Chennai Court July 1946 Judgments
V. Lakshmipathi Naidu, Sole Proprietor of the Nilgiri Potato Supply Co ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad83; (1946)2MLJ255
Horwill, J.1. The only question of jurisdiction which arises in this petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether the Small Cause Court, Madras, had jurisdiction to try this suit. Both the trial Judge and the Full Bench held that the Court had jurisdiction.2. In brief, the contract was one for the supply of onions to the agent of the first defendant at Calcutta. The price was to be paid at Madras. The defendants refused to accept delivery at Calcutta; and so the plaintiff filed the suit with which we are concerned. The Courts below held that since part of the cause of action arose in Madras, namely, the payment of the price, the Court at Madras had jurisdiction.3. It is argued that although the suit on the contract lay at Madras, it did not follow that a suit on a breach of this contract would also arise there. The learned advocate for the petitioner first referred me to certain passages in Mulla's commentary; but the learned commentator does not suggest that wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Panchayat Board Vs. Bandapalli Ayodhyaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ348
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. These three cases raise the question whether the burning of bricks by an ' occupier ' in a place belonging to an owner entails on the owner the liability under Section 193 of the Madras Local Boards Act to apply for and obtain a licence, and whether in the absence of such application by the owner, he is guilty of an offence under Section 207 read with Section 193 of that Act. It is admitted that the accused himself did not burn the bricks but that D. W. 2 did so as an occupier. The learned Magistrate who tried the case acquitted the accused on two grounds. The first is that there is no evidence that the accused himself burnt the bricks, and the second is that the burning of the bricks in this case was admittedly not in carrying out a trade but was for the private purpose of the occupier D.W. 2. He pointed out that in schedule VIII the description of the offence under Section 193 is in the words ' using a place for an offensive or dangerous trade without a licence.'...
Tag this Judgment!The Executive Officer, Panchayat Board Vs. Bondapalli Ayodhyaramayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad132; (1946)2MLJ350
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. These two cases can be dealt with together as they raise a common point. In one case the respondent-accused was charged by the Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Tadepalligudem, who is the petitioner here, with having without a licence boiled paddy. In the other case he was charged with having stored paddy without a licence. The prosecution case was that for both these processes it was necessary for the accused to obtain licences under Section 193 read with schedule VII of the Madras Local Boards Act. The learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused has pointed out that neither of these items is specifically inentioned in schedule VII and that therefore boiling of paddy or storing of paddy did not constitute offences under Section 193 and could not be made punishable under Section 207. He also considered the question whether they could come under the residuary item (q) of Schedule VII which speaks of a person generally ' doing in the course of any industrial proce...
Tag this Judgment!Mandavalli Kamaraja Being Minor by Mother and Guardian Mahalakshmamma ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-30-1946
Reported in: (1946)2MLJ432
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The second defendant is the appellant and the appeal arises out of a suit to set aside a summary order and the question involved was whether a particular alienation was valid or not on the ground that it was in fraud of creditors. One of the objections raised was that the suit was not filed in the proper form as it should have been filed as a representative suit on behalf of all creditors. The first Court found that the plaintiff was the only creditor and that it was necessary that the suit should be filed in a representative capacity, and dismissed the suit. On appeal the plaintiff wanted the leave of the Court to file it, as a representative suit which was granted and the suit was decreed. In the second appeal it is contended that the lower appellate Court ought not to have granted permission to sue in the representative capacity as objection had been taken even in the first Court and an issue was framed and it was very late after the suit was dismissed by reas...
Tag this Judgment!Mylavaram Nagayya Vs. the Penukonda Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., by It ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad90; (1946)2MLJ231
Horwill, J.1. A member of a Co-operative Society, by name Narasimha Sastri borrowed a sum of money from the Society and purported to mortgage to it the house in which he was living. In fact, he was a tenant of that house and had no right whatsoever; but the fraud he played on the Society was not detected and his mortgage was accepted. When he did not pay the debt, an application was filed before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Claim No. 7/33-34 for the amount due. An award was passed and in due course E.P. No. 693 of 1933-34 was filed by the Co-operative Society and the property brought to sale. The reversioner of the last male owner of the house during the course of these proceedings put in a claim petition. His petition was dismissed; but he filed a claim suit, O.S. No. 41 of 1937, in the Court of the District Munsiff of Penukonda and succeeded on 31st March, 1938. An appeal was preferred to the District Court which was dismissed on 4th April, 1941. The widow of the...
Tag this Judgment!P. Ramakrishna Ayyar and Brothers by Partner, P. Narayana Pattar Vs. M ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad36; (1946)2MLJ315
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This petition raises the question whether the Division Bench which decided the reference in Zamindar of Vallur and Guaur v. Adinarajudu I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 445 correctly interpreted the effect of Section 35(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, in respect of execution proceedings. The interpretation which was placed upon the section has been accepted by this Court for half a century and we see no reason to read it in a different way.2. On the 17th February, 1933, the petitioner obtained a decree in a. small cause suit tried by the District Munsiff of Tirur. At that time the District Munsiff had jurisdiction to try small cause suits up to the value of Rs. 300. The decree was for Rs. 247-14-3. After the decree had been passed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Munsiff in small cause matters was reduced to Rs. 100. This was the position when the decree-holder sought to execute the decree on the 9th August, 19353. Section 35(1) of the P...
Tag this Judgment!P.L. Rangiah Chettiar Vs. Parthasarathy Iyengar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad258; (1946)2MLJ401
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. In this second appeal preferred by the defendant, the only question which arises for decision is whether a contract to sell goods could be assigned by the seller so as to enable the assignee to sue for damages for breach of contract on tender of performance by him. Both the Courts held that the goods were tendered within the due date by the assignee and that the defendant committed breach in not accepting delivery and in not paying the price, and that he was therefore liable for damages. They overruled the legal objection.2. For the appellant reliance is placed on the general proposition of law that a promisor cannot assign his liabilities under a contract and that a promisee cannot be compelled by the promisor or by a third party to accept anyone but the pro-misor as the person liable to the promisee. Some of the leading English cases on the subject were cited in this connection, viz., British Waggon Co. v. Lea (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 149 Tolhurst v. Associated Port...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sri Jami Veerabhadraswamy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad190; (1946)2MLJ329
ORDERYahya Ali, J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate of Vizaga-patam made under Section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the following circumstances.2. The President of the Panchayat Board, Narasannapeta, was charged by the police for having committed criminal breach of trust in respect of certain moneys collected as subscriptions to the War Fund from the employees of the Panchayat Board and from contractors. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the accused to the maintainability of the prosecution on the ground that there was no sanction by the Provincial Government as required under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Additional First Class Magistrate, Chicacole, to whom the case had been transferred from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chicacole, where it was first filed, made an order ruling that the question whether the alleged criminal breach of trust was committed while discharging the official duties as su...
Tag this Judgment!K.S. Sundaram Aiyar Vs. Ittichathara Valia Mannadiar, Karnavan and Man ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad197; (1946)2MLJ322
Rajamannar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the third defendant on 9th November, 1934 (Ex. D-1). The appellant is the purchaser of a portion of the mortgaged properties in execution of a decree against defendants 1 and 2.2. The mortgage comprised properties both in Malabar and in Coimbatore. The consideration mentioned in the deed was Rs. 5,700 out of which Rs. 1,100 was received in cash by defendants 1 and 2. The balance was to be advanced by the mortgagee to discharge certain debts mentioned in the B schedule to the mortgage deed. The mortgagee was entitled to be in possession in lieu of interest, but liable to pay the Government cist and the cist due to the Perur Devastanam and to pay the mortgagors one para of paddy and Re. 1 annually. The mortgage amount was payable after four years from the date of the document. The...
Tag this Judgment!Yendamuri Veeranna Vs. Yendamuri Satyam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-23-1946
Reported in: (1947)1MLJ301
Horwill, J.1. One Sattappa, a member of the dancing girl community, died in 1896 leaving his widow Paddamma, to whom he was lawfully married, and two daughters Pedda Satyabhama, who died in 1907, and Chinna Satyabhama, who died in 1938. Both these daughters led the ordinary life of women of their community and had children whose paternity is unknown. Pedda Satyabhama had only one daughter, who was impleaded as the first defendant. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 are her offspring by promiscuous unions. Third defendant is the son of second defendant. The plaintiff is the only son of Chinna Satyabhama and defendants 6, 7 and 9 are the daughters of Chinna Satyabhama by promiscuous unions. The eighth defendant is the daughter of the seventh defendant. The plaintiff claims the property of his grandfather, Sattappa, as his daughter's son, who has a preferential right to his grandfather's property in preference to any of the defendants, who rank only as daughter's daughters or persons of more remote de...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »