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.
M.A.P. Palanichami Nadar Vs. the Governor-general of India in Council, ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-14-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad133; (1945)2MLJ448
Yahya Ali, J.1. This petition arises out of a small cause suit instituted by the plaintiff who is the petitioner here for compensation for non-delivery of goods consigned for transit. The goods were consigned for being sent from Colombo to Madura. The consignee was the Colombo Government Railway, but part of the journey had to be covered over the South Indian Railway belonging to the respondent company. There were four consignments of arecanuts and when they were delivered, 15 bags out of those consignments were short. The petitioner carried on correspondence with both the companies, as a result of which 11 bags were found and delivered, and there was an ultimate short delivery of 4 bags. It is for the value of those four bags at Rs. no per bag that the suit was laid against the South Indian Railway Co. The four bags that were short consisted of two bags out of the first consignment and two bags out of the fourth consignment. With reference to the two bags of the first consignment, the...
Thadavarthi Bapayya and ors. Vs. Myneni Pundarikakshayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad198; (1945)2MLJ508
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two connected suits tried by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali. As the parties were differently arrayed in the suits it will be convenient to refer to them according to their description in the cause-title of the main suit, O.S. No. 61 of 1940, which was brought for possession with mesne profits of certain lands of the plaintiff sold during his minority by his natural father acting as his guardian. The first defendant was the vendee and defendants 2 to 5 are his sons.2. The plaintiff's adoptive father, Chelamayya Chowdari, carried on dealings with the first defendant a money lender, and for the amount due in respect of such dealings executed a promissory note (Ex. D-7) for Rs. 1,465-3-5 on 5th June, 1923. He died in January, 1925, leaving him surviving his widow Srikrishnamma, whom he had authorised to make an adoption, and she accordingly adopted her sister's son, the plaintiff, who was then a minor. On 16th April, ...
Nemathanpatti M.M. Pl. Annadhana Chatram, Through Its Managing Trustee ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ525
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant as the managing trustee of. a certain charity known as ' M.M. PL. Annadhana Chatram' at Nemathanpatti, Ramnad District, for release of a certain land and building from attachment effected in execution of a decree obtained by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) against the legal representatives of one M.M. PL. Palaniappa Chetty.2. Palaniappa Chetty was carrying on banking and money lending business in various places in India and Burma with his headquarters at Nemathanpatti. In 1923 the respondent brought a suit against Palaniappa and others in the District Court of Pyapone in Burma for recovery of possession of certain lands and premises with mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit Palaniappa died in 1925, having made a will dated 2nd June, 1925, whereby he bequeathed the bulk of his separate properties to various charities and appointed his two sons Chokkalingam Chetty, ...
Nemathanpatti M.M. Pl. Annadana Chatram Through Its Managing Trustee M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-12-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad209
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant as the managing trustee of a certain charity known as 'M.M. PL. Annadana Chatram' at Nemathanpatti, Bamnad district, for release of a certain land and building from attachment effected in execution of a decree, obtained by respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) against the legal representatives of one M.M. PL. Palaniappa; Chetty. Palaniappa Chetty was carrying on banking and money-lending business in various places in India and Burma with his headquarters at Nemathanpatti. In 1923 the-respondent brought a suit against Palaniappa and others in the DistrictCourt of; Pyapone in Burma for recovery of possession of certain lands and premises with mesne profits. During the pendency of the suit, Palaniappa died in 1925, having made a will dated 2nd June 1925 whereby he bequeathed the bulk of his separate properties-to various charities and appointed his two-sons, Chokbalingam Chetty, the appella...
Rajah Saheb Moharbon Dostan Sri Raja Rao Venkata Kumara Mahipathi Sury ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad93; (1945)2MLJ469
Rajamannar, J.1. Three out of four plots comprised in a holding were purchased by the appellant (plaintiff) in sales for recovery of arrears of rent due to him as the landholder. He brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent for subsequent faslis 1349, 1350 and 1351 against the first defendant who was the registered pattadar, and against the second defendant as the person in actual occupation. The first defendant died when the matter was in appeal in the District Court and respondents 3 to 7 in the lower appellate Court were brought on record as his legal representatives. The Deputy Collector decreed the suits except in regard to the period between the dates of the sales in which the appellant himself had become the purchaser of the three plots and the dates on which he took delivery of them. He also directed, in view of the fact that the first defendant was not the actual enjoyer of the suit land, that the suit holding should be proceeded against in the first instance and the firs...
Bathai Bagyalakshmi Ammal Vs. Thoppai Bappu Aiyar (Died) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-11-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad90; (1945)2MLJ567
Sidney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.1. The appellant here was the 20th defendant in a partition suit and is the daughter of the respondent (21st defendant in the trial Court). By 'respondent' we refer to the original respondent who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives, the second and third respondents. The 2oth defendant was the wife of the third defendant, one of the coparceners. She was in the suit claiming certain items of property as her own and her father the respondent, was claiming certain other items of property as his own. The trial Court disallowed the claims of both the appellant and the respondent. They joined together in appealing to this Court against that decision. The appeal was Appeal No. 101 of 1937. In their memorandum of appeal there is an assertion that items 10 and 11 of Schedule C, with which we are now concerned, were purchased with the stridhanam funds of the present appellant. These two items are usufructuary mortgage rights and it is comm...
W.V. Arunachalam Chettiar Vs. K.G. Krishnaswami Iyer and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-07-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad232; (1946)1MLJ2
Yahya Ali, J.1. This petition arises out of the proceedings relating to the insolvency of K.G. Krishnaswami Iyer. Two of his creditors filed I.P. No. 12 of 1941 on 25th November, 1941, to adjudge him an insolvent. Subsequently, another creditor was impleaded as a supplemental petitioner because the two creditors who had filed the petition assigned their debts to a third person who made an attempt to join the insolvency proceedings as a petitioning creditor but did not pursue that course. The supplemental petitioner died subsequently and respondents 7 to 9 are his legal representatives. One of the creditors Arunachalam Chettiar was impleaded as a respondent and both he and the insolvent opposed the application. The Subordinate Judge of Madura found that there was no act of insolvency within three months before the date of the application and consequently dismissed the same. On appeal, the District Judge held that Krishnaswami Iyer did commit an act of insolvency and reversing the order ...
Cherukuri Suranna and ors. Vs. Pedaverri Somanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad121; (1945)2MLJ402
Yahya Ali, J.1. The decree in O.S. No. 7 of 1935, District Munsiff's Court, Kovvur is dated the 7th April, 1938. The third and fourth judgment-debtors, who are two of the appellants here filed an application before the Debt Conciliation Board and in that application they acknowledged the debt. The application was dismissed by the Debt Conciliation Board on 9th August, 1941, and the execution petition out of which this civil miscellaneous second appeal arises was filed on 27th July, 1943- Both the Courts below have held that the period occupied by the proceedings before the Debt Conciliation Board, namely from 1st November, 1939 until 9th August, 1941, should be excluded. It is contended before me by the appellants that these orders are wrong.2. Section 27(1) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, says:In calculating the period of limitation for any suit filed in, or proceedings before, a civil Court for the recovery of a debt which was the subject of any proceedings under this Act ...
Duggempudi Ramakrishna Reddi, Minor by Next Friend and Maternal Grandf ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1945
Reported in: AIR1946Mad126; (1945)2MLJ473
Somayya, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the appellant claiming a third share in the family properties. The suit was at first filed against two defendants, first defendant being the father and the second defendant being the brother of the plaintiff. The third defendant was later on added on the ground that that he was an alienee of item 6 of the plaint properties from the father, the first defendant. The Subordinate Judge then raised an additional issue whether the plaintiff can claim any relief in respect of item 6 of A schedule without having the sale set aside and whether the court-fee paid is correct. He held that the sale ought to be set aside and that court-fee should be paid on the value of item 6. This item was valued in the plaint at Rs. 1,012 and therefore the Subordinate Judge called upon the plaintiff to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 119-15-0. Time was given till the 23rd December, 1943, for payment. Plaintiff took time for payment t...
Srimath Thirumala Venkata Srinivasacharyulu Ayyavarlam Garu and anr. V ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Sep-06-1945
Reported in: (1945)2MLJ544
Horwill, J.1. The execution petition out of which this appeal arises was in execution of a final mortgage decree of 16th June, 1942, in O.S. No. 15 of 1939. One of the items mortgaged, namely, item 4, was purchased by the second defendant in execution of a money-decree against the mortgagor; and on the 27th December, 1942, the respondent acquired the rights of the second defendant in this property. On the 19th March, 1943, by Ex. P-1, the respondent obtained an assignment of the mortgage decree in O.S. No. 15 of 1939. He now seeks to execute O.S. No. 15 of 1939; and some of the defendants opposed the execution of the decree on the ground that since the respondent had acquired the rights of the mortgagor| in a part of the property and had become a transferee decree-holder, he was not entitled to execute the decree at all; and even if he were, he would be entitled to execute it only for the decree amount minus the proportionate burden of the decree resting upon item 4. The learned Subord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »