Chennai Court December 1946 Judgments
Kowtha Sooryanarayana Rao Vs. Sarup Chand Rajaji
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad105; (1947)1MLJ373
Govindarajachari, J.1. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated. On 24-3-1908, one Kidambi Narasimhacharyulu executed for himself and as guardian of his then minor sons who are defendants 2 and 3 in the present suit a deed of simple mortgage for Rs. 9500 in favour of one Chaturvedula Suryanarayana mostly for the discharge of antecedent debts which he had incurred. The mortgage was to be repaid in 12 annual instalments and it was provided that if default was committed in respect of the first, second and third instalments consecutively the entire amount of principal and interest should then become payable. A receiver appointed in O.S. No. 83 of 1915 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bezwada gave three mortgages over the same properties in favour of defendant 1 in the present suit in the year 1918. In 1919 the equity of redemption of the Kidambis in those properties as also their interest in certain other properties were brought to sale in execution of a money decree ag...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: K.C. Manikya Mudaliar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ137
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The two accused in C.C. No. 486 of 1946 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tirupati, seek to revise the order of the District Magistrate of Chittoor in Crl. R.P. No. 15 of 1946, directing the case to be treated as a preliminary register case under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. A complaint was filed against the petitioners alleging that they entered the house of the complainant and stole some cinema articles. The Magistrate admitted the case under Section 380, Indian Penal Code, on receiving the complaint. When the case was pending, the Additional Magistrate was moved and he directed that the case should be treated as a preliminary register case and proceeded with under Section 395, Indian Penal Code.2. It is stated that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order like this without notice to the petitioners and secondly that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. In this case the order admitting the complaint for an offence under S...
Tag this Judgment!Molugu Lakshminarasimhacharyulu Vs. Marisetti Ratnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ289
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. Until 1936 a grant by a landholder of land constituted an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, only if it was a grant of the melwaram and in favour of a person who was not the owner of the kudiwaram. The Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, made an important alteration in the law. It provided that if the grant was of a whole village, the land comprised in it would constitute an estate. It did not matter whether it was a grant of both the warams or of only one waram, nor did it matter who was the owner of the kudiwaram. In Ademma v. Satyadhyana Thirtha Swamivaru : AIR1943Mad187 a Division Bench, of which one of us was a member, held that a grant could not be regarded as a grant of the whole village when there were already minor inams and a portion of the village had been reserved by the landlord. The decision was followed in other cases. This resulted in the Legislature amending the Act further. By the Madras Estat...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: M. Ramanathan Chettiar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad454; (1947)1MLJ138
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. These three revision petitions arise out of prosecutions under the District Municipalities Act. The area in which these offences are said to have been committed is no doubt not a portion of the Municipal area but a portion of the Local Board area. The provisions of the District Municipalities Act were extended to this area. The petitioners in these three cases have been prosecuted in C.C. No. 1851 of 1945 (Cr. R.C. No. 1097 of 1945), and C.C. No. 1852 of 1945 (Cr. R.C. No. 1098 of 1945) and C.C. No. 2113 of 1945 (Cr. R.C. No. 411 of 1946) for offences punishable under Section 199 read with Section 317 of the Madras District Municipalities Act in the former two cases and in the third case for offences punishable under Sections 205 and 317 of the same Act. These offences relate to default with regard to the obtaining of sanction for erecting buildings. When the Local Government at the request of the Panchayat Board of Dharmapuri extended the provisions of the ...
Tag this Judgment!B. Venkitalakshmi Ammal Vs. G. Chakrapani Ayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad317; (1947)1MLJ167
Rajamannar, J.1. This revision petition raises a question of some importance, namely, whether a compulsory deposit in a railway provident fund standing to the credit of a depositor and payable to his wife under a nomination duly made by the depositor, is free from liability to be attached by a creditor in execution of a decree obtained by him against the wife for a debt incurred by her before the death of the depositor. The facts are not in dispute. On 18th September, 1943, one Kondiah Naidu, an employee of the South Indian Railway, and his wife, the present petitioner, executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent for Rs. 1,700. Kondiah Naidu died on 20th November, 1944. On 23rd June, 1944, he had duly nominated his wife, the petitioner, as the person to whom the Provident Fund amount should be paid on his death. The respondent filed a suit O.S. No. 35 of 1945, in the Court of the District Munsiff, Erode, against the petitioner, on the promissory note, obtained a decree and p...
Tag this Judgment!Molugu Lakshminarasimhacharyulu Vs. Marisetti Ratnam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-19-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad195
Leach, C.J.1. Until 1936, a grant by a landholder of land constituted an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, only if it was a grant of the melwaram and in favour of a person who was not the owner of the kudivaram. The Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) Act, 1936, made an important alteration in the law. It provided that if the grant was of a whole village, the land comprised in it would constitute an estate. It did not matter whether it was a grant of both the warams or of only one varam, nor did it matter who was the owner of the kudivaram. In Ademma v. Satyadhyana Thirtha Swamivaru A.I.R. 1943 Mad 187 a Division Bench, of which one of ua was a member, held that a grant could not be regarded as a grant of the whole village when there were already minor inams and a portion of the village had been reserved by the landlord. The decision was followed in other cases. This resulted in the Legislature amending the Act further. By the Madras Estates Land (Amendm...
Tag this Judgment!Komanduru Seshamma and anr. Vs. K. Seshadri Ayyangar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ183
Rajamannar, J.1. This is a petition by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 155 of 1944 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nellore, to revise the order of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the amendment of the plaint in the following circumstances. The suit was instituted by the first respondent for recovery and possession of the properties described in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff's case was based on two specific titles. One was on the footing that he had been validly adopted to one deceased Venkatacharlu to whom the suit properties admittedly belonged. The other was under his last will and testament, dated 21st August, 1936 bequeathing in favour of the plaintiff the entire estate as a persona designata . In paragraph 7 of the plaint it was alleged that on 12th August, 1936, the deceased Venkatacharlu got a draft will prepared and on the 16th August, 1936 he gave a draft to the first respondent's father for his approval and that exception was taken to it on the sentime...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania Chetty and ors. Vs. Walajabad Dhanasekhara Saswatha Nid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)2MLJ55
Govindarajachari, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent, a Nidhi, on foot of two mortgages executed in its favour, one by the first defendant Natesa Chetti and his younger brother Thangavelu Chetti since deceased, on 25th July, 1929, for Rs. 1,000 (Ex. P-1) and the other by Natesa Chettiar for himself and as guardian of his son the second defendant then 8 months old and Thangavelu Chetti on 30th March, 1931, for Rs. 2,000 (Ex. P-2). The plaintiff prayed for a mortgage decree for Rs. 5,755-12-0 in the aggregate. The first defendant's principal contention was that the suit debts must be taken to have been completely discharged by an order passed under Section 10(2) of the Madras Debt Conciliation Act, 1936, by the Debt Conciliation Board, Chingleput, on 18th April, 1940. He also claimed a deduction of Rs. 480 being the principal amount of 30 shares held by him in the plaintiff Nidhi and relief under Madras Act IV of 1938. The first defendant's written statem...
Tag this Judgment!Balasubramania Chetty and ors. Vs. Walajabad Dhanasekara Saswatha Nidh ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad146
Govindarajachari, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by respondent 1, a Nidhi on the foot of to two mortgages executed in its favoer one by defendant 1, Natesa Chetti and his younger brother Thangavelu Chetti since deceased, on 25-7-1929 for Rs. 1000 (Ex. P-1) and the other by Natesa Chetti for himself and as guardian of his son defendant 2 then 8 months old and Thangavelu Chetti on 30-3-1931 for Rs. 2000 (Ex. P-2). The plaintiff prayed for a mortgage decree for Rs. 5755-12-0 in the aggregate. Defendant 1's principal contention was that the suit debts must be taken to have been completely discharged by an order passed under Section 10 (2), Madras Debt Conciliation. Act, 1936, by the Debt Conciliation Board, Chingleput on 18-4-1940. He also claimed a deduction of Rs. 480 being the principal amount of 30 shares held by him in the plaintiff Nidhi and relief under Madras Act, 4 [iv] of 1938. Defendant 1's written statement was adopted on behalf of defendants 2 and 3, the minor son...
Tag this Judgment!Kukati Kothandarama Reddi and anr. Vs. Ponnaluru Lakshminarasa Reddi a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1946
Reported in: AIR1948Mad152; (1947)2MLJ23
Wadsworth, J.1. Appeal No. 109 of 1945: This appeal arises out of O.S. No. 11 of 1942 on the file of the District Court, Nellore, brought by the hereditary trustee of an excepted temple, dedicated to Sri Kumbeswaraswamivaru, at Komerica, Nellore Taluk to set aside a scheme framed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board. Defendant 1 in the suit is the Board and defendants 2 and 3 are the non-hereditary trustees appointed by the Board under the schema. The appellants here are defendants 2 and 3.2. The plaintiff was the sole trustee up to 5-1-1939 when the Board as a result of complaints regarding the trustee's administration instituted an enquiry and passed an order dated 5-1-1939 approving of a scheme for the management of the temple. The hereditary trustee filed a suit, O.S. No. 4 of 1989 in the Court of the District Judge of Nellore, in which he asked the Court to modify or cancel the scheme. The District Judge held that the Board had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme in the absence o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »