Chennai Court September 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.
Nedumkandathil Koyakutty Vs. Kunhali and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad203; (1946)1MLJ82
Rajamannar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,387-4-0 as arrears of rent and the Jenmabhogam due to the plaintiff's tarwad under a kaichit dated 28th August, 1929, executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff's tarwad and interest thereon. The main plea of the defendants was a plea of discharge and in support of it they produced three receipts, Exs. II, III and IV and a letter Ex. V. All these documents bear the signature of Chappunni Valia Nair, a former karnavan of the plaintiff's tarwad, who died sometime in June, 1939 and was succeeded by the plaintiff. The defendants also say that there is a signature of the plaintiff himself on Ex. II. The plaintiff denied that there was any payment as recited in the said receipts. He denied that he ever signed on Ex. II. He further pleaded that these receipts must have been granted by the kariasthan at the time one Krishna Menon to defendants 1 and 2 as a result of fraud and coll...
Kuppammal Vs. Rukmani Ammal and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-19-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad164; (1945)2MLJ550
Somayya, J.1. One Chinnaswami Rowth met his death in the Bommidi Railway disaster of 1920. He left Thayarammal his wife, a daughter the plaintiff and Sriramulu a baby, one or two months old. The railway company gave a sum of Rs. 2500 as compensation and with that sum Thayarammal managed to maintain herself and her children. She got the plaintiff married and made several purchases. She acquired two lands and a house described in the plaint A schedule. She reconstructed the house. She also laid out moneys in the shape of loans to third parties and the outstandings left by her are described in schedule B attached to the plaint. She is also alleged to have left some jewels which are described in schedule C. The plaintiff claimed that the properties described in the various schedules attached to the plaint were all the stridhanam properties of her mother Thayarammal and that they were her absolute properties. The claim therefore was that the plaintiff was the stridhanam heiress of her mothe...
Chunduru Raja Rattamma Vs. Chunduru Ramakrishna Rao (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-18-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad75; (1945)2MLJ409
Yahya Ali, J.1. The order of the lower Court in this case is very cryptic. The petitioner is a Hindu widow and she was declared entitled in a partition suit to a sum of Rs. 4,896-2-7 being her share out of the sale proceeds of the house belonging to the family. Neither the preliminary decree nor the final decree imposed any condition on her right to or power over her share. It was not in any of those decrees directed that she should furnish any security in respect thereof. When however she applied for the issue of a cheque on the execution side, the learned Subordinate Judge directed her to draw the amount on furnishing proper security and the reason given by him in that order is that she is only a limited owner under the Hindu Law. By itself this is not a sufficient reason as would appear from the decisions in Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi : AIR1941Mad724 and Lingamma v. Venkayya : AIR1941Mad724 . In the former case, the learned Chief Justice observed:A female heir only takes a limited ...
A.V. Govindaswamy Chetty and ors. Vs. Narayanaswamy Naidu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ365
Kunhi Raman, J.1. This is a reference by the learned Master and it raises an interesting question regarding the position of a decree-holder who has had the costs awarded to him taxed by the proper officer, but has failed to have the taxed costs entered in the margin of the decree as required by the rules of the Original Side of this Court.2. To appreciate the question that arises for determination, it is necessary to set forth the facts briefly. The petitioner in this Execution Application is the decree-holder in Small Cause Suit No. 3820 of 1942 on the file of the Presidency Court of Small Causes, Madras. He obtained a decree for Rs. 378 odd and costs on 25th November, 1942. The judgment-debtor in that suit happened to be the first plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 37 of 1937 on the file of this Court. In Clause 5 of the decree of this Court in that suit there was a direction regarding costs which was wox'ded as follows:That defendants 1 to 4 do from and out of the said funds in their hands...
Mekkileri Koppirichi (Since Deceased) and anr. Vs. Uppoonni Thattari K ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad95; (1945)2MLJ471
Rajamannar, J.1. The question of law which arises in this appeal is not free from difficulty. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows : On 1st October, 1929, one Chandu executed a marupal, Ex. P-2 in favour of one Chandu Panikkar. The rights of the lessor, Chandu Panikkar, are now vested in the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 are the assignees of the rights of the lessee, Chandu, under a document dated 21st October, 1935. The suit was to recover possession of the property covered by the marupat and arrears of rent subject to a payment of the value of improvements that may be found due to the defendants. The marupat comprised besides a paramba, a farm house which belonged to the landlord. The tenants were permitted to reside therein and a separate rent was also specified for the occupation of the house. Subsequently on 4th March, 1941, the landlord permitted the tenant to pull down the house then in existence and received a sum of Rs. 25 from the tenant as its value. He allowed ...
Ambujammal Vs. Singarammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad67; (1945)2MLJ444
Yahya Ali, J.1. Seshadri Aiyangar had two sons, Rangachari and Raghavachari both of whom died issueless. Rangachari's widow is Ambujammal who is the appellant. Raghavachari's widow was Tiruvengadammal who adopted her daughter's son Padmanabhachari, whose father was her son-in-law, Chakravarthi Aiyangar. Ambujammal filed O.S. No. 29 of 1921 against Tiruvengadammal and Chakravarthi, the latter for being in possession of the property belonging to the family. She claimed a half-share in the properties and she questioned the adoption. The suit was ultimately compromised. On the 22nd August, 1922, a compromise decree was passed which provided for the payment of Rs. 225 per annum to her towards maintenance, the payment to be in two instalments one in March and the other in June. The decree was being executed until O.S. No. 154 of 1935 was filed by Chakravarthi Aiyangar praying for the reduction of the maintenance amount awarded under the compromise decree. It was not precisely a reduction but...
Lala Punnalal and anr. Vs. Kasturichand Ramaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad147; (1945)2MLJ461
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against a reduction made by the District Judge in the amount of damages awarded to them by the Subordinate Judge in an action for damages for malicious prosecution and malicious house search. The correctness of the principle applied by the learned District Judge in reducing the amount is challenged by the appellants.2. There is a memorandum of objections preferred by the first defendant to the effect that no damages ought to have been awarded at all and that, in any event, no damages could be allowed for the house search, as there is no such tort known to law.3. Both the lower Courts have found that the prosecution and the search were malicious, that the plaintiffs are wealthy and respectable people and that the second plaintiff was a purdhanashin lady. The Subordinate Judge held that the first defendant moved the Magistrate for a search warrant and prosecuted the plaintiffs with intent to dishonour them...
Mylavaram Adisubbayya Vs. Panchangam Subba Sastry
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad103; (1945)2MLJ517
Yahya Ali, J.1. The petitioner obtained an assignment of the decree in O.S. No. 607 of 1933 of the District Munsiff's Court of Penukonda and applied in E.P. No. 83 of 1943 for the execution of the decree against the respondent. The respondent had filed an application before the Debt Conciliation Board under Section 4 of the Act for the settlement of his debts and in the application had mentioned this decree debt. The decree-holder in this case had filed a counter therein in which he furnished the necessary particulars relating to his decree debt. The Debt Conciliation Board passed an order on 13th August, 1940, Ex. D-2, in which they concluded that they were compelled to take action against this creditor inter alia under Section 10(2) of the Act according to which section they said, the debts due to him by the debtor shall be deemed to have been discharged for all purposes and for all occasions. Subsequently on 5th February, 1943, the execution petition out of which this petition arise...
Chakkiat Gopalan Vs. P.K. Sankaranarayana Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-17-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad130; (1945)2MLJ464
Somayya, J.1. This second appeal raises an interesting question whether under Section 17, Clause (c), Malabar Tenancy Act, 14 [XIV] of 3930, which provides that where all the lands covered by a kanam are dry lands, the kanamdar is not entitled to a renewal, the question is to be determined on the state of the lands at the date of the application for renewal or at the date of the kanam. In this case the kanam in question was executed on 2nd December 1921. The jenmi filed Order Section No. 172 of 1940 for redemption of the kanam and for recovery of possession from the kanamdar. Thereupon the defendant kanamdar filed an application under Section 22, Malabar Tenancy Act, to compel the jenmi to execute a renewal of the kanam. Under Section 22, Clause (1) a kanamdar is entitled to apply to the Court for the execution of a renewal deed and this notwithstanding any contract to the contrary whether made before or after the commencement of the Act We must now turn to Section 17 which enacts when...
M.T. Pankajammal and anr. Vs. M.T. Parthasarathy Aiyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad99; (1945)2MLJ453
Rajamannar, J.1. The property in suit originally belonged to one M. Thiruvengada-chariar. In 1930 he was aged about 62 and he had no issue living at the time. His wife Alangarammal was alive. He resolved to take the present respondent, the plaintiff in the lower Court, in adoption, and had fixed that the adoption should take place on the 13th July, 1930. Two days prior to that date, i.e., on the nth July, 1930, he executed a settlement deed marked Ex. P-1, on a construction of which the decision in this case depends. The deed itself was executed in favour of Alangarammal, his wife. The executant says:I am now nearly 62 years of age and have become old. Since you are my wife and on account of love and affection which I have towards you, I am bound to maintain you till your lifetime and further since I have made arrangement to take in adoption on 29th Ani of this year (13th July, 1930), Parthasarathi, minor son of Gomatam Krishnaswami Aiyangar, aged about ten years, and since I have for ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »