Chennai Court January 1946 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.
Veluswami Goundan Vs. Dandapani Minor by Next Friend and Mother Govind ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad485; (1946)1MLJ354
Patanjali Saslri, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit and a cross suit brought to establish the rival claims of the parties to certain immoveable properties left by one Ramaswami Goundan who died in 1941. The first plaintiff who is a minor represented by the second plaintiff, his mother, acting as his next friend, brought O.S. No. 53 of 1942, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore claiming that a dharmasasanam (or deed of charitable endowment) executed by Ramaswami was a sham and nominal transaction and that he as the undivided son of Ramaswami succeeded to the properties comprised in the deed by survivorship and, in the alternative, that he was the only person entitled to manage the properties on behalf of the charity in case the deed was upheld as a valid dedication. He accordingly prayed for a declaration to that effect and for sundry other consequential reliefs which it is unnecessary to detail here. The son of Ramaswami by his first wife was called as first defenda...
Khan Bahadur Chowkaran Keloth Mammad Keyi Vs. the Province of Madras R ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1946
Reported in: (1946)1MLJ337
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, O.C.J.1. In the year 1936 the Government of Madras proposed to acquire a small strip of land for the purpose of making a foot path by the side of a Hindu cremation ground at Kesargod. The total area only measured 13 cents of an acre. On the 26th August, 1936, a notification was published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and on the 26th January, 1937, a notification was published under Section 6 of the Act. The appellant, who was the owner of the land, objected to the acquisition and after the publication of the notification under Section 6, he persisted in his objection. He succeeded in persuading the Collector of South Kanara that the acquisition was not necessary. The result was that the Government changed its mind and passed an order which said:The Collector of South Kanara is therefore requested to take steps to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings and submit through the Board of Revenue the necessary notification to Government under Secti...
Khan Bhahadur Chowkaran Keloth Mammad Koyi Vs. Province of Madras Repr ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad450
Leach, C.J.1. In the year 1936, the Government of Madras proposed to acquire a small strip of land for the purpose of making a foot-path by the side of a Hindu cremation ground at Kesargod. The total area only measured 18 cents of an acre. On 26th August 1936, a notification was published under Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, and on 26th January 1937, a notification was published under Section 6 of the Act. The appellant, who was the owner of the land, objected to the acquisition and after the publication of the notification under Section 6, he persisted in his objection. He succeeded in persuading the Collector of South Kanara that the acquisition was not necessary. The result was that the Government changed its mind and passed an order which said:The Collector of South Kanara is therefore requested to take steps to withdraw from the-acquisition proceedings and submit through the Board of Revenue the necessary notification to, Government under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Ac...
Kempamma Vs. Racha Setty and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad329; (1947)1MLJ153
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff raises a question of limitation with reference to a mortgage and we are concerned only with item 3. The suit was dismissed as regards this item on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The mortgage was on 20th August, 1919. In 1920, this item 3 was sold to the fifth defendant under Ex. D-1. Items 2 and 4 were sold in favour of the second defendant in 1937 under Ex. D-3. To save the suit from the bar of limitation, a payment of Rs. 36 by the first defendant's father as the mortgagor, made on 12th August, 1931, and endorsed on the deed was relied upon. Defendants 2 and 5 contested the suit, raising various defences. The plea raised by the fifth defendant that the suit was barred as regards item 3 because the payment by the father was long after its alienation in his favour, was accepted by the Courts below.2. There is a difference between an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 and a payment under Sec...
A. Sreenivasa Chariar Vs. T.N. Seshadri Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad460; (1946)1MLJ403
Horwill, J.1. The respondents' predecessor-in-title obtained a mortgage decree against the appellant and his elder brother, Anantachari, these two being members of a joint family of which Anantachari was the manager. During the course of execution, the appellant, who was in the army and went as a clerk overseas in March 1942, sent in petitions from time to time through his Commanding Officer asking the Court to stay execution as his presence was essential for the proper disposal of the petition. Later on, after the sale was confirmed, he put in an application to set aside the sale, which was dismissed; and it is against that order of dismissal that the present appeal has been preferred.2. The question is whether, in view of Sections 6 and 10 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act of 1925, the lower Courts should have set aside the sale. Section 6 says that the Court shall suspend the proceedings unless the interests of the soldier in the proceedinge are in the opinion of the Court eit...
Subramanian Chettiar Vs. A.K.A. Ramachandra Reddiar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad255; 1946 2 MLJ 429
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. These two connected appeals arise out of an order refusing to enter up satisfaction of a mortgage decree passed against the appellants and other defendants. The mortgage was granted on the 13th September, 1925. Defendants 1 to 4 were the mortgagors and 5 to 12 were subsequent purchasers of portions of the hypotheca. The 13th defendant is a purchaser of three items out of those purchased by the 9th defendant and he has sold one of these three items to the 14th defendant.2. The suit (O.S. No. 20 of 1936) was brought to enforce the mortgage against all these defendants and a preliminary decree for Rs. 1,13,836-4-10 was passed on the 13th September, 1937. The Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938, having been passed in March, 1938, the mortgagors applied under Section 19 to the Court which passed the decree for scaling down the debt in accordance with the provisions of the Act claiming to be agriculturists. Defendants 9 to 12 as well as defendants 5 to 8 also appli...
In Re: a Pleader
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad247; (1946)1MLJ218
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The respondent is a First Grade Pleader. Two charges of professional misconduct were framed against him. The first chargewas that he was guilty of fraudulent and grossly improper conduct in that contrary to specific instructions given to him by his client he purchased in the name of his clerk property sold in execution of a decree obtained by his client and later had the property conveyed to his wife. The second charge was that he had unlawfully retained a sum of Rs. 129-7-0 out of an amount drawn from Court by him on behalf of his client. The charges were investigated by the District Munsiff of Conjeevaram whose report is now before us. The learned District Munsiff held that the respondent was entitled to be acquitted on both the charges and we accept his findings. No comment is called for on the finding in respect of the second charge, but we think it necessary to examine the law bearing on the first charge.2. The respondent filed the application for...
In Re: A. Perayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-07-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad465; (1946)1MLJ436
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The main point in both these revision petitions is whether the search warrant was properly issued. What is stated is that in the warrant it is not stated what the materials were on which the Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was a case in which a warrant should be issued and it is also stated that the Magistrate has not stated therein that he has reason to believe that the place was used as a gaming house.2. Two authorities are cited, one for the petitioner and another by the learned Public Prosecutor. The one relied on by the petitioner is reported in In re Thambi Ayyangar and Ors. In that case, there was no other evidence except the presumption sought to be raised under Section 6 of the Gaming Act. The other to the contra is a decision of Burn, J., in Naranappayya v. Emperor : (1938)1MLJ509 . It is not necessary to refer to either of these decisions. In this case the warrant purports to be issued by a second class Magistrate under Section 5 of the ...
Nachappa Goundan Vs. Samiappa Goundan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-04-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad18; (1946)2MLJ35
Somayya, J.1. This second appeal raises several interesting questions relating to the law of subrogation and consolidation. The first defendant in the action is the appellant before us. The suit started as one for possession of the plaint mentioned property. The plaintiffs-respondents purchased the property in execution of a decree passed on foot of a mortgage executed on the 15th April, 1921; they got symbolical delivery and filed this suit for possession in 1941. The defence raised by the appellant is that before he is ejected, he should be paid Rs. 10,000 which was paid by him towards certain earlier mortgages. The trial Court upheld his plea but the Subordinate Judge awarded only Rs. 2,000 and disallowed the rest of his claim. Hence this second appeal.2. There were five mortgages which have given rise to the several questions that arise for decision. One Komaraswami Goundan was the owner of the properties and he effected all the mortgages. The first mortgage was a usufructuary mort...
Subbaraya Goundan Vs. Samiappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-03-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad529; (1946)1MLJ414
Somayya, J.1. The second defendant in the suit is the appellant before us. The only point which arises for decision in this second appeal is whether Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, is a bar to the present suit. The plaintiff-respondent purchased the property in execution of a decree passed on a fifth mortgage of the property. The suit on the fifth mortgage was commenced on the 6th April, 1927 and the sale at which the plaintiff became the purchaser was held on the 31st January, 1933. The second defendant purchased the properties in question in execution of a money decree in O.S. No. 811 of 1925. The purchase was on the 27th September, 1927 and he got into possession sometime thereafter. After the plaintiff-respondent purchased the property on the 31st January, 1933, he applied in 1934 for delivery of possession. On account of some obstruction possession was not given. Then he filed E.A. No. 66 of 1937 for delivery of possession and a fresh warrant was issued.. Ex. P-8 contains the va...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »