara to whom this matter was referred has found on ample material that they are not interested at all. I entirely agree. The position amounts to no more than this that Yamunamma personally incurred responsibility for this purchase. She alone was a party to the suit. I do think that a certificate under Section 7 of the Indian. Soldiers (Litigation) Act (IV of 1925,.) as amended has an...
Nayudu Sivayya and ors. Vs. Yandrathi Chinna Venkatappayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad266; (1945)1MLJ405
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law, but we may say at the outset that the correct answer is given in the judgment under appeal.2. The parties to the suit are joint lessees of agricultural land. The lease is dated the 28th September, 1928, and the plaintiffs and the defendants had an equal interest in it. On the 28th July, 1933, the lessor obtained a decree for arrears of rent and on three occasions he instituted execution proceedings, but against the plaintiffs alone. As the result of these proceedings, the plaintiffs were compelled to pay on the 12th February, 1936, Rs. ,766-12-10, on the 3rd March, 1937, Rs. 130 and on the 19th July, 1937, Rs. 232-6-6, in all Rs. 1,129-3-4. On the (date on which the last payment was made there was due under the decree the sum of Rs. 2270-2-0 disregarding the payments which the plaintiffs had made. Therefore, their payments represent less than half the decretal debt. In 1939, the plaintiffs applied for ...
Duraiswami Reddi Vs. Angappa Reddi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad140; (1945)1MLJ425
Chandrasekhar Ayyar, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant in this case. The properties in the suit were sold by the first defendant to the plaintiff on the gth July, 1941. The plaintiff lost the sale deed on the 29th July, 1941, and filed the suit for specific performance on the 14th August, 1941, alleging the loss of the sale deed, and asking for the execution of a fresh sale deed and for possession of the properties. To this suit, he impleaded the second defendant who took a subsequent sale from the first defendant of the properies with knowledge of the plaintiff's sale'. The sale deed -to the second defendant was executed on the 16th July, 1941, and registered on the 23rd July, 1941. Before the suit proceeded to trial however the plaintiff recovered his lost sale deed and got it registered on the 22nd September, 1941. Both the lower Courts have given a decree to the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the properties negativing the second defendant's contention that he is e...
Chingoron Keloth Narayanan Nair Vs. Chingoron Keloth Devaki Amma and o ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad230; (1945)1MLJ354
Horwill, J.1. matter in dispute between the parties was referred during the pendency of the suit to arbitration. The arbitrators submitted an award and in accordance with that award a decree was passed. The present petition is against an order of Court amending the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners in the lower Court alleged that certain clerical mistakes had entered into the proceedings of the arbitrators and that the lists furnished by them were incorrect in a few particulars. The learned Munsiff called upon the arbitrators to submit a report whether the mistakes alleged by the respondents had occurred; and they submitted a report to the effect that the errors referred to in the petition had inadvertently crept into the award. On that report the petition Of the respondents was allowed.2. There can be little doubt that the Court which amends its decree on account of a clerical or accidental slip or omission must be itself satisfied that such a sl...
Jagannath Sowcar Vs. S.V. Sripathibabu Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad297; (1945)1MLJ478
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a money-lender. On the 27th August, 1935, the respondent executed in the appellant's favour a mortgage to secure the sum of Rs. 32,000 bearing interest at 15 per cent, per annum. The properties covered by the mortgage were lands and buildings in the City of Madras. The mortgagor had previously charged these properties. At the date of the mortgage to the appellant, there was due to four prior mortgagees and to other creditors a total sum of Rs. 31,000. The appellant undertook to discharge all these debts and pay the respondent Rs. 1,000 in cash to pake up the agreed c6nsideration of Rs. 32,000. In the month of January, 1936, the appellant, with the consent of the respondent, went into possession of the mortgaged properties. The arrangement was that he should collect the rents and profits, pay all taxes and maintenance charges out of his collections and appropriate the surplus to the amount due under his mortgage.2. On the and February, ...
Pl.Sp.N.K. Nagappa Chettiar and ors. Vs. Minor Subramaniam Alias Laksh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad270; (1945)1MLJ452
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. These three appeals arise out of suits filed in the Subordi-nate Judge's Court of Devalcottah. Appeal No. 233 of 1943 and Appeal No. 501 of 1943 are from the decree passed in O.S. No. 10 of 1943. Appeal No. 500 of 1943 is from the decree passed in O.S. No. 33 of 1942. O.S. No. 10 of 1943 is the first in time. It was originally filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottah where it was numbered O.S. No. 93 of 1939. It was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga and there numbered O.S. No. 57 of 1940. It was transferred back to the Subordinate Judge's Court of Devakottah and on this occasion numbered O.S. No. 10 of 1943. The two suits were tried together and were dealt with in a common judgment. The three appeals have been heard together and can likewise be dealt with in a common judgment. For convenience, we shall refer to the parties according to their designations in O.S. No. 10 of 1943.2. There are three plaintiffs ...
Nacharammal and ors. Vs. Veerappa Chettiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad231; (1945)2MLJ197
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution and the question for consideration is as to whether the execution petition out of which the appeal arises is barred by limitation. The decree in the suit was passed on the 1st December, 1922. It directed delivery of certain properties on payment of a certain amount. The original decree directed that Rs. 17,644-12-0 should be deposited. There was an appeal and the appellate Court on 28th September, 1926, modified the decree of the first Court and reduced the amount to be deposited to Rs. 6,113-8-0. It was taken to this Court in second appeal which was dismissed on the 21st November, 1930. The first execution petition, E.P. No. 169 of 1933, was filed on the 21st November, 1933. After enquiry as regards the amount that had to be deposited an order was passed on the 23rd March, 1934, directing the decree-holder to deposit into Court Rs. 6,960-0-2 by a particular date fixed by the Court. As the amount was not deposite...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »