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.
M.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar Vs. V.N.S. Ramaswami Naidu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-10-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad58
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, 4 [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....
Gudivada Satyarao Vs. Vemparala Venkataratnam
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad168; (1945)2MLJ349
Horwill, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether the plaintiff has a right to the use of a lane in order that his scavenger may pass through it and empty a kuppam of its night soil and also whether the drainage water from the plaintiff's latrine might pass across the lane to the Municipal channel on the other side. The District Munsiff held that the plaintiff had proved that he had such a right and so granted an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the exercise of the plaintiff's right. The lower appellate Court came to a contrary conclusion and dismissed the suit.2. The trial Court decided the issue whether the lane marked A1, B, C, D1 shown in the plaint plan were the common lane of the parties to the suit almost entirely on evidence of user. It did not separately consider the question whether the lane in dispute belongs to the defendant--as the defendant claims--or whether it belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant in common. The learned District Judge ...
In Re: Wakf, Paramathi, Khazhi MohiuddIn Sheriff Sahib, Khazi of Param ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ269
Bell, J.1. This petition is to revise an order of the District Judge of Salem dated 12th September, 1944. By that order the District Judge, purporting to act under the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, called upon the mutavalli of a wakf at-Paramathi, Namakkal Taluk, to file certain statements regarding the finances of the trust, including a statement of the portion of the annual income beneficially taken by the mutavalli and other members of his family.2. The mutavalli petitioned in revision and Mockett, J., made an order requesting the District Judge to furnish a report of the circumstances in which he had come to make his order. He pointed out that it was not clear how such an order could be made in the absence of any application therefor. The report was to state how the matter first arose, whether notice was sent to anyone, and generally under what provisions of law the Court claimed to have jurisdiction. The attention of the learned District Judge was directed to the case of Nasrullah Kha...
Valia Anjuthathi Thamburatti Vs. Kalathingal Umachakutty Umma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad63; (1945)2MLJ381
Horwill, J.1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was one in ejectment and for rent. The lessees were defendants 1 and 2 but they sub-leased the land to other defendants, who cut down trees and so entitled the landlord, according to the terms of the lease, to demand certain sums for those trees. So the claim became one for rent and for the value of the trees cut. Against that claim, the tenants, under Section 5 of the Malabar Compensation for Tenants' Improvements Act, are entitled to improvements. Section 6 permits of a set off being made, the landlord, upon eviction, receiving the difference between the rent and the improvements.2. The trial Court found that a number of trees had been cut; and the Commissioner valued those trees. It permitted the plaintiff to set off the total damages against the total improvements; but the lower appellate Court held that the persons who committed the damage were solely responsible for the acts committed by them, and so, while it permitte...
Kolluri Subba Rao and anr. Vs. Gurram Viraswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad137; (1945)2MLJ429
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellants are the plaintiffs who filed a suit on a promissory note, Ex. P-1 dated 23rd August, 1937, executed by the first defendant in favour of one Venkataratnam who is the plaintiffs' father for a sum of Rs. 17, 169-12-3. The transaction has a long antecedent history. The main question to be decided is the effect of the application of Madras Act IV of 1938 to the debt.2. The story begins in August, 1928, when the first defendant was proposing to buy certain lands in Court auction and he approached Venkataratnam for assistance in financing the purchase. They entered into an agreement Ex. P-2 dated 31st August, 1928, whereby it was settled that, as soon as the sale was confirmed in favour of the first defendant, the first defendant would give a half share of the property to Venkataratnam and Venkataratnam would pay to the first defendant half of the final bid of Rs. 15,050, and the agreement also recites the fact that Venkataratnam has on that day advanced a sum o...
V. Pedda Rangaswami Shreshti by Agent and Power of Attorney Holder, V. ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-08-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad180; (1945)2MLJ400
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The appellant is the plaintiff and he had obtained a license from the Government to prospect for red oxide of iron in some lands in Janikunta village, Bellary taluk. His case was that the defendant also had obtained a license for prospecting the same ore in the vicinity and had carried away ore taken from the area for which he held a license. He sought to recover 65 tons of mineral ore alleged to have been so removed by the defendant from his field, and he prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from entering the plaintiff's land or removing any material therefrom. The defendant pleaded that the suit was not maintainable, that the plaintiff had no title to the land and that he was not entitled to the injunction sought. The learned District Munsiff dealt with two issues, namely, whether the suit as framed was not maintainable and whether the plaintiff had title to the suit plot and if so, was not entitled to the injunction claimed for (issues 1 and 8). ...
Gudivada Suryanarayana Vs. Tadikonda Alavandararao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ565
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was the first defendant in a suit on a promissory note Ex. P-1 executed on the 18th February, 1939, by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the deceased first plaintiff for Rs. 17,195-2-0. This promissory note was executed after the commencement of the Madras Act IV of 1938 in discharge of an earlier promissory note Ex. P-2 dated the 19th February, 1936, for Rs. 12,240-10-0 which except for Rs. 35 cash was a renewal of a still earlier promissory note of 1930 the principal of which was Rs. 6,000. The appellant is admittedly an agriculturist. He claimed that the suit promissory note was executed in circumstances which give a basis for various pleas, one being failure of consideration and another being coercion. He also advanced a plea under the Usurious Loans Act.2. It is well settled that a debt incurred after the commencement of Madras Act IV of 1938 cannot be scaled down except in accordance with Section 13 of that Act. But it is also well settled that in a su...
Gudivada Suryanarayana Vs. Tadikonda Alwandararao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad111
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant was defendant 1 in a 8uit on a promissory note Ex. P-1 executed on 18th February 1939 by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the deceased plaintiff 1 for Rs. 17,195-2-0. This promissory note was executed after the commencement of the Madras Act, 4 [IV] of 1938, in discharge of an earlier promissory note Ex. P-2 dated 19th February 1936 for Rs. 12,240-10-0 which except for Rs. 35 cash was a renewal of a still earlier promissory note, of 1930 the principal of which was Rs. 6000. The appellant is admittedly an agriculturist. He claimed that the suit promissory note was executed in circumstances which give a basis for various pleas, one being failure of consideration and another being coercion. He also advanced a plea under the Usurious Loans Act.2. It is well settled that a debt incurred after the commencement of Madras Act, 4 [IV] of 1938, cannot be scaled down except in accordance with Section 13 of that Act. But it is also well settled that in a suit on such a...
Athipalli Sundararamireddi Vs. Athipalli Pattabhiramireddi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad50; (1945)2MLJ253
Kuppuswami Aiyar, J.1. The appellant and the respondent are brothers. They became divided and the partition was evidenced by certain documents. The partition was in 1933. In 1936 the plaintiff who was one of the brothers presented these documents to the Revenue authorities for ascertaining whether the documents should be stamped. Proceedings were accordingly taken under Section 41 of the Stamp Act. The Collector found that they had to be stamped and wanted action to be taken under Sections 33 and 40. He impounded the documents for collection to be made under Section 41. The duty payable and penalty were collected from the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the amount and has now filed this suit against his brother claiming half the amount paid by him together with interest thereon as also half the expenses incurred by him as costs in the revenue proceedings. He also stated that there was an agreement between him and the defendant under which the defendant has agreed to pay half the amount.2...
Karuppaswami Vs. Mrs. P.A. Ibrahim (Deceased) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1945Mad520; (1945)2MLJ255
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant obtained a preliminary decree on a mortgage in 1932, the final decree being dated 19th January, 1933. The preliminary decree provided that the various items should be sold in a certain order, item I being sold last. The present contesting respondent the fifth defendant, is a puisne mortgagee of this item ,I which was sold as lot 6. The sale was held on 24th April, 1936, and the property with which we are now concerned was sold to a third party. The fifth defendant made a deposit of Rs. 2,160 and odd which was the amount due under the decree after deducting the prices realised by lots I to 5 plus the five per cent, payable to the purchaser and in E.A. No. 663 of 1936 she prayed the sale of lot No. 6 to be set aside. This application was dismissed on 19th November, 1936, on the ground that the deposit was insufficient and the sale was confirmed.2. Against this order an appeal was filed by the fifth defendant, and this appeal was allowed on 12th October 1937,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »