Chennai Court August 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: T.S. Chockalingam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ295
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the editor, printer and publisher of the vernacular daily paper 'Dinasari.' He has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, of offences punishable under Clause 5 (1) of the Newspaper Control Order, 1942, on the ground that he had published during the weeks ending 25th June, 1944, and 2nd July, 1944, newsprint covering 28 and 32 pages respectively, in violation of Clause 5 (1) of the said Newspaper Control Order limiting the number of pages to be published in a week to 26, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 on each count.2. There are no disputes about the facts of this case; but what was contended was that no prosecution can lie under the Newspaper Control Order of 1942, as it was superseded by the Newspaper Control Order of 1944, which came into force on 17th July, 1944, which contained no provisions similar to Clauses (1) of the earlier Order, and that on the date on which he was prosecuted there was no law in the Statute b...
The Kaleswarar Mills, Ltd. by Agent, A.L.A.R. Kalai Raja Chettiar Vs. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad76; (1945)2MLJ403
Rajamannar, J.1. The plaintiff (appellant) is a limited company carrying on business at Coimbatore. On 27th January, 1930, the plaintiff company purchased several items of property including a rice mill, houses, a shop, machinery and agricultural land from four brothers, namely, Parasurama Naicker, Srinivasa Naicker, Murugesa Naicker and Manicka Naicker. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Parasurama Naicker. Defendants 4 to 6 are the sons of Srinivasa Naicker. Defendants 7 and 8 are the sons of Murugesa Naicker. Two days after the execution of the sale deed a lease of four items out of the properties purchased was granted by the plaintiff to Parasurama Naicker on a monthly rental of Rs. 40. In 1932 the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 536 of 1932 in the Court of the District Munsiff at Arni, against Parasurama Naicker and his undivided sons, the present first and second defendants (the third defendant was not then born) to eject them from the properties leased and for recovery of arrears of ren...
Boggavarappu Satyanarayanamurthy Vs. Gontla Venkata Pichaiah and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ383
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant sued the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada for specific performance of an agreement which they had entered into with him to execute in his favour a mortgage of immoveable properties to secure moneys lent by him to them. The Subordinate Judge granted a decree for specific performance, but he reduced the agreed rate of interest, namely, compound interest at 12 3/8 per cent, with half-yearly rests to 8 per cent, simple interest. He refused to give the plaintiff a mortgage decree in this suit. The appellant has appealed both with regard to the reduction of interest and the refusal of the Subordinate Judge to grant him a mortgage decree. The respondents have not appeared.2. The reason given by the Subordinate Judge for reducing the rate of interest which he regarded as ' unconscionable and penal ' was that the plaintiff was a very rich man and the defendants were poor, which according to him meant that he was in a po...
Myneni Pundarikakshayya Vs. Kondamudi Sreeramulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad1; (1945)2MLJ375
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The main question in this appeal is whether a person, who without lawful authority takes upon himself the management of the estate of a Hindu minor, can in law execute a promissory note in the name of the minor in respect of money borrowed for a necessary purpose and thereby bind the minor's estate. The person who without lawful authority takes charge of a minor's estate is commonly referred to as the de facto guardian and it will be convenient to use the expression in this judgment.2. The appellant is the adopted son of one Chelamaiya Chowdri, who died on the 9th January, 1925. Chelamaiya Chowdri was survived by two widows and by his will dated the 20th November, 1924, he gave the junior widow, Sri Krishnamma, power to adopt a son to him. She exercised the power in favour of the plaintiff soon after the testator's death. The validity of the adoption is not in question. Sri Krishnamma died in the month of November 1928 and after her death the plaintiff...
Arikapudi Balakotayya and ors. Vs. Yadlapalli Nagayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1945
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ200
Somayya, J.1. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the decision of the District Court under Section 84 Clause (2) upholding the order of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Board under Section 84(1) of the Madras Hindu Religibus Endowments Act, II of 1927, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit by the defeated trustee. The temple in question was declared by the Endowments Board to be a non-excepted temple on an application filed under Section 84(1) of the Act. It was urged in that application that the applicant and his forefathers were hereditary trustees of the temple. This was negatived and the petition was dismissed. The applicants then filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for a declaration that the office of trusteeship was hereditary in their family and that they and their precedecessors were the hereditary trustees of the temple. They also filed an application under Section 84(2) of the Act in the Dist...
Arikapudi Balakotayya Vs. Yadlapalli Nagayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad509
Somayya, J.1. The main question involved in this appeal is whether the decision of the District Court under Section 84, Clause (2) upholding the order of the Madras Hindu Religions Endowments Board under Section 84(1), Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 2 [II] of 1927, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit by the defeated trustee. The temple in question was declared by the Endowments Board to be a non-excepted temple on an application filed under Section 84(1) of the Act. It was urged in that application that the applicant and his forefathers were the hereditary trustees of the temple. This was negatived and the petition was dismissed. The applicants then filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises for a declaration that the office of trusteeship was hereditary in their family, and that they and their predecessors were the hereditary trustees of the temple. They also filed an application under Section 84(2) of the Act in the Di...
The Official Receiver of South Arcot, Representing Somasundaram Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-15-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad519; (1946)1MLJ31
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal raises a question of some general importance to the Nattukottai Chettiar community of Southern India, viz., whether a son is entitled by the custom of the community to a joint interest in his mother's stridhanam during her lifetime.2. The plaintiff's mother Deivanai Achi was married to Muthappa Chetty, the second defendant in the suit in 1897. At the time of the marriage, stridhanam was given to her by her brother in the shape of a hundi for Rs. 3,062-8-0 which was handed to Muthappa's father, Muthiah Chetty. The proceeds were credited as usual in the name of the second defendant in the oorkadai (head office) accounts at Devakottai where Muthiah Chetti's family was carrying on money-lending and banking business under the vilasam V. RM.K. with branches at Madura and other places. After the partition between Muthiah Chetty and his brothers in or about 1900 the amount appears to have been held by Muthiah Chetty's branch of the family which continued undi...
Sri Vyricherla Chandramani Pattamahadevi Zamindarini of Chemudu Estate ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ315
Byers, J.1. The question which arises in this second appeal is whether land covered by a casuarina plantation is agricultural land for purposes of assessment to property tax under Section 81, Clauses (3) and (4) of the Madras District Municipalities Act.2. The facts so far as they are necessary are that the appellant is the owner of a field measuring 11 acres within the Vizagapatam municipal limits. During the relevant period six acres were used as pasture and were assessed accordingly under Section 81(4)(a) of the Act; the remaining five acres were covered by casuarina trees and, rejecting the appellant's claim to their assessment as agricultural land, were assessed under Section 81(3). An appeal was carried without success to the municipal council, and eventually a suit was filed in the District Munsiff's Court. The plaintiff was unsuccessful in the suit and also in the lower appellate Court. As already stated, the only point taken is that for purposes of Section 81 of the District M...
N.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar Estate Represented by First Executor, Cho ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ410
1. It seems to us that the question of the assessment of the estate is a, matter of no relevance for determining the right to relief under Madras Act IV of 1938. The estate is not a person and if it 'is not a person, it cannot be an agriculturist by the terms of the definition in Section 3 of the Act. We are not here concerned with the question of a claim by beneficiaries under a trust to relief under the Act in respect of liabilities imposed on them through the trustee. Nor are we concerned with a decree against the executors personally. The decree is only against the estate in the hands of the executors and there is no provision of the Act under which such an impersonal entity as an estate can claim relief. In fact the estate is a charitable estate and would seem to be expressly excluded by the terms of Section 3(1) of the Act. The appeal is dismissed with costs of respondents 1 to 3....
Chakrapu Anjaneyulu and ors. Vs. Kalakoti Saravayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad154; (1945)2MLJ411
Wadsworth, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an application to declare the amount due under a mortgage, applying Madras Act IV of 1938 and the rules framed thereunder. The mortgage in question is Ex. D-1 dated 20th November, 1936, for a sum of Rs. 6,680 in favour of two persons each of whom was previously entitled to amounts from the debtors which were equalised and clubbed together in the joint transaction. There is nothing in the recitals of the mortgage Ex. D-1 to indicate that the debts due to each of the two mortgagees separately were to be kept separate under the mortgage contract.2. The position therefore is that a debt due to A and another debt due by the same debtors to B have been discharged by a joint mortgage executed by the debtors in favour of A and B. The lower Court has treated the mortgage as if it were not one debt but two debts and has scaled down each portion separately. C.M.A. No. 411 of 1944 is an appeal by the mortgagors in respect of the disallowance of their ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »