Chennai Court March 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.
C.S. Ponnusami Mudaliar Vs. Subbaraya Mudaliar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad298; (1947)1MLJ37
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dated the 19th March, 1945, dismissing an application by the appellant to set aisde a sale of lot No. 3 in a sale held on the 26th October, 1943.2. The principal ground on which the sale was sought to be set aside was that a number of houses had been clubbed together as lot No. 3 and were sold together instead of separately, in which case the sum of the prices realised on individual sales would have been more than the amount realised by a sale of the houses clubbed together. The learned Subordinate Judge devoted a great part of his judgment to a consideration of the question whether an application by the appellant was maintainable, in view of the circumstance that he had been declared an insolvent, and he came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable. Fortunately however, he also considered the application on its merits, and held that on that ground also no sufficient reason had b...
Thirumalayandi thevar Vs. Uthanda thevar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad415; (1947)1MLJ212
Yahya Ali, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of court-fee payable on the plaint brought by the petitioner herein in O.S. No. 60 of 1945 in the District Munsiff's Court, Tenkasi. The learned District Munsiff held that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff fell in substance under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act and that consequently court-fee should be paid on the actual market-value of the properties affected by the sale deed dated 16th December, 1942, in respect of which a declaration was asked for in the plaint. The petitioner's contention is that in view of the position taken by him that the said sale deed was a sham and nominal transaction and hence inoperative, the provisions of Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act were not attracted. The question is which view is correct.2. One Thirumalayandi Thevar was the owner of the plaint mentioned properties. He had two daughters Sundarathammal and Achi Ammal. The former had two sons, the plaintiff and his younger broth...
indo Union Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. T. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-27-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad530
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 Co. Ltd., since when its business has been run as a 'doted one', which means that new jolicies are not being is-sued. On 4-8-1941, the appellant engaged the respondent to act as its 'Field Superintendent' for a period of 10 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 1 year, fall short of Rs. 2,00, 000, the rates of commission on Rs. 1,60 000 were to be 70 per cent, and 8 1/2 per cent respectively. If the business did not amount to more tha...
Gangadara Ayyar and ors. Vs. Subramania Sastrigal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad539; (1946)2MLJ69
ORDERAlfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The petitioners seek a certificate permitting an appeal to His Majesty in Council. They were the second, third and fourth defendants in the suit. The plaintiff (the first respondent) sued for a declaration that the eleven items of property described in the schedules annexed to his plaint belonged to the the estate of one Sundaram Ayyar, who died on the 14th September, 1937 and that a deed of settlement executed by Sundaram Ayyar's mother on the 3rd November, 1938 in respect of these properties was void. The plaintiff was the reversioner to the estate and he claimed to be entitled to all the properties. The trial Court gave him a declaration in respect of six of the eleven items of property but dismissed the rest of the claim. The petitioners appealed to this Court on the ground that the trial Court had erred in giving the plaintiff a declaration in respect of the six items. The plaintiff filed a memorandum of cross objections in which he said that...
Palaniswami Chettiar Vs. Chitraputhran Chettiar, Nearest Reversioner a ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad126; (1946)2MLJ275
Yahya Ali, J.1. Although the case out of which this appeal arises had assumed; large dimensions in the Courts below it is here confined to one short point which admits of a brief disposal. Pechiappan Chettiar who belongs to the Vellala caste married at first Arunachalathammal who belonged to his caste. In November, 1939, or thereabouts he is said to have married a Nayar lady by name Gomathr Ammal who is the third defendant in the case. The marriage took place at Travancore and is governed by the Travancore Nayar Regulation (II of 1100). Pechiappan died on 6th January, 1941, leaving no issue and it would appear that Gomathi Ammal was in possession of the property belonging to Pechiappan. Arunachalathammal, the Vellala wife, filed the present suit for a declaration that she is the owner of the entire suit property as the widow of Pechiappan. She also-claimed in the alternative that if the third defendant was to be treated as the lawfully married wife of Pechiappan, the plaintiff should b...
Yella Papayya Vs. Yella Suryanarayana (Minor) by Mother and Next Frien ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad426; (1947)1MLJ79
Yahya Ali, J.1. The facts leading to this second appeal are these: Venkanna and Pattayya were two brothers who were at one time joint. They seem to have settled down in different villages, Venkanna in Madicharlapalam and Pattayya in Mattapparru and they were each of them enjoying in his village the potter service inam lands and rendering service pertaining to that office. Pattayya died about 1920 and Venkanna who survived him died about 1934. In spite of Pattayya's death and Venkanna becoming the head of the family, it would appear that there was no disturbance of any kind in the occupation and enjoyment of the property belonging to Pattayya by his widow and son, at Mattapparru. The plaintiff is Venkanna's son and the defendant is Pattayya's son. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff's next friend on 29th November, 1941, alleging that the family continues to remain joint and that both the Mattapparru and Madicharlapalam properties should be partitioned in equal shares between the...
In Re: Nimmagadda Ramaseshayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad449; (1946)1MLJ397
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The only point urged before me is that in this case the prosecution has not let in evidence to prove that the order infringed had been published in the manner in which the officer who passed the order had directed it to be published and consequently the prosecution must fail. Reliance was placed for this on the decision of this Court in Public Prosecutor v. Narayana Reddi : AIR1945Mad192 . In this case evidence has been let in as to how the notification has been published. It has been published in the Fort St. George Gazette, dated 8th June, 1943 and the notification is signed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. The person who is said to have directed the notification to be published is also the same person. The person who has prescribed the manner in which the notification has to be published has himself signed the notification wich is published in the Fort St. George Gazette. The manner of publication must hence be presumed to be in the manner in which ...
In Re: a Pleader, Gudivada
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1946Mad538; (1946)2MLJ79
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The complainant and the respondent are pleaders practising at Gudivada. Last year the complainant was appointed by the District Munsiff of Gudivada to fulfil the duties of a Commissioner in giving to a client of the respondent delivery of land which she had purchased at a Court auction. She had previously attempted to get possession, but she had been obstructed. It is common ground that the complainant, the decree-holder and the respondent's clerk went to the property on the 13th February, 1945, in order that the complainant might deliver the land to the decree-ho'der. According to the respondent delivery was given by the complainant to the client and a receipt was signed by her in acknowledgment. On the 16th February, 1943, that is, three days later, the complainant reported to the District Munsiff that he could not give delivery of the property because the decree-holder was not able to point out the boundaries. On the 19th February 1945, the decree-h...
Amritlal N. Shah Vs. V. Nageswara Rao
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad133; (1946)2MLJ349
ORDERKuppuswami Ayyar, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Rajahmundry in M.C. No. 12 of 1944 dropping further proceedings, under Section 145(5), Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner had taken on. lease the Hanuman Palace also called Amrit Talkies in Lakshmivarapetta at Raja-mundry from the respondent and another, and he was in possession of the same till 9th September, 1944. The petitioner is a person who belonged to Bangalore and he had taken this building on lease for running cinema shows. The petitioner had taken a licence. Representing to the District Magistrate that under the terms of the lease the licence should be taken by him only in the name of the lessor, the lessor, the respondent, got the licence issued to himself, and a notice was also issued saying that the respondent was entitled to possession. The notice ran as if the District Magistrate had consulted the Government Pleader and had accepted his opinion. Accordingl...
The Official Receiver, High Court Vs. Rao and Co. and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-25-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ242
Clark, J.1. This is an application by the Official Receiver as Official Liquidator for directions regarding the payment of interest to the creditors of the company and the amount to be paid to the contributories of the company.2. When this application first came before me, I directed notice to issue to the creditors, as I desired to give them an opportunity of being heard on the application as regards the payment of interest. One creditor has appeared and is represented before me by Counsel. This company is able to pay all its debts including in the case of those bearing interest, interest up to the date of payment. There is also sufficient to pay interest on the debts which do not carry interest, if such payment is permissible in law. The directions asked for by the Official Receiver are on this point and the question accordingly is whether a creditor of a company whose debt does not carry interest is, in any circumstances, entitled in winding up to payment of interest.3. It has been ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »