Chennai Court July 1945 Judgments
Mir HussaIn Ali Vs. Mir Baquir Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-31-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad116; (1945)2MLJ422
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant in the City Civil Court. The trial Court dismissed the action on the ground that the relief sought was barred by the law of limitation. On appeal Byers, J., held that Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act applied and consequently the plaint had been presented in time. The appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of the learned Judge.2. The plaintiff is the son of one Haji Mir Abbas Ali, who died in 1917. His heirs, of whom the plaintiff is of course, one, numbered sixteen. His estate included a casuarina plantation which was sold in 1921, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the heirs, by the plaintiff's step-brother, Haji Mir Moosa Raza Ali. The sale realised Rs. 3,000. Apparently with the consent of the majority of the heirs Raza Ali handed over the sale proceeds to the defendant with instructions to distribute the money a...
Tag this Judgment!G.F.F. Foulkes by His Agent T.V. Muthuswami Iyer Vs. Salem Municipal C ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad31; (1945)2MLJ244
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff raises a simple question. He contends that, in respect of agricultural lands for which he has been assessed to property tax by the Municipal Council, Salem, he is not the owner, as the lands are ryoti in the possession of occupancy ryots. He has to be assessed not on the kudiwaram but only on the basis of his melwaram right. Section 81(4)(b) of the Madras District Municipalities Act contemplates an assessment on the land-holder and the tenants. Whether the ryots can be described as tenants when they have occupancy rights is a question with which we are not now concerned. The plaintiff is certainly a landholder within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. Granting that the definition of the Estates Land Act will not apply, we have to find out whether he comes within the description of ' owner ': on whom the assessment is to be levied under Section 86 of the Act. ' Owner ' is defined in Section 3(17) as includ...
Tag this Judgment!Vedlapatla Suryanarayana Vs. the Province of Madras, Represented by th ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad394; (1945)2MLJ237
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant in these appeals is a ryot cultivating ryotwari land in the village of Kowali which is in the West Godavari district. In 1935 a small part of his holding, to be exact five cents of an acre, was acquired by the Provincial Government for the purpose of the construction of a water channel which was required for the irrigation of three holdings of ryotwari land cultivated by other persons in the same village. The compensation' awarded was Rs. 77-10-0. The. appeals arise out of a suit which the appellant filed in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ellore for a declaration that the acquisition was illegal on the ground that the land was not required for a public purpose. It was further stated that as the Government had on-ly contributed one anna to the compensation awarded the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Acit had not been complied with. The Distirct Munsiff dismissed the suit. He held that it was not open to theplaintiff t...
Tag this Judgment!CaptaIn David Aberneathy Greenwood Vs. Gladys Hildred Greenwood (Other ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad65; (1945)2MLJ389
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This case is unparalleled and it raises an important question of law. The appellant was married to the respondent on the 9th June, 1933, at All Souls Church, Coimbatore. The appellant had been previously married, but he had not heard of his first wife for over seven years and consequently presumed her to be dead. The appeal arises out of a petition filed by the respondent on the Original Side of this Court under the Indian Divorce Act for a declaration that her marriage with the appellant was null and void because his first wife was still alive. She failed to prove this fact, but maintained that she was entitled to rely on the presumption stated in Section 107 of the. Indian Evidence Act, which says that when the question is whether a person is alive or dead, and it is shown that the person was alive within 30 years, the burden of proving the person to be dead is on him who affirms it. In other words, she maintained that all she had to prove was that t...
Tag this Judgment!Natteti Poliah and ors. Vs. Alapati Muniswami Chetty and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ204
Rajamannar, J.1. The first respondent in the lower Court, a creditor, filed an application under Section 4 of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act to the Debt Conciliation Board, Gudur, for the settlement of the debts of respondents 2 to 5 in the Court below. The petitioner in the lower Court who is the first respondent herein is another creditor who claims under a mortgage deed in his favour dated 19th July, 1934, the principal sum of Rs. 2,739-9-7 and subsequent interest at 6 per cent, per annum. Under Section 10(1) of the Act notice of the application was issued in the manner prescribed and it was duly served on the first respondent herein on the 14th February, 1941. He, however, did not file a statement with regard to his debt within the time prescribed, that is, two months from the date of receipt of the notice. In due course the Debt Conciliation Board approved on 31st July, 1941, a composition scheme and discharged the debt of the first respondent. On the 29th of August, 1941, the f...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vaidyanatha Mudaliar Vs. M. Vedachala Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ312
Somayya, J.1. Second Appeals Nos. 328 to 330 of 1944 arise out of suits filed by the plaintiffs who happen to be certain ryots in the village of Ahnamalai Putheri, of which the respondent is the landholder. The amounts for the recovery of which proceedings were taken under section III of the Madras Estates Land Act are alleged to be due for water taken to the backyards of the plaintiffs' houses. The plaintiffs contest the right of the landholder to bring the holding to sale for recovery of these sums which accrued due in respect of the backyards. I called for findings as it was not clear whether the backyards are ryoti lands. I also called for a finding on the question whether there was an exchange of patta and muchilika in respect of these backyards. The findings are that the backyards are not ryoti lands and that there has been no exchange of pattas and muchilikas with reference to the backyards. True the plaintiffs have executed muchilikas and accepted pattas with reference to ryoti...
Tag this Judgment!Kanuparthi Gangi Reddi Vs. the Liquidator of Utukur Co-operative Socie ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ263
Rajamannar, J.1. This second appeal raises no doubt a question of law depending on the construction of two sections of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act (VI of 1932), but in my opinion there can be only one answer to the question raised. The appellant before us was a member of the Utukur Co-operative Society which went into liquidation on 4th February, 1933. Sometime before the liquidation, on the 1st December, 1932, the first plaintiff, the appellant herein, ceased to be a member of the society. The liquidator appointed to wind up the society levied contribution against the plaintiffs amongst others on or about the 20th January, 1940. The plaintiffs appealed to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the order for contribution but the Registrar rejected the appeal. There was a revised order for contribution passed against the plaintiffs on the 25th November 1940, and the plaintiffs with the leave of the Registrar instituted the suit from which the present appeal arises for...
Tag this Judgment!Munuswami Pillai Vs. Doraikannu Ammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad222; (1945)2MLJ408
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Special First Class Magistrate, Saidapet, enhancing the rate of maintenance awarded to the respondent, the wife of the petitioner, in a previous order of that Court on the ground that the life has become costlier and that she could not be able to live on the same rate of maintenance.2. One of the objections raised by the petitioner (husband) is that he and his wife had lived together as husband and wife after the passing of the previous order and that therefore the original order of the Special First Class Magistrate has ceased to be effective it will have to be decided whether a claim for maintenance is sustainable on subsequent conduct. Of course, the wife pleaded that there was no real living as husband and wife, that, when she applied on a prior occasion for enhancement of the rate and when that petition came on for hearing, her husband, to escape the consequence of an enhancement of the rate, played a fraud ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalianna Goundan Vs. Settia Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad80; (1945)2MLJ468
Somayya, J.1. The lower appellate Court was clearly in error in thinking that the object of the agreement was to stifle non-compoundable offences. The complaint that was made by the defendant is Ex. P-2. He gave a sworn statement which was recorded by the Magistrate on the 2nd August, 1940. Though he implicated as many as six persons as the accused in the complaint, when examined by the Magistrate he attributed specific acts only to four persons. He said that Pavayammal and Athayqmmal, accused 4 and 5, prevented him from baling out water by holding the rope and unyoking and driving away the bulls. Then he said that Kahyanna Goundan and Marappa Goundan, accused 1 and 3, removed the baling stand and threw it into the Well. No doubt in between these two statements there is another statement that the first three accused removed the baling stand and threw it into the well. That apparently was a general statement which did not satisfy the Magistrate. So he appears to have asked the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!K. Vaidynatha Mudaliar Vs. M. Vedachala Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-27-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad49
Somayya, J.1. Second Appeals Nos. 328 to 330 of 1944 ariae out of suits filed by the plaintiffs who happen to be certain ryots in the village of Annamalai Putheri, of which the respondent is the landholder. The -amounts for the recovery of which proceedings were taken under Section Ill, Madras Estates Land Act, are alleged to be due for water taken to the backyards of the plaintiffs' houses. The plaintiffs contest the right of landholder to bring the holding to sale for recovery of these sums which accrued due in respect of the backyards. I called for findings as it was not clear whether the backyards are ryoti lands. I also called for a finding on the question whether there was an exchange of patta and muchilika in respect of these backyards. The findings are that the backyards are not ryoti lands and that there has been no exchange of pattas and muchilikas with reference to the backyards. True, the plaintiffs have executed muchilikas and accepted pattas with reference to ryoti lands ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »