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.
Bachimanchi Venkata Kotayya Sastri and anr. Vs. the Province of Madras ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-16-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad524; (1945)2MLJ250
Somayya, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs-appellants for a declaration that the levy of penal assessment by the local Government-respondent is illegal. We are in this case concerned with two Survey Numbers 49 and 52 in the village of Chennurivaripalem, which is a hamlet of Krishnapuram. The two survey numbers in question are portions of Kannigala Madugu, a channel which passes through the village of Chennurivaripalem. The trial Court held in favour of the respondent on all the points and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Subordinate Judge has in paragraph 4 of his judgment pointed out various circumstances which, he says, would go to show that really the channel was part of the village of Chennurivaripalem. Having expressed that opinion, the appellate Judge considers in paragraph 5 of his judgment what he considered is the law on the subject. He is of opinion that because the channel in question passes on and serves other Government villages lower ...
Malladi Seetha Rama Sastri Vs. Mallala Sobhanachalapathi Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad445; (1945)2MLJ137
Bell, J.1. This petition arises out of a suit to recover arrears of rent due by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of a dwelling house in Bezwada. The plaintiff sued for rent payable between 9th July, 1941, and 8th November, 1942. Up to 25th July, 1941, the rent agreed was apparently Rs. 22 per month and there-after Rs. 35. The suit was decreed on 15th October, 1943. In January, 1944, the defendant successfully prayed the Court to be allowed to pay in instalments. He paid three sums which in all amounted to Rs. 347.2. On 17th March, 1944, an application was made to the Rent Controller, under the Madras House Rent Control Order, 1941, who fixed the fair rent of the property in question, and he fixed the rent at Rs. 21. Despite this, the plaintiff applied to the Court in execution of the balance due under the decree. The Court held that as the Rent Controller had fixed the fair rent his order must be taken as superseding the amount ordered by the decree. On the footing that Rs. 21...
Mrs. E.C. Vas. Vs. Miss Josephine Hilda Lobo.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad19; (1945)2MLJ153
Wadsworth, J.1. The plaintiff brought a suit for partition and possession of 72 cents in R.S. No. 57/8, which is plot D in the plan in the case. The suit was dismissed as being one for partial partition which would prevent the working out of the equities and the appeal to the lower Court has been dismissed on the same ground.2. The admitted facts may be briefly summarised. The family of one Mascarenhas originally owned two contiguous plots of land described as plots D and B in the plan. These at that time formed a single holding, though plot B, measuring 74 cents, is now the northern portion of R.S. No. 57/1. Under a decree of Court this holding comprising the two plots was assigned for life to one Catherine Robelle with a remainder in four shares to other members of the family. Catherine 'Robe We gave to Mr. Lobo, owner of adjacent property, a lease of the whole of the land. During the currency of this lease Mr. Lobo purchased half of the land from the persons entitled to the remainde...
Valappil Cheru Moidin's son MoidIn Kutti Vs. thekkumcheri Narayanan Un ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad161; (1945)2MLJ135
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application to scale down a compromise decree. The decree arose out of a suit for Rs. 3,000 due on a mortgage for Rs. 1,600. The compromise provided that the plaintiff would give up the whole amount of the suit claim and Court costs except for Rs. 2,500. If the defendants paid before a certain date the plaintiff would give up a further sum of Rs. 500. Failing that, the whole amount of Rs. 2,500 would be realised by the sale of the properties in the plaint schedule. The first defendant gave up all his contentions including any claim for costs. On this decree the trial Court held that there was a simple renewal of the amount claimed on the mortgage by means of the compromise and scaled down the debt to Rs. 1,600, which was the principal of the mortgage. The lower appellate Court applying the decision in Subbarayudu v. Sriramulu : AIR1944Mad13 has held that the compromise is one in respect of which it is impossible to say how much of the amount...
In Re: Shanmugham Alias Muthukaruppan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-09-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ87
ORDERHappell, J.1. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to file a civil miscellaneous appeal and pay court-fee accordingly or whether he must file a regular appeal and pay an ad valorem court-fee. The order made by the Subordinate Judge against which it is now sought to appeal was made on an application by an assignee-decree-holder for recognition of the assignment in his favour and for passing a personal decree; and the application was stated to be made under Order 21, Rule 16 and Order 34, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order of the Principal Subordinate Judge was that a personal decree was granted for the amount claimed personally against the first defendant and against the joint family properties of defendants 1 and 2. In his appeal petition, the appellant attacks not only the assignment of the decree but the personal decree itself. It was held by the Allahabad High Court in Muhammad Iltifat Husain v. Alim-un-Nissa Bibi I.L.R.(1918) All. 553 that an order o...
R.N. Kapur, Partner of Wright and Co. Vs. the Travancore National and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-05-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad467; (1945)2MLJ120
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether Article 85 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to a case where a customer of a bank has a current account which at times is in credit and at other times is in debit, the bank having granted to the customer the right to overdraw.2. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the Official Liquidators of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Ltd., to recover from the partners of a firm of stock brokers carrying on business in Madras under the style of Wright and Co., money overdrawn by them on a current account with the bank. There were two partners, the appellant (the first defendant) and V.H. Ramaswamy (the second defendant). The defendants opened the account on the 16th April, 1936. On the 31st August, 1936, the bank agreed to allow them to overdraw the account to the extent of Rs. 10,000 on the furnishing of collateral security. On the 21st October, 1936, the accommodation was increased to Rs. 13,200. As securit...
Nalla Goundar Vs. Krishnaswami Naicker
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad465; (1945)2MLJ133
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. In this appeal the Court is called upon to construe Clause (b) of Section 74 of the Indian Registration Act.2. The appellant presented to the Sub-Registrar a conveyance of immoveable property for registration. The vendor (the respondent in this appeal) did not attend at the office of the Sub-Registrar when he was required to do so for the purpose of the registration; and the Sub-Registrar regarded his absence as a denial of execution. Consequently he refused to register the document. Thereupon the appellant appealed to the Registrar under Section 73 of the Act. Without inquiring whether the vendor had executed the deed the Registrar refused to register it because the respondent had not complied with the requirements of Section 145(2) of the Madras Estates Land Act. He considered that compliance with the provision of law contained therein was necessary before the vendee was entitled to have the document registered.3. This resulted in a suit being filed ...
The Province of Madras, Represented by the Collector of Madras Vs. Ass ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ127
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff was in possession of certain land which was formed by the sea receding in the year 1935 or thereabouts. He first asked for the land being assigned to him and said that he would plant cocoanut trees thereon. Subsequently he seems to have entered upon the property and planted trees. He then asked that out of the lands formed by the recession of the sea, the portion occupied by him might be granted to him. He also said that he was ready to pay any value that might be fixed by the Government for the land in his possession. He wanted permission to pay the sum fixed by the Government. At one stage he seems to have asked that he may not be called upon to pay the value or the land price as it is called, but ultimately he said that he was willing to pay whatever was demanded of him. Under Section 3 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, the expression 'tenant ' among other things inclules a person who, with the bonafide intention of attorning and p...
Ravikanti Kanoji Rao and ors. Vs. Sri Sri Sri Mirja Sri Purapati Vizia ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-04-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad98; (1945)2MLJ515
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Wadsworth, J.,1 in an appeal against an order passed in execution proceedings in the Court of the District Judge of Vizagapatam. The question raised in the appeal before the learned Judge related to an amount of Rs. 676 which represented a premium on land described as 'old waste.' The payment of the premium was directed by the compromise decree. The appellants contended that that part of the decree which related to the payment of the premium was illegal by reason of Section 25 of the Madras Estates Land Act, as amended by the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) and therefore the case fell within the decision of this Court in Ambu Nair v. Kelu Nair I.L.R.(1929)53 Mad. 805, The learned Judge dismissed the appeal as he was under the impression that the compromise decree was passed before the amendment of Section 25 in 1934. This...
South Indian Railway Company Ltd., Through Its Agent and General Manag ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Apr-03-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad427; (1945)2MLJ155
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Within the municipal limits of the town of Madura is a tank called the Anupannady tank over which the South Indian Railway passes. The railway was constructed in 1902 and for the purpose of taking off water which overflowed from this tank a culvert was built under the railway line. The tank on its western side is close to the Chinthamony Road. The water from the tank on this side flows over a weir which has a capacity of 500 cusecs. The culvert built by the railway company was not sufficient in itself to take off all the water flowing out of the tank and the municipality of Madura had to build four other culverts. The water carried by all these culverts flows into a channel constructed by the Government which runs parallel to the Chinthamony Road. In 1936 heavy floods were experienced in the Madura district and it became evident that the culverts, which were only six feet wide, were not large enough to deal with an exceptional flow of water. As a resul...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »