Chennai Court October 1946 Judgments
Ponnia Pillai and ors. Vs. Pannai Minor Sivanupandia thevar Through Hi ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-30-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad282; (1947)1MLJ9
Sidney Wadsworth, Officiating C.J.1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a decision of Shahabuddin, J., in a batch of second appeals concerning a number of plots situated in a large block of village site claimed to be the property of the minor plaintiff. The appellants are the defendants. One Sivanupandia Thevar,. who died in 1897 was the owner of an estate known as ' the Pannai estate ' which is alleged to comprise amongst other things the western portion of S. No. 340, which is part of the village site or gramanatham. He left three daughters, Muthammal, who died in 1924, Ponnammal who seems to have died before 1909 and Madipillai, Ammal who died in 1928. Ponnammal had a daughter who also died long ago leaving a son Murugiah Thevar. In 1927, there was a partition of the estate between Madipillai Ammal, Sangathal, the daughter of the deceased Muthammal, and Murugiah, the grandson of the deceased Ponnammal. By the partition arrangement the property with which we are now concerned ...
Tag this Judgment!Desu Rattamma Vs. Mothey Narayana Rao and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad252; (1946)2MLJ485
Govindarajachari, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 27 of 1942 on the file of the District Judge of West Godavari at Ellore against the judgment and decree of that Court dated 31st. March, 1944, in so far as it refused the plaintiff relief against the second defendant's share in the hypothecated properties. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows.2. The first defendant borrowed Rs. 5,000 from the plaintiff on the 25th April, 1927, and executed a promissory note in her favour. The promissory note, Ex. P-3, stated that the sum was borrowed 'for my benefit, i.e., for my business.' This promissory note was renewed by another dated the 25th April, 1930, Ex. P-2, which was also for Rs. 5,000, the interest which accrued under Ex. P-3, having been paid from time to time. Ex. P-2 referred to Ex. P-3 as a promissory note previously executed and delivered 'for my benefit,' the maker of Ex. P-2 being again the first defendant. On the 25th Aug...
Tag this Judgment!K. Kalianna Gounder Vs. Balasubramaniam (Minor) and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad237; (1946)2MLJ459
Bell, J.1. The petitioner is defendant 1 in O.S. No. 226 of 1944 filed by three sons of their next friend, their mother, (a) for a declaration that a sale deed executed by their father for himself and as guardian of the first and second plaintiffs was not binding on them, not having been executed for family necessities, (b) for partition and (c) for recovery of the properties.2. The suit was filed in the Sub-Court, Salem, but was returned by the Subordinate Judge, apparently after consideration for presentation to the District Munsiff's Court of Namakkal on the ground that it. was, in essence, a suit for possession and was within the jurisdiction of the latter Court. It was duly presented in the Court of the District Munsiff, Namakkal; but again, the plaintiffs met with a check, because, on the preliminary consideration of an issue relating to jurisdiction, the District Munsiff rejected the reasoning of the Sub-Court and held that the suit was, in substance, one for declaration and tha...
Tag this Judgment!A.K. Ramakrishna Ayyar Vs. P. Bargavi Amma and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad424; (1947)1MLJ205
Horwill, J.1. The rental agreement was executed by the respondents in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year from the 30th Makaram 1111. The particulars of the pattom were set out, and the rent payable calculated to be Rs. 28. The deed then contains this important sentence:This sum of Es. 28 shall be paid for the year 1111 onwards every season before the 30th Makaram and your receipt obtained there fore; and if the arrears of rent are allowed they shall be paid with interest at 12 per cent per annum.2. This sentence is relied upon by the petitioner as indicating that the lease was not merely for one year as stated earlier in the document but for an unlimited period. This sentence is however followed by one roughly to this purport:We shall surrender possession at our own expense after the 30th Makaram 1112.3. Then comes a sentence which imposes a charge and is in these words:For the balance of rent and interest, the equity of redemption over and above the mortgage for Rs. 1,1...
Tag this Judgment!M. Kallianikutti Amma on Behalf of Herself and All Other Creditors of ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-17-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad275; (1947)1MLJ1
Bell, J.1. The point is a short one and arises out of a question raised about the proper court-fee to be payable by the plaintiff who is the petitioner.2. The plaintiff obtained a decree against the second defendant for a considerable sum of money and in execution attempted to attach certain properties. The first defendant, the wife of the second defendant, filed a petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, objecting on the ground that the said properties had been assigned to her by her husband in 1939 and that she was in possession thereof. The Court by order dated 24th June, 1944, upheld her claim and referred the plaintiff-decree-holder to a regular suit under Order 21, Rule 63.3. The plaintiff duly filed the suit claiming that the order should be set aside in the interests both of the plaintiff and the other creditors. The final prayer was for setting aside the order and declaring that a mortgage dated 1933 and the deed of assignment dated 1939 are void as against the ...
Tag this Judgment!L.P. Lakshmanan Chettiar and ors. Vs. Thangam Alias Palanichami Chetti ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-11-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad227; (1946)2MLJ465
Yahya Ali, J.1. This petition was filed by defendants 1 and 3 to 9 for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the judgment and decree of this Court in Appeal No. 410 of 1944. It is opposed principally by the first and second respondents who were the plaintiff and the second defendant respectively. The first objection is that the case does not fulfil the requirements of Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure as regards the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal. The second ground is that the decree is one of affirmance and the appeal does not involve a question of law and consequently is not a fit case for appeal to the Privy Council. The petitioners contend that the value is above the statutory minimum and that the decree is one of variance and not of affirmance.2. The first and second defendants are brothers and the plaintiff is the son of the second defendant. Third and fourth defendants are the sons of the first defendant, and defendants 5 to 9...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: J.S. Mathews
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Oct-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad311; (1946)2MLJ489
Yahya Ali, J.1. The appellant who is manager of the show rooms of Messrs. Spencer and Company, Limited, Madras, has been convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules read with Clause 11 of the Drugs Control Order, 1943, and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5,000, and in default to two months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The case against the appellant in brief is this: On the 10 th October, 1945, a tin of Glaxo was needed for a sick girl named Rajam aged one year. P.W. 2 who was a neighbour was approached by the girl's father. P.W. 2 made enquiries in the market, but as he was not able to get it and on learning that there were stocks at Messrs. Spencer and Co., he approached a medical practitioner, Dr. A. Narasinga Rao (P.W. 1) and obtained from him a medical certificate, Ex. P-1. Ex. P-1 merely states without mentioning the name of the parent of the child or even the fact that it was required for a child, that Glaxo and Glucose-D were esse...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›