Chennai Court March 1946 Judgments
B. Nemichand Sowcar Vs. Y.V. Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad448; (1946)2MLJ16
Bell, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition under Sections 13, 47 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in Suit No. 15 of 1939-40, Sub-Court, Kolar. That suit was decreed in circumstances which disregard the provisions of Section 13(b), Civil Procedure Code, in that the decree was not given on the merits of the case.2. It is unnecessary to go into the background of the disputes between the parties. It is enough to say that the appellant and the respondent were interested one way or another, in certain cinema machinery and accessories. After disputes had arisen as to the ownership of these goods, it appears that the respondent took them into the State of Mysore, where, according to him, the goods passed into the possession or ownership of another person, one Kanduri Lakshmayya. The appellant there filed a suit against the respondent and K. Lakshmayya. There can be no doubt that the respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the Kolar Court. His written statement and other documents s...
Tag this Judgment!T. Umar Pulavar Vs. Dawood Rowther and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad68; (1946)2MLJ229
Chandrasekhara Aiyer, J.1. A new point not raised in the Courts below is now taken on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. He says that in applying section in (g) of the Transfer of Property Act to the facts of this case and holding that even where forfeiture has been incurred on the ground of a denial of the landlord's title a notice in writing determining the lease is necessary, the lower Courts overlooked the fact that this was an agricultural lease which is exempt from the operation of the provisions of Chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act. Under Section 111(g) as it originally stood, the landlord was bound in the case of such a forfeiture to show by some act of his an intention to determine the lease. The question often arose whether Section 111(g) in that form was applicable to agricultural leases and the preponderance of authority was in favour of the view that though under Section 117 of the Act agricultural leases were excluded from the scope of the provisions of the partic...
Tag this Judgment!The Salem Dayal Bagh Stores, Ltd., by Secretary, K.V. Radhakrishnan Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad362; (1947)1MLJ152
Happell, J.1. The petitioner was the plaintiff in S.C.S. No. 21 of 1944 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Salem. The suit was brought against five railway companies and the Governor-General of India in Council for compensation for loss of goods in transit. It was conceded that if the plaintiff was entitled to compensation, it was only from the second defendant, the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, and the learned District Munsiff dismissed the suit on the ground that notice of the claim for compensation had not been given to the railway administration of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway within six months of the delivery of the goods for carriage as required by Section 77 of the Indian Railways Act. The only question in this civil revision petition is, whether the notice required by Section 77 was given or not?2. It cannot be disputed that no specific notice of a claim for compensation under Section 77 was given to the railway companies who were impleaded as defendants within six...
Tag this Judgment!Srinivasaraghavan Alias Srinivasa Chakravarthi and ors. Vs. Kalianna G ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad60; (1946)2MLJ75
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a transaction entered into on the 25th June, 1934, constituted an absolute sale or a mortage by conditional sale.2. In O.S. No. 380 of 1935 of the Court of the District Munsiff of Namakkal the first defendant in the present suit obtained a money decree against the defendants 2 to 4 and in execution proceedings he attached the property in suit, 2.58 acres of agricultural land. The plaintiffs entered an objection. They claimed by virtue of the deed of the 25th June, 1934, to be the absolute owners of the property. By an order dated the 11th June. 1941, their petition was dismissed on the ground that it was belated. Thereupon they filed a suit under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They asked for a decree setting aside the order dismissing the claim petition and an injunction restraining the first defendant from proceeding in execution. This suit was originally filed in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Vastiram Manmal and Co., by Its Manager, Manmal Vs. T.S. Ramaswamy Iye ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad99; (1946)2MLJ270
Horwill, J.1. The appellant filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of money being the total of the sums advanced by him to the defendant's agent and for incidental expenses, on the ground that he had made an offer tp, the defendant which had been cancelled before it was accepted and that he was therefore entitled to the refund of the money advanced by him. The defendant raised the objection that the Bellary District Munsiff, in whose Court the suit was filed, had no jurisdiction to try the case; because the parties had agreed that all disputes arising. between them should be decided in the Courts at Madras. The plaintiff admitted that condition No. 10 of a form which he had signed was to the effect that any legal proceedings in respect of or arising out of the contract over-leaf should be instituted in the Madras Courts; but he argued that since the offer had not ripened into a contract, this condition did not apply and that he was therefore entitled to file his suit in any Court havin...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatasubba Reddy Vs. Ramadoss Reddy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad456; (1946)1MLJ459
Happell, J.1. The question in this civil revision petition relates to the Court-fee payable on O.S. No. 214 of 1945 in the Court of the District Munsiff of Ami. The suit was for a declaration that a compromise decree was not binding on the plaintiff'and for an injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decree. The Plaintiff (the petitioner here) paid a Court-fee of Rs. 15 under Article 17-B of the Court-Fees Act; but the learned District Munsiff held that Court-fee must be paid under Section 7 (iv) (A) on the market value of the properties covered by the compromise decree. The learned District Munsiff framed an issue on the question of the Court-fee payable and decided it as the third issue in the suit by the order which is now under consideration.2. The first argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned District Munsiff had no jurisdiction to make the order which he did as he had already decided the Court-fee payable within the meaning of Se...
Tag this Judgment!ittoli MoidIn Koya's son Koyatti and Ors. Vs. Imbichi Koya and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-28-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad534; (1946)1MLJ454
Somayya, J.1. Three brothers of the Ittoli family, namely, Moideen Koya, Mamoo and Ahammad were carrying on business in hardware and sundries. They acquired the A schedule property under Ex. P-8, dated nth August, 1917, a sale deed which stands in the names of the three brothers. They acquired also other properties that are set out in schedules B and C. The first item in the B Schedule is the family house and the paramba attached to it. Moideen Koya died in 1926 and his heirs are defendants 2 to 6. Mamoo is the first defendant in the suit. Ahammad died between 1936 and 1939 leaving a widow, the tenth defendant and several children who are defendants 7, 8, 9 and 11. The plaintiff is the Court auction-purchaser in execution of a small cause decree passed in S.C.S. No. 134 of 1936. A third party filed that suit against Ahammad Koya, -obtained a decree and bought the undivided one-third share of Ahammad, the judgment-debtor in the A schedule property. After purchasing the property the plai...
Tag this Judgment!The Indo Union Assurance Co. Limited Vs. T. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ67
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant is a limited liability company which was formed to carry on business in life insurance. Its business was not a prosperous one and at the end of 1943 it was taken over by the Prithvi Insurance Company Limited, since when its business has been run as a ' closed one ' which means that new policies are not being issued.2. On the 4th August 1941, the appellant engaged the respondent to act as its ' Field Superintendent ' for a period of ten years. This merely meant that he was to canvass for policies on behalf of the appellant with the right to appoint persons to assist him but to be remunerated by him out of his own pocket. His own remuneration was to be a commission of 75 per cent. on the first year's premium income and 10 per cent, on premiums paid by way of renewal. Should the business introduced by him in any one year fall short of Rs. 2,00,000, the rates of commission on Rs. 1,50,000 were to be 70 per cent, and 83/4 per cent, respectivel...
Tag this Judgment!PanikkaThe Kutti Pennu Maruvalamma's son Raghava Mannadiar Vs. Panikka ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad106; (1946)2MLJ117
Somayya, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for partition and recovery of a half share in the property. The prayer in the plaint runs thus:(a) Directing that the properties mentioned in the sub-joined schedule be divided into two equal shares and the properties allotted to one of such sharers be given to the possession of the plaintiff and that the properties belonging to the first defendant's share be made a charge for the Court costs and other amounts due to the plaintiff by the first defendant;(b) Directing the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of this suit with interest; and(c) Granting other reliefs which the plaintiff may pray for in the course of this suit and which the Court might deem fit to allow.2. The preliminary decree declared (1) that the properties available for partition are items 1 to 16 and the jenm right only over item 17 of the plaint schedule; (2) that they are to be divided into two equal shares, the plaintiff getting one share and the first def...
Tag this Judgment!P. Swaminatha Pillai Vs. S. Raghavachariar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad161; (1946)2MLJ433
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Kumbakonam, in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, declaring that the counter-petitioners (the B party) were in possession of the disputed lands and that the petitioner (the A party) was not in possession thereof, and directing the lands to be put in possession of the B party.2. These lands are nanja lands in Tirupallathurai village. They are said to belong to one Aravamudha Ayyangar of Hyderabad. The first counter-petitioner is his agent. The petitioner claims to have been in possession of these lands till April, 1945, as his tenant. This is not disputed. On 7th May, 1945, a notice was given by the first counter-petitioner, the agent of the owner, to the petitioner asking him to vacate, alleging that he was in arrears of rent. To that notice a reply was sent by the petitioner on 19th May, 1945, denying that he was in arrears and claiming occupancy rights in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »