Chennai Court April 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.
In Re: Eswardoss Kalidoss
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ115
ORDERHappell, J.1. The petitioner presented a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime, Madras, against a certain R.V. Bhat alleging that he had committed an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code in respect of a number of diamonds, valued at Rs. 20,000 entrusted to him by the petitioner. The police filed a charge sheet on the basis of this complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the case resulted in the discharge of the accused. In the course of the enquiry the petitioner gave evidence which, in the opinion of the prosecution, was irreconcilable with certain of the statements made in the complaint; and the Assistant Commissioner thereupon filed a complaint against him for an offence under Section 211 of the Penal Code. This complaint was transferred to the file of the Third Presidency Magistrate and the preliminary objection was raked that the Third Presidency Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case without a complaint from the Chief P...
Kondamuri Akkamma Vs. Bhuvanavaidiyala Pichamma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad527; (1945)2MLJ266
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for partition and mesne profits. The following genealogical tree will help to elucidate the contentions of the parties : ________________________________________ | | Subbayya : Pichamma (d. 1911). Venkayya : Venkamma (d. 1935) | _____________|_______ | | | | 1st Defendant Plaintiff. | 2nd Defendant2. The last maleholder, Venkayya, died about 50 years ago, leaving a widow and two daughters. On 8th October, 1908, the widow, Venkamma, made two gift deeds, comprising the whole of the properties which she had got from her husband, in favour of her two daughters, the first defendant under Ex. D-1 getting the larger share and the plaintiff under Ex, D-2 getting the smaller share. In 1912 Venkamma filed a suit against the nephews of Pichamma the deceased widow of her brother-in-law claiming possession of 3.80 acres alleged to have been given by the late Venkayya to the late Pichamma with a stipulation that she should enjoy the land duri...
Venkatachala Pillai Vs. M.R. Rajagopal Naidu and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-20-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad51; (1945)2MLJ388
ORDERBell, J.1. This revision petition is against a decision in an execution application before the District Munsif of Poonamallee. The matter arose out of a maintenance suit which resulted in a decree dated 19th March 1936. This was modified on 6th July 1938 on appeal. Later, the decree holder assigned it to respondent 1, in the lower Court. He brought the properties to sale in execution and a sale took place on 1st September 1943. Respondent 2 in the lower Court - the petitioner here - bought some of the property in question. On 30th March 1938, some of the same properties had been mortgaged to the petitioner in the lower Court, respondent 1 here. In the lower Court, the mortgagee finding that the decree had been executed and property brought to sale by the assignee-decree-holder had been purchased by a stranger, filed an execution application, the execution application with which we are concerned and succeeded in setting aside the sale on the ground of certain irregularities. The as...
Kandadai Narasimhachariar Vs. Raghava Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad333; (1945)2MLJ89
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether an order passed dismissing an objection preferred to an attachment under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no suit having been filed under Rule 63, operates beyond proceedings in execution of the particular decree.2. On the 13th September, 1919, Perianna Padayachi (the father of defendants 1 to 3), the fourth defendant and one Sengeni Padayachi executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff. Some of the mortgaged properties belonged to Perianna Padayachi, some to the fourth defendant and some to Sengeni Padayachi. On the 7th July, 1939, the mortgagee sued to recover the amount then due on the mortgage. With interest it came to Rs. 1,998. The properties owned by Sengeni Padayachi were sold in public auction by the revenue authorities for the recovery of land revenue and were purchased by the mortgagee, subject to his mortgage. Credit for the amount paid by the mortgagee for these properties was give...
Bahadur V. Ponnuswami Pillai Vs. Raja Sir S.R.M.M.A. Annamalai Chettia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ177
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. The Zamindar of Sivaganga, the appellant, instituted the suits out of which these appeals arise for recovery of arrears of poruppu with interest alleged to be due to him for faslis 1347 and 1348 from the respondents as joint owners of certain villages in the Zamindari granted to their predecessor in title on a permanent cowle on 9th February, 1881. The claim is based on the cowle-deed as modified by a compromise decree made in a prior litigation between the parties. The respondents pleaded, inter alia, that they were entitled to a deduction of the cess payable to Government by the appellant as landholder on the poruppu due to him, as such cess not having been paid by the appellant was recovered from the respondents. The District Munsiff, Devakottah, who tried the suits disallowed the deduction claimed, as, in his view, the respondents failed to prove that they paid the cess payable by the appellant, and passed a decree for the arrears sued for with interest at 6 ...
Minor D. Shanmuga Raja, Zamindar of Sivaganga, a Ward Under the Court ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad509
Patanjali Sastri, J. 1. The zamindar of Sivaganga, the appellant, instituted the suits out of which these appeals arise for recovery of arrears of poruppu with interest alleged to be duo to him for Faslis 1347 and 1348 from the respondents as joint owners of certain villages in the zamindari granted to their predecessor in title on a permanent cowle on 9th February 1881. The claim is based on the cowle-deed as modified by a compromise decree made in a prior litigation between the parties. The respondents pleaded inter alia, that they were entitled to a deduction of the cess payable to Government by the appellant as landholder on the poruppu due to him as such cess not having been paid by the appellant was recovered from the respondents. The District Munsif, Devakottai, who tried the suits disallowed the deduction claimed, as in his view, the respondents failed to prove that they paid the cess payable by the appellant, and passed a decree for the arrears sued for with interest at 6 per ...
Sree Rajah Vadrevu Viswa Sundara Row Bahadur Vs. Vadlamannati Kusalara ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad434; (1946)2MLJ72
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of a suit on a mortgage, Ex. A, dated the 28th September, 1930. The first defendant on behalf of himself and his minor sons, the second and third defendants, mortgaged a large portion of his property to his son-in-law, the plaintiff, for a nominal consideration of Rs. 1,25,000 of which it is common ground, a major portion was not paid. The lower Court has found that the mortgage was supported by consideration to the extent of Rs. 55,287-8-0 which is the amount claimed by the plaintiff. In 1932, as a result of a petition filed by another creditor in April 1931, the first defendant was adjudged an insolvent. The execution of the suit mortgage, Ex. A, was one of the acts of insolvency alleged. The learned District Judge found that Ex. A was not a fraudulent transaction, but holding that another act of insolvency had been committed he adjudged the first defendant an insolvent. This decision was confirmed in appeal by the High Court which did not ...
Ramabhakthula Ramayya Vs. Chittoor District Co-operative Deputy Regist ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad370; (1945)2MLJ112
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was a member of the Valavali Agraharam Co-operative Society, which is now in liquidation. He was indebted to the Society and the liquidator passed an order against him under Section 47 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. This entitled the liquidator to proceed in execution in accordance with the rules framed under the Act. The liquidator applied to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies to execute the order requiring payment by bringing to sale properties belonging to the appellant. After the properties had been sold the appellant filed an application before the Deputy Registrar for an order setting aside the sale on the ground that there' had been material irregularity and fraud in connection with the proclamation and conduct of the sale. This application was rejected. The appellant then appealed to the Registrar, who confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar dismissing the plaintiff's objections to the sale. Thereu...
Gopalaswami Naick Vs. the Province of Madras Through the District Coll ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad462; (1945)2MLJ140
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant was the second defendant in a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. There were four plaintiffs, the first plaintiff being the second plaintiff's mother and the third and fourth plaintiffs being her daughters. The suit was filed in forma pauperis for a declaration that a settlement dated the 27th February, 1938, purporting to have been executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant was not binding on the plaintiffs and for a partition of the property on the basis that the first plaintiff was the lawful wife of the first defendant and the second plaintiff his son. The third and fourth plaintiffs asked for a decree for maintenance and for marriage expenses. The first defendant denied that the first plaintiff was his wife and denied that the other plaintiffs were his children. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant died. The second defendant eventually agreed to the second plaintiff receiving 20...
The Panchayat Board, Akumella by Its President, Chilakala Peddu Anki R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad506; (1945)2MLJ176
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the Panchayat Board of Akumella. Within the jurisdiction of the Board is a public latrine used by the women of the village. In 1939 the Board decided to carry out repairs to this and other latrines within its jurisdiction; but as regards the latrine with which the suit is concerned, the Board was obstructed by the respondents, who claimed that the latrine had been erected on land forming part of their private cattle yard and was used merely by their own women folk. The result was that the Board filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsiff of Nandyal for a declaration that the latrine was vested in the Board and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the work of the repair. The District Munsiff held that the defendants' case was entirely untrue, that the latrine was a public latrine used by the women of the Chinna Bazaar, that the Board had been in possession of the site within the statutory period and t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »