Chennai Court January 1946 Judgments
Kasturi Venkata Subbarao and anr. Vs. Bikkina Veeraswami and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-31-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ342
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. This is an appeal from an order refusing to scale down what is claimed to be a mortgage at the instance of the appellant who applied for relief under Madras Act IV of 1938. The application was dismissed on the ground that the transaction in question was not a mortgage at all but an absolute conveyance with a condition of retransfer and there was no debt which could be scaled down under the Act.2. The transaction was embodied in two documents, Exs. D-1 and P-1, both dated the 22nd December, 1931. Ex. D-1 purports to be an out-and-out sale of the properties referred to therein to the respondent for Rs. 6,500 and Ex. P-1 provides that the properties shall be re-conveyed to the appellant on re-payment of the price within ten years. The appellant contended that the two documents taken together evidenced a mortgage by conditional sale and attempted to show by reference to the surrounding circumstances the real nature of the transaction according to the intention of the...
Tag this Judgment!Hanumantha Gowd Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-30-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad503; (1946)1MLJ247
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant filed a petition under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act praying for a declaration that the Official Receiver in the insolvency of Hanumantha Gowd was not entitled to the share which would in the absence of any impediment have passed to the insolvent on the death of his brother Bhimana Gowd on the 21st March, 1944. The petitioner is a nephew of the insolvent who was adjudged in 1937. At the time of the adjudication the family consisted of the insolvent, his brother Bhimana Gowd and the petitioner who is the son of a deceased brother. When Bhimana Gowd died in 1944, the result, according to the present petitioner, would be that the share of the insolvent vested in the Official Receiver would not be increased at all by survivorship as a consequence of his brother's death and that the whole of the share of the deceased coparcener would pass by survivorship to the non-insolvent coparcener, the petitioner. This contention has been negatived by the tria...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Valli Ammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad114; (1946)2MLJ351
Horwill, J.1. The two appellants have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Tinnevelly on a charge of murder.2. There were three accused in the lower Court. The first was Valli Ammal, one of the appellants. She was sentenced to death. The other appellant was the third accused in the lower Court, who was sentenced to Transportation for life. The second accused in the lower Court was acquitted.3. The deceased person had been suffering for a long time from cancer of the uterus, of which disease she was slowly dying. On account of this disease, there was a foul smelling discharge from her uterus, which made her presence unbearable to her husband, P.W. 3, and to his second wife, P.W. 4. The result was that she was removed to a separate hut, where she was cared for by the first and second accused, a mother and daughter, and at times by the third accused, a friend.4. On the morning of Tuesday, the 14th of August last, the deceased was found lying dead with no marks of violence that ...
Tag this Judgment!Bodapati Rajeswararao Vs. Puligedda Satyanarayana and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad377; (1946)1MLJ249
Wadsworth, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order recording a compromise in a suit for a declaration that the present appellant--second defendant in that suit--was not validly adopted by the widow of the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs. The family with which we are concerned comprised originally one Lakshminarasimham who died in May 1934, leaving certain properties, his sister, the present first defendant and another sister Sundaramma who died in 1938, the mother of the plaintiffs. His widow Seethayamma had a number of sisters, one of whom was married to the present third defendant, her son being the minor appellant. She also had a brother, the fourth defendant, who is said to have been acting as the guardian of the appellant. Seethayamma died in July 1941 and she is alleged to have adopted the appellant shortly before her death and to have made a will entrusting to her brother, the fourth defendant, the guardianship of the minor. There were two suits pending at the time of the compr...
Tag this Judgment!The Governor-general in Council Vs. T.M. Krishnaswami Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad366; (1946)1MLJ267
Alfred Henry Lioned Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is the Governor-General in Council. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam. He was the chief signaller in the Head Post Office at Kumbakonam. By an order dated the 4th April, 1941, which was confirmed on appeal by the Postmaster-General, Madras, the respondent was dismissed from Government service. He filed the suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal was ' illegal, void and inoperative' and for other reliefs. The Subordinate Judge granted the declaration asked for, but refused further relief. The appellant says that the Subordinate Judge erred in granting the respondent a declaration and in rejecting a plea advanced by the plaintiff that the suit was not maintainable because the provisions of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had not been complied with.2. In or about the month of October, 1939, the respondent was suspected of having misappropriated monies...
Tag this Judgment!Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. Venugopal Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad383; (1946)1MLJ347
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned District Judge of South Arcot in proceedings in execution of a mortgage decree in O.S. No. 23 of 1928, on the file of his Court. A preliminary decree was passed on 4th May, 1929 and the defendants were given three months time to pay, that is, till 4th August, 1929. The 8th defendant who is the appellant before us was a puisne mortgagee and a party to the suit as such. The preliminary decree was for a sum of Rs. 6,905-13-0. The 8th defendant (the appellant) preferred an appeal to the High Court with regard to the claim for interest and that appeal (A.S. No. 175 of 1930) was allowed by this Court on 26th November, 1934. The result was a reduction of the amount payable to Rs. 6,112-8-2. Pending appeal as further proceedings in suit had not been stayed, the trial Court passed a final decree on 23rd September, 1933, on the basis of the preliminary decree passed by it on 4th May, 1929. After the decision of the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Ponnayya Moopanar Vs. Suppammal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ303
Wadsworth, J.1. The appellant sued for a declaration of his title to the properties in schedule A to the plaint on the cancellation of the settlement deed dated 15th September, 1939, executed by him in favour of defendants 1 to 4 and alleged to have been so executed by reason of fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion. The trial Court on the facts found that there were no materials to justify a conclusion that there was any fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or coercion invalidating the settlement deed. It also found that the award made by the arbitrator, P.W. 9, on a reference by both parties regarding the dispute arising out of the settlement deed was invalid, not by reason of any misconduct of the arbitrator but because of the invalidity of the reference which, according to the learned Judge is not a complete reference, but only an agreement to make a reference at some future date. The plaintiff appeals.2. The plaintiff was at the time of the suit aged about 50...
Tag this Judgment!Kadagalla Venkanna Vs. Indukuri Lakshmipathi Raju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ300
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, O.C.J.1. The plaintiff obtained a money decree against certain agraharamdars. On the 7th January, 1941, at a Court sale held in execution of the decree he purchased 13.65 acres of land owned.by the judgment-debtors under an inam granted in 1755. The first defendant was in possession of the land as the tenant and the Court could only give the plaintiff symbolical possession. This was given on the 30th April, 1942. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which the appeal arises on the 2nd October, 1943, to recover possession from the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4 who are his sub-tenants. The plaintiff alleged that he had obtained physical possession of the land from the first defendant and thereafter had granted to him a tenancy for one year from the beginning of May, 1942, on the condition that the first defendant vacated at the end of the year. The first defendant was to pay by way of rent three-fourths of the produce of the two crops raised on the land. ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: R. Manicka Mudaliar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad156; (1946)2MLJ427
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence pumshable under Rule 8 of the Madras Traffic Rules. He was a driver of a motor bus that was coming on the date of the offence from Ootacamund towards Coonoor. The offence is said to have taken place just below where the Ootacamund-Coonoor road branches off towards the barracks at Wellington. A military lorry was parked on the eastern side of the road just near a bend in that road. Every motor vehicle that had to pass through that portion of the road had necessarily to overtake that parked lorry. On the date of occurrence, P.W. 1, a motor cyclist was coming towards Ootacamund from Coonoor and he is said to have run into the motor bus that was coming from the north and was driven by the petitioner. The prosecution case is that there was contravention of Rule 8 of the Madras Traffic Rules by the accused inasmuch as he overtook the lorry that was standing. As stated already the lorry was parked on the eastern side...
Tag this Judgment!C. Atma Ram, Ex-official Reciever, Rajahmundry Vs. Chogondi Sita Ramas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad426; (1946)1MLJ278
Happell, J.1. The appellant in this C.M.S.A. was the Official Receiver of East Godavari at Rajamundry. In connection with the administration of I.P. No. 40 of 1932, a dividend was declared and a sum of Rs. 589-2-8 was payable to the 12th creditor, the 1st respondent in this appeal, as his share. According to the evidence no notice that the dividend had been sanctioned was sent to the 12th creditor or any of the creditors, as required by Rule 19 of the rules framed under the Provincial Insolvency Act. Nonetheless, after the dividend had been declared, a certain Bonam Ammiraju represented to the appellant that he was authorised by the respondent--12th creditor to receive payment of his dividend on his behalf and produced a receipt and letter of authorisation purporting to have been signed by the first respondent and attestors. The appellant, after having had Bonam Ammiraju identified by two witnesses, paid the dividend due to the first respondent over to him. Later, the first respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »