Chennai Court July 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.
Patell Thimma Reddi and anr. Vs. Lakkireddigari Chinna Ranga Reddi and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad65; (1946)2MLJ213
Alfred Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The question which the Court is called upon to decide in this case is whether the expenses of a second marriage of a member of a joint family are binding on the family estate.2. The first defendant was married in 1924 and by this wife he had a son. She died and he married again when the son by his first wife was about 7 years of age. For the expenses of the second marriage, he borrowed money and in order to repay the debt he alienated property belonging to himself and his two younger brothers, with whom he was joint. The youngest brother challenged the validity of the alienation. The trial Court (the Court of the District Munsiff of Gooty) and the first appellate Court (the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Anantapur) held that the alienation was not binding on the shares of the younger brothers. The alienee now asks for the decision of this Court.3. In Kameswara Sastriv. Veeracharlu : (1910)20MLJ855 , a Bench of this Court held that marriage was one of the ...
Hairoon Bibi Vs. the United India Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad122; (1946)2MLJ253
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiff sued for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1033 due by the defendant company in respect of a life insurance policy which stood in the name of her husband Abdul Karim Saheb. The insurance policy is dated 1st February, 1038. It provides that the date of the commencement of the assurance was on the 8th January, 1938, and the quarterly premium payable was Rs. 12-9-0. The amount was subsequently enhanced into Rs. 13-2-0. A quarterly premium was payable on the 8th October, 1939. It was not paid on the due date, and under the terms of the policy, there was one month's period of grace from that date for payment. The amount was not paid even within this month and Abdul Karim, the assured, wrote to the company, under Ex. D-6, on 19th November, 1939, asking for an extension of one more month of the days of grace and stating that he would pay the premium with the penalty due by the 8th December, 1939. This letter elicited the reply, Ex. P-11, from the company on...
Tripasura Venkata Narasinga Rao Vs. Vysyaraju Surayyaraju and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-15-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad151
Patanjali Sastri, J.1. We are asked to certify under Section 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, that this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of that Act. Although one of the questions raised and argued; before us was a substantial question as to the interpretation of Sections 99 and 100 of that Act it was considered unnecessary to decide it and the appeal was disposed of on another point. Can it then be said that the case 'involves' that question? We think not. Sub-section 2 of Section 205 clearly contemplates that such question should not only have been raised but also decided by the High Court, for otherwise it would not be possible for any party in the case to appeal to the Federal Court ' on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided.' Reading Sub-sections (1) and (2) together, it would seem that a case cannot be said to ' involve ' a question unless its decision is necessary for the purpose of the case.2. In Gad...
V.H. Subramania Vadiar, Trustee of Vatakanthara Thiruvengatappan Devas ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad100; (1946)2MLJ221
Horwill, J.1. The two points raised in this second appeal are those set. out for determination in the lower appellate Court. They are these:(1) Whether the Bhajana Madham in question is an institution appertaining to Thiruvengatappan Devaswom, of which the plaintiff is trustee;(2) If not, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the plaint as a representative of the villagers of Vadakanthara Village. Both these points were decided against the appellant in the Courts below.2. The first point is one of fact. The learned advocate for the appellant criticises the judgment of the lower appellate Court and points out that some of the documents have not received sufficient consideration. He points out, for example, such a sentence as this:Ex. P-1 to P-6, P-8 and P-11 relied on by the plaintiff do not in any way help the plaintiff's case.He contends that this is a very improper way of dealing with these important documents. It is to be remembered, however, that the ju...
A.S. Varadaraja Ayyar Vs. Rama Pattar's son Kailasam Ayyar and Ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-10-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad175; (1946)2MLJ355
Horwill, J.1. A stakeholder of a kurivari entered into an agreement with the subscribers and created a charge over certain of his properties for the benefit of the subscribers, presumably to afford them some security for such of their moneys as might be in his hands. He later mortgaged the same property to the third defendant, whose rights subsequently devolved on the eleventh defendant, who is the appellant here.2. The contesting respondents in this appeal are two subscribers, one of whom is the plaintiff, who sued for the return of the money subscribed by him. Some difficulty has been created in this case because of a mistake made by the registration department in recording this mortgage in Book No. IV instead of in Book No. I. Two points have been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first is that on account of this mistake of the registration department it would have been impossible for him to have obtained any information, had he so applied, of this charge and that...
Ghanta Lakshmayya Vs. Ghanta Venkateswarlu Being Minor by Next Friend ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad67; (1946)2MLJ207
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant and the appeal arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract entered into by the first defendant, the father of the only other defendant, namely the second defendant, who was also the manager of the joint family. The properties which were agreed to be sold were properties belonging to the joint family. Under the terms of the agreement, 4 acres and 5 cents of land which was the only property which the family had then was to be sold for Rs. 1,350. Rs. 350 was received in advance and Rs. 1,000 was to be paid subsequently. The amount of Rs. 350 received in advance was paid to a creditor of the family and Rs. 875 out of the Rs. 1,000 went to discharge a decree debt obtained against the father and the balance of Rs. 125 was paid into Court along with the plaint in the suit. The father was ex parte and the second defendant contended that the father was leading a reckless life, that he was keeping a widow and had children by h...
R.T. Ramayya Servai Vs. R. Sama Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-09-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad92; (1946)2MLJ210
Somayya, J.1. The first defendant is the appellant. The appeal is against the decree of the District Court of East Tanjore passed in O.S. No. 21 of 1943. The plaintiff (first respondent) filed the suit to recover possession of the suit properties from the first defendant who is alleged to be in possession as agent or lessee of the plaintiff. The property originally belonged to one Anantharama Aiyar who mortgaged it to the second defendant's father in the year 1919. Anantharama Aiyar sold it to one Venkatasubramania Aiyar in the year 1920 directing him to pay off the mortgage. That was not done and Venkatasubramania Aiyar died. The mortgagee filed O.S. No. 52 of 1930 and got a decree for about Rs. 15,000 against the sons of Venkatasubramania Aiyar. That decree is being executed and it is pending as an application for scaling down the decree debt has been filed under the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act. Venkatasubramania Aiyar's sons sold the property on the 20th of January, 1942, for ...
Kanteti Venkata Seshavatharam and ors. Vs. Chapalamadugu Venkata Ranga ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad111; (1946)2MLJ257
ORDERPatanjali Sastri, J.1. One of the questions raised in this appeal is whether the defendants were agriculturists within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1938. The plaintiffs who are the appellants here claimed that the defendants were disqualified from claiming the status of an agriculturist under the Act by reason of their having been assessed to income-tax during the period specified in proviso A to Section 3, Clause (ii) of the Act, that is to say, in either of the two financial years ending 31st March, 1038. It has been held by this Court in Rajoo v. Palaniappa Chettiar : AIR1941Mad289 , that the disqualifying assessments must have been made not for the two financial years mentioned in the proviso, but must have been made in either of those years, as the assessment for any year need not necessarily be made in that year under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In order to establish the disqualification the plaintiffs filed Ex. P-6 a memorandum granted by the C...
T.G. Annamalai Chettiar and ors. Vs. Kuttigan Alias Muniyappa Naidu an ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad189; (1946)2MLJ268
Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants in this second appeal, brought a suit for the recovery of the costs incurred by them in executing certain repairs to a desabandam tank in accordance with the requisition of the Collector under the Railway Protection Act. The defendants are the desabandam inamdars, under an obligation to keep the tank in good repair, so that the ayacut under it might be properly irrigated. The amount of the claim is Rs. 1,081, ofwhich Rs. 1,030 is the cost of execution of the repairs and the balance represents interest at 12 per cent. per annum from 16th August, 1939, till the date of plaint.2. The defendants pleaded that the repairs carried out by the plaintiffs were not repairs which they were under any obligation to effect and that consequently, if the plaintiffs, in compliance with the orders of the Collector, carried out the repairs, they must be deemed to have done so voluntarily. They also urged that the Civil Court had no jurisdic...
Komirineni Rosayya and anr. Vs. Munnamgi Rosayya
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-08-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Mad345; (1947)1MLJ60
Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.1. Defendants 1 and 5 are the appellants and the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff in ejectment and for recovery of profits. Defendants 1 and 5 are father and son. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants 1 and 5 were in possession of his lands as lessees, that they used to pay a particular rate of rent for some years, that when the rent was raised they did not pay it and that when they were asked to vacate, they obstructed the plaintiff from taking possession of the properties. The other defendants (defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9) are said to have helped them in the said obstruction. Defendants 1 and 5 pleaded that the properties had been sold by the plaintiff to them, that they had been in possession of the same all along and that the suit was barred by limitation by adverse possession. The other defendants pleaded that there was no cause of action as against them, that they did not obstruct the plaintiff and that the suit was liable to be dismi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›